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, on a point of order, I think maybe if you attempt to recanvass the House, you might find the will to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. so that we can get into the private members' hour, possibly.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. We are losing control here, or at least I am. We can only deal with one point of order at a time. We have had another member suggest that if we sought it, we might have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed 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 this question be now put.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think I was speaking, but I will just go on the record as saying this about Bill C-2.

I was on the council for the city of Burlington for about 12 years. As a former councillor, it is important to have community input on where these injection sites can operate. Bill C-2 provides the opportunity for public and community input. Where these sites should be located is a community decision because they know better than we do in Ottawa.

Therefore, I am supportive of Bill C-2.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, would the member like to elaborate as to why the government has made the decision to bring in this legislation, understanding full well that it is in response to a Supreme Court ruling. The government seems to be offside with many of the different stakeholders. When I talk about stakeholders, I am talking about professional law enforcement officers, health care providers, social workers, victims, communities and different levels of governments, whether municipal, provincial or national, that worked together to put into place Canada's first injection site out in Vancouver. The numbers have shown that it has been beneficial to the community, so why is the legislation in its current format?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the important message is that with the legislation we are respecting what the Supreme Court has indicated. We believe that if these sites are to continue in different locations across the country, those communities in which the sites wish to operate have a responsibility to discuss their locations, debate them and understand what the needs of the community and those injection sites are. Where they are to be located should be accepted by the local communities in which they will exist, if they exist in the future.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question. He did not go into much detail about his personal opinion on this bill during his speech.

I would like to know whether he thinks that injection sites like the one in Vancouver promote public health and safety.

If Vancouver did not have the site—I am talking about Vancouver because it is the only site we have in Canada—where would the people who, unfortunately, use illegal drugs go?

How can having safer places improve public health and safety even if the ultimate goal is to help all Canadians be healthy and not use drugs that are bad for them?

How can these sites ensure public health and safety in communities that can be dangerous because of drug use and used needles found in public places?

Why is this a good thing for public health and safety?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is that because an injection site, where people who take illegal drugs can get them legally, is in a defined location that this is safe and healthy. Since I am giving my personal opinion, I am not convinced that just because a spot has registered nurses or whomever to provide the clean needles, that the government of the day, whether it is municipal, provincial, or federal, should provide that site. Nobody disagrees that these are harmful substances for those who take them.

Personally I am not sure whether this is the right approach for any government to take.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is important to say it again and again: Bill C-2 is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down safe injection sites.

This legislation is in direct opposition to a 2011 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that called on the minister to consider exemptions for safe injection sites as a way to reconcile public health and safety issues.

I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the only supervised injection site we have in Canada, in Vancouver’s sadly infamous Downtown Eastside. InSite was developed as part of a public health project by the City of Vancouver, and its community partners, of course, in response to a twelve-fold increase in overdose-related deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. It took years for InSite to be up and running, and it went under incredible local and national scrutiny.

In Vancouver, not only do the police support the safe injection site, which is already quite something, but so do local businesses, the business district, the board of trade 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. As well, studies of more than 70 supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia have reported similar benefits.

InSite first received an exemption in 2003 for conducting activities for a medical and scientific purpose, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Since then, InSite has seen good results. This is important. It helps save lives, prevents accidental overdoses and makes the neighbourhood safer for everyone.

However, in 2008, InSite’s exemption under the legislation expired, and the Conservative government rejected InSite’s renewal request. The debate went as far as the Supreme Court, which decided that InSite was a very important health facility. 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.

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, 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.

I think that the 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 an organization called Point de repères. That 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. 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 made in Quebec City by people from Quebec City entitled Pas de piquerie dans mon quartier. They realized the effects that drugs were having on the people using them. They wanted to make sure that they would not find syringes in the streets or in the parks where children played. We do not want a shooting gallery in our neighbourhood, but at the same time, we have to help these people.

The documentary sheds light on the addiction issue in Quebec City. Let me quote the opening sequence, which reflects the glaring truth:

The war on drugs is 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.

It is full of common sense. It is a way of entering into that world, which we do not know very well at all, in an attempt to finally come up with good solutions.

We must ask ourselves why the government is so lacking in objectivity when it comes to this 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 truly committed to public health and safety would work to enhance access to prevention and treatment services—instead of building more barriers.

Evidence has shown that supervised injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, and reduce deaths from overdoses. Evidence has also shown that these sites do not adversely affect public safety and that, in certain cases, they actually promote it by reducing the injection of drugs in public, the violence associated with such behaviour, and waste related to drug use.

Safe injection sites strike a balance between public health and public safety goals. They also connect people in urgent need of health care with the services they need, such as primary health care and addiction treatment.

The NDP believes that any new legislation concerning safe injection sites must respect the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling, 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.

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 people's lives, not on ideological beliefs.

To conclude, I would once again like to highlight the exceptional work that my colleague from Vancouver East has done on this. She has moved it forward step by step. We will not give up. We believe in working on this issue, because the lines are too vague, and the Supreme Court ruling is not being honoured.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, halfway through her speech my colleague mentioned the documentary Not in My Backyard, which I have to admit I have not seen yet. Critics tell me it is very good and very informative.

One thing she mentioned was that waging war on drugs results in waging war on addicts themselves. I wholeheartedly agree. We heard an example. The member for Burlington was kind enough to give us his personal opinion about this. He told us that many local neighbourhoods do not want this. It is a similar situation all around, which results in a lack of understanding.

We must remember that this is a fundamentally evidence-based situation. Section 56 exists to allow this exemption. Why? It is because it helps. This safe injection site has resulted in a 35% reduction in the abuse of drugs. The member also illustrated her point by using examples from around the world, and I appreciate that.

Does my colleague not feel that in the future, all the rules that will have been handed down will ensure that this will not proliferate beyond the one site in Vancouver?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been to east Vancouver. It is a dangerous place, but I did not go into the centre of the neighbourhood, where it is particularly bad. I went onto the neighbouring streets because I wanted to see the most extreme aspects of the problem for myself.

There are also people struggling with addictions in Quebec City, where I am from, but the situation there is nowhere near as critical as it is in east Vancouver. These people need help. We cannot simply ignore the problem. We have no choice but to find solutions.

The situation in Vancouver is so bad that I am no longer able to watch documentaries on Canal D showing this part of Vancouver as one of the most dangerous places in the world in terms of addictions.

I would really like the government to take action on health and safety.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Québec for her speech. She illustrated the need to not simply abandon people with drug addictions, especially those using hard drugs, since it is basically a disease.

I remember some of the meetings my colleague from Québec and I had with certain agencies that help people suffering from addictions and experiencing all sorts of problems in their lives, since everything is interrelated.

Could my colleague report to the House the very worthy things several people who managed to escape addictions of their own volition, but also with a great deal of support, had to say about the desperate need for a safe place where addicts can get help with their problems until they can break free of their addictions?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I know he also works very closely with these community agencies. Listening to these agencies gives us, as members of Parliament, a much more realistic view of the problem.

I have spoken with Point de repères, an organization that plays a crucial role in this issue. However, I know of other organizations. I wish to acknowledge Projet intervention prostitution Québec and Pech, two organizations my colleague is very familiar with that have been doing outstanding work in partnership with the Quebec City police, for example.

This demonstrates that it is possible for community organizations to work together with people struggling with addictions to find a solution.