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

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the least opposed to community views. In fact, what we have seen as a result of the 30-plus peer-reviewed studies of communities like Vancouver East, and other communities around the world, is that these programs work at making communities safer.

The point, though, is that the bill would turn the onus of responsibility on its head. Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has said that when the evidence presents the fact that this is of value and that the values of safety and health are balanced, then it is up to the community to prove that it would not provide that balance of safety and health.

My concern with the authority that would be given to the minister in the bill is that it would make it that much more difficult for the applicants to achieve the bar that she would set.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that in terms of history in Canada in the last decade, there is one safe injection site.

What I liked about the approach to its coming into being is that it was one of co-operation. We had the federal government working with the provincial government, which in turn worked with the community leadership that had a wide spectrum of consultation. Professionals were engaged, and ultimately it came into being. This was done because of the need to meet the safety and health concerns of a community.

The question I have for the member is this: would he not agree that it has been a huge success? It has been clearly defined, facts and science have been brought to the table, and that particular community is better off today as a result of the InSite location.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The establishment of this or any site needs to be done in consultation with the community and the individuals involved.

The bottom line is that the facts will speak for themselves, on this and any other matter. It cannot be that the biases and prejudices of people within a community are allowed to prevent any other Canadian from exercising his or her right to life and liberty. That is what the Supreme Court has said.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present my views on Bill C-2. I believe this bill should be rejected.

This bill is bad for human rights. It will put the lives of many Canadians at risk. Furthermore, it flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling that stipulates, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that people have a right to medical services and to the security of the person. This bill seems to take us in the complete opposite direction.

Many members will recall when InSite first opened in Vancouver over 10 years ago. It was granted an exemption from the law in order to be able to offer addicts access to a service that they could not have otherwise received. This service means that people do not have to put their lives at risk, as it allows them to inject their drugs in a clean, safe place where medical services are available. It also provides the possibility of more involved medical services. Basically, it can open the door to detox services for some addicts.

The spirit of this bill does not seem to promote injection sites in Canada. On the contrary, it creates 26 conditions that must be met or they will be rejected. Canada currently has one site, InSite in Vancouver. There is talk of opening a site in Montreal, perhaps one in Toronto and one in Victoria. Other municipalities would like to do the same. I can say that in my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, officials are seriously considering the possibility of having open sites available to addicts. In my riding, people could benefit from having a site that is closer to home, in Montreal for example, instead of having to go all the way to Vancouver to obtain the services that are available to the people of that region.

InSite helps addicts not to risk their lives. I want to mention some facts that the government may have forgotten when it drafted the bill. In one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to substance abuse counselling. That is a significant number. All these people will have access to a service they otherwise would probably not benefit from. This is about eliminating or reducing the number of people shooting up on the streets. The Conservatives would have us believe that initiatives such as InSite and other supervised injection sites could make our communities less safe, but we are saying just the opposite. These sites make communities even safer. In Vancouver, the benefits of InSite are clear: fewer people are on the streets and more are benefiting from medical services to treat their addictions. This is really the best and most effective way to make our communities safer.

In Bill C-2, the government proposes 26 conditions. The process is very cumbersome and onerous. Those interested in opening a supervised injection site are asked to meet 26 conditions in a relatively short time. However, even if these 26 conditions are met, the minister is still under no obligation to issue a licence for a supervised injection site. He or she may do so, but there is no obligation.

Therefore, people must meet 26 conditions in a relatively short time. It is very difficult for them to meet all these requirements. However, even if they manage to fulfill these 26 conditions, the minister is under no obligation to issue a licence.

Moreover, the minister has no deadline to meet. She can take all the time in the world to issue a licence if she decides to extend the deadline.

These are very onerous conditions. If I were cynical, I would say that this is to avoid having to deliver a licence and authorize the opening of a supervised injection site. The police chief must also agree, as well as city council and the provincial minister of health. These authorities will not simply give their approval because they are asked to do so. They have responsibilities and requirements. They must respect their own process and they only have 90 days to do so.

If someone manages to meet the 26 conditions, the minister may deliver a licence. This is no way to respect those who work in this area. Moreover, it certainly does not promote the establishment of a new injection site in Canada. I think it ignores the will of the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that InSite in Vancouver should remain open. It cannot be closed.

Let us take a look back and remember that in Attorney General of Canada, et al. v. PHS Community Services Society, et al. the Supreme Court did not rule that public safety was the priority, but that the right to health and life was the basis for its decision.

Bill C-2 seems to express the opposite. The bill is immensely concerned with public safety, but makes no mention of the right to life. That is the aspect of the bill I find most surprising. It totally ignores the fact that the root of the debates on the bill is that the Supreme Court ruled that a person has the right to life and must have access to medical services. The bill would have Canadians believe that detoxification centres, such as the InSite supervised injection site, are a public safety issue.

According to the government, if the bill passes at second reading, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and not to the Standing Committee on Health. I do not understand what motivates a government that does not believe in a basic principle like the right to life that everyone has.

Public safety is important, but the facts have shown that a supervised injection site ensures public safety, since people are not in the streets and public parks, where our children play, are needle free. We want safety for everyone. The InSite location in Vancouver is proof that we can do it, that we have the capacity for it and that we must do it. It is a way of respecting people and respect is a Canadian value that is important to all of us. What is more, this is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling and does not ignore it or instill fear in the public. Some might think that a place like InSite increases risk, but the opposite is true.

I want to point out that we have seen the benefits of InSite time and again. For example, injection drug users who use InSite are 78% less likely to share needles. That is a public health issue. A centre such as InSite has tremendous benefits. It helps prevent emergency room visits, which are very expensive. We want to avoid situations in which people have to use costly emergency medical services. We want these people to have the use of a very inexpensive service that also benefits public safety and public health.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the Conservatives talking about going to the community and getting their views and that this is what this bill reflects.

Let me give members a little history. We had a site in Vancouver that was established in 2003. In 2008, the community wanted to renew their licence, but the Conservatives chose to take that to the courts. They wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers' money trying to oppress the views of the community.

Now the Conservatives are saying that they want to go to the community and consult them. Basically, they are putting roadblocks in place so that the community does not get its wishes.

Would the member agree that the Conservatives are basing this bill on ideology rather than on facts and figures?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and I congratulate him for all the work he is doing in his riding. I very much appreciate his great support for InSite, which is located in Vancouver, in the Surrey region, not far from his community.

It is obvious that this approach is rooted in ideology. The government is not looking at the facts and making a decision based on science. In fact, the Prime Minister's government seems to be incapable of examining the facts and moving forward on the basis of the studies done.

More than 300 studies have been published in journals such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, and in other very respected publications. They all report that supervised injection sites are very beneficial.

We have to get past the ideology and look at the facts. Decisions made in Canada must be based on the facts and public health, and not on Conservative ideology.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would simply provide a road map on how one would proceed in the future when it comes to supervised injection sites. I do not know why the member opposite does not support requiring organizations to provide basic information on signs and public safety or to consult the community. The community's views are very important.

Why does the member want to disregard all that? These are all good provisions in the bill. That is why he should support it, so support the bill.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his encouragement that I should support the bill. Unfortunately, I will not.

The problem with the bill is not that we are lacking in consultation. In fact, we could use InSite as a prime example of the public being consulted. Whether it be the local community, the business community, or the municipal councils, all those people were consulted. I never said in my discourse, and I do not know where he got that from, that I do not want the community to be consulted.

What I am saying is that after all 26 conditions are met, and many are new conditions that were never done in the past, they still do not have any guarantee that they are going to get their injection sites.

I would like the member to press his minister and ask the minister to actually make it binding. If we could actually get through those 26 conditions, I would like to see the member push for the idea that it be binding on the minister to supply the licence to open an injection site.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will be resuming debate. I would just let the member for Vancouver Kingsway know that we will not have the full 10 minutes. It will be approximately seven minutes , and I will give him the usual signal before the end of that time.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today to speak to this issue. It is a very important one, not only for the people of our country but in particular for the community that I represent in Vancouver Kingsway, and in Vancouver.

In many ways, the bill before us causes us to think about two things. The first is about the proper and appropriate way to make public policy in this chamber for the people of this country. Second, of course, is the specific issue of the proper policy approach to supervised injection sites. In summary, there has been a lot of talk on this, but in its essence Bill C-2 represents an attempt by the government members to make it very difficult to open up a supervised injection site in this country. We presently have one supervised injection site in Canada, and that operates in my hometown of Vancouver.

I want to start by sharing with the members in this House, and Canadians, some of the realities of what we are dealing with.

Again, I come from Vancouver. It is a port city, and it has one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in the country.

Let me tell members what Vancouver looked like before InSite was opened. I had people coming to my office asking me as a member of Parliament to do something about needles that were found in the alleys behind their houses where their children were playing. I have had parents and teachers come to me to tell me that they had to do a walkabout of their schools in the morning to pick up used needles in their schoolyards.

We had an epidemic of heroin overdose deaths in Vancouver, where for a period of time there were deaths from overdoses almost weekly. I have had business people, particularly in Chinatown where a lot of the drug market is in Vancouver, who complained to me that their customers were being chased away by the prospect of seeing heroin addicts openly shooting heroin outside the doors of their stores and in the alleys, never mind the ambulances and police sirens that inevitably come when people have had overdoses.

That is what Vancouver looked like before InSite opened.

I want to talk about facts, because we will put facts before this debate. Between 1987 and 1993, the rate of overdose deaths in Vancouver increased from 16 deaths per year to 200 deaths per year. The rate of overdose deaths in east Vancouver dropped by 35% after InSite opened in 2003.

Over one year, more than 2,171 referrals were made for InSite users 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.

Commencing one year after Insite opened, there was a significant drop in the number of discarded syringes, injection-related litter, and people injecting in the streets. Injection drug users who use InSite are 70% less likely to share needles. Reducing needle sharing has been listed as an international best practice in the reduction of the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.

InSite users are more likely to seek medical care through the site. This means fewer trips to the emergency room, an improvement in health outcomes, and a savings in taxpayer dollars.

Over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the British Medical Journal, the most respected medical journals in the world, have described the beneficial impacts of InSite. Conversely, multiple studies have looked for the negative impacts of InSite, but none of have come up with evidence demonstrating that it harms the community.

Safe injection sites operate in 70 cities and six European countries and Australia. A study by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in 2004 showed that supervised injection sites reach out to vulnerable groups. They are accepted by communities, help improve the health status of the users, and they reduce high-risk behaviour, overdose deaths, and drug use in open spaces.

Illicit drug use is an issue that all of us in this chamber regard as a problem. People from all parties across the country would like to look for strategies whereby we can assist people who are addicted to drugs get off the drugs. We share that goal.

The issue really is this. Where we have drug use, what is the appropriate way to achieve that goal? I am here to tell the House that in Vancouver, if members drive with me down to Hastings and Main Street any day of the week, at any time of day, they will see hundreds of people in the streets who are drug addicts. The question is not whether or not they will use drugs. The question is whether or not we will provide them with a safe, clean place where they can do drugs under the supervision of a nurse, where if they overdose or have a problem, they can get medical care, and most importantly, where if by any grace of God they want to access treatment, they have someone there.

Alternatively, we can ignore this and we can continue to let those people purchase and use their drugs in alleys and public spaces or in front of businesses in Vancouver with no medical attention, where they are sharing needles, spreading disease, harming business, costing taxpayers money and dying.

That is the reality of the debate before us. What we have here is an issue of science and evidence-based policy-making versus a moral, ideological one. We have a question of public policy where we ask whether we want to try to make it easier to provide these kinds of health services to Canadians or whether we want to set up roadblocks, as the bill would.

The bill would set up a set of criteria that would make it almost impossible for Canada to open a second supervised injection site. That is harmful for public policy. It is bad for the health of Canadians. It is bad for taxpayers. It is bad for business. I implore every member of the House to put science before ideology and stop the bill from going forward.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway will have three minutes remaining for his remarks should he wish to use that time at the next instance where the House resumes debate on the question, and of course, he will have the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed from November 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, Respect for Communities Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

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

I cannot talk about Bill C-2 without making a reference to Bill C-65, the former bill introduced at the close of the last session of Parliament, which, need I remind the House, ended when the Conservatives prorogued Parliament. All of the bills left on the table when the last session ended needed to be reintroduced and renumbered. That is why we find ourselves now completing the task at hand.

I might as well say it upfront: Bill C-2 is a thinly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites. This proposed legislation goes directly against the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision that called on the minister to consider exemptions for supervised injection sites, in an effort to reconcile health and public safety considerations.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the only supervised injection site in Canada. It is located in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. I do not know if my colleagues have ever been there, but it is certainly a neighbourhood where truly disturbing things happen. Everyone deserves to know what I am talking about.

InSite was set up as part of a public health initiative launched by the City of Vancouver and its community partners, after the number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver increased twelvefold between 1987 and 1993. It took many years to get the InSite centre up and running, and each stage of the process was closely scrutinized, both locally and nationally.

The supervised injection site has the support not only of the Vancouver police, something which is by no means insignificant, but also of local businesses, the chamber of commerce and municipal politicians. The project has been the focus of over 30 scientific reports and studies that have described the benefits of InSite. These findings have been peer-reviewed and published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal. Studies of over 70 analogous supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia have recognized similar benefits.

When InSite opened in 2003, it secured an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with medical and scientific applications. It is worth noting that since then, InSite has had a positive impact. It helps save lives, minimizes the risk of accidental overdoses and above all, makes the neighbourhood safer for everyone.

However, in 2008, the exemption granted to InSite under the law was set to expire. The Conservative government rejected InSite’s application for renewal. The debate went all the way to the Supreme Court, which held that InSite was a key stakeholder in the health field. In its ruling, the court called upon the minister to consider all of the probative elements of the matter, bearing in mind the benefits of supervised injection sites, rather than set out a lengthy list of principles on which to base conclusions.

I would like to quote a critically important excerpt from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, since the bill now before us is supposedly based on this ruling. Here is what the Supreme Court had to say in its decision:

On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. In accordance with the Charter, the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Where...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.

That is what the Supreme Court stated. In my opinion, this ruling is quite clear.

In my riding of Québec, I have had the opportunity to meet several times with stakeholders and volunteers, including those from Point de repères, a community organization that I would like to commend. The organization's mission consists of health promotion, prevention and the delivery of care and services, especially for people dealing with addiction. It is important to understand this difference: an organization like Point de repères does not encourage drug use, but, rather, it advocates a harm reduction approach. As the Point de repères website indicates:

The harm reduction approach is a community-based approach to health that focuses on helping people with addictions develop ways to mitigate the negative consequences of their behaviour, rather than on eliminating the use of psychotropic drugs.

I think it is important to understand the fine points of this often sensitive subject. Again, as explained on the Point de repères website:

Drug use has a significant impact on both the user and the community. Often, lack of knowledge, misconceptions and prejudices about people who use drugs lead to a series of inappropriate actions that cause additional harm to the user and the community.

I had the opportunity to watch a documentary entitled “Pas de piquerie dans mon quartier” about people's resistance to safe injection sites in their neighbourhood. The documentary shed light on the addiction issue in a city like Quebec City, for example.

The documentary's introduction, which unfortunately reflects the glaring truth, states that “the war on drugs often turned into a war on drug users. It is a bit like the war on poverty—we have to be careful not to turn it into a war on the poor”.

Why is the government so lacking in objectivity when it comes to this very sensitive issue? Why are the Conservatives refusing to recognize the facts laid out before them? The NDP believes that decisions about programs that could enhance public health should be based on facts, not ideological stances. We are not alone in thinking that. According to the Canadian Medical Association:

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.

For its part, the Canadian Nurses Association said:

Evidence demonstrates that supervised injection sites and other harm reduction programs bring critical health and social services to vulnerable populations—especially those experiencing poverty, mental illness and homelessness.

A government that truly cared about public health and public safety would do everything in its power to improve access to prevention and treatment services, not create more barriers. Evidence has shown that supervised injection sites reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, and the number of overdose-related deaths. 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, reducing the amount of violence associated with that activity, and reducing the waste associated with drug use.

Supervised injection sites strike a balance between public health and public safety goals. They also connect people who urgently need help with the health services they need, such as primary health care and addiction treatment.

The NDP believes that any new legislation about supervised injection sites must honour the spirit of the Supreme Court decision, which this bill does not do. As my colleague from Vancouver East has said, Bill C-2 contains as many criteria as there are letters in the alphabet, and those 26 criteria are so restrictive and biased that they are practically impossible to comply with.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the inception of InSite, it is important to recognize the great deal of effort taken by the different levels of government, such as the government in Ottawa at the time, and the provincial and municipal governments. Many different stakeholders were involved because they truly cared and wanted to make a difference in the community.

That initiative was put into place and as the years have gone by the facts speak for themselves. It clearly was a huge success, not only for the individuals who use the facility as a safer injection site but also for the community surrounding it, which is a better and safer place to be. There are many different documented benefits of just how successful it has been.

To what degree does she believe the government is basing its decision on solid evidence in bringing this legislation forward? Maybe she could provide comment on that.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his comment. I agree that when it comes to supervised injection sites, consultation and discussion with the community are absolutely necessary.

This bill, like all the others, proves that the government is not listening to the people on the ground. All too often, it bases its positions and its arguments on ideological prejudices. We have noticed that this is often the problem. That is why we always have to come along with a new proposal, because we have been on the ground and have seen what is going on. We met with the stakeholders. In this case, everyone—professionals and business people in particular—agrees that we need to act and we should use this example from Vancouver East to move forward.

It is high time that this government listened to the opposition, since it will not listen to the people on the ground, because we are proposing real solutions. The work being done must absolutely continue. We cannot just close our eyes and pretend the problem does not exist, as the government across the aisle so often does.