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

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a brief but important comment. It is curious that none of my Conservative colleagues decided to rise to debate Bill C-2. Is it because they realized their position is indefensible?

I wonder why they decided to remain silent. From time to time they read a question written on a piece of paper, but none of them have risen to bring any substance to the debate. I hope one of my colleagues on the other side of the House will be able to answer this question. However, I have my doubts about that, because they do not have many arguments to use to defend their position.

That being said, the issue of public safety must go much further. We must ask ourselves some questions here. What is a government for? What is the purpose of the Parliament we are part of right now? Its primary purpose is to serve Canadians. Its purpose is to help vulnerable populations who, unfortunately, have not been as lucky as we have been. What is a government for? Its purpose is to help people who, unfortunately, have fallen into the vicious cycle of drugs at some point in their life.

It is not up to us to judge how or why a person ended up in a situation like this. That is not Parliament's role. The government members should be ashamed for judging people, because we are not here to regulate what they are doing. We are here to help them and to pass laws in order to assist the most vulnerable members of our society.

We can try to explain their plight and to blame it on a number of things, but the fact is that this situation exists in our communities. This situation must be resolved. It is through initiatives like InSite that the most vulnerable members of our society are able to overcome their addictions. The InSite initiative will make our communities safer. That is clear.

Many members have been in this House longer than I have. I would have hoped for much better from them and from the government. Why did we become members of Parliament? It is because deep down we thought that we could reach out to people in dreadful situations, help them and do something to improve their lives.

I am sorry. Far be it from me to try to teach my colleagues a lesson, but I believe that the onus is on this government to differentiate between the common good, its ideology, and its personal opinions. Every member of Parliament has his or her own personal opinions. That is a fact. Take abortion, for example. Everyone knows this, and there is no need to belabour the point. The same is true when it comes to drug use. Differences of opinion are normal. That is what makes us human beings. Everybody here expresses their opinions, relates their experiences, and engages in debate in this Parliament. Here, in this Parliament, in this House of Commons, we are representatives of the public. I remind members that the House of Commons is the chamber of the common people, the chamber of the Canadian public. We are not here to peddle our political agendas, personal opinions, or ideology. We are here to represent Canadians. Our values and personal opinions are not more important than the common good, the well-being of vulnerable Canadians, the welfare of our communities.

It is all well and good for the government to stand up and try and defend the indefensible. However, everybody is clear on one point: supervised injection sites work. They help make our children, women and families safer. They also help people to escape terrible situations.

Why does this government refuse to shoulder its fundamental responsibility? Indeed, is it not the government's primary purpose to ensure the safety of Canadians, and to assist Canadians in extremely dangerous situations? I cannot emphasize just how disappointed I am, today, to have to give this speech in an attempt to make the government understand that Canadians’ safety is more important than political ideology.

The Conservatives would have us believe that supervised injection sites, recognized worldwide as being beneficial to public safety, and for driving down mortality rates, are not a good initiative. This is about saving lives, Canadians’ lives. If only a single life were to be saved because of the existence of a supervised injection site, then the initiative would be a good one. Were we to help just a single Canadian to pull themselves up, it would be a good initiative.

The government cannot come to this House and pedal its right wing discourse. We are talking about the lives of human beings. We are talking about people who may die, and we want to help them. It is beyond belief that this government cannot understand the simple fact that Canadians need its help. The Conservatives do not care one iota. They are right here, and they are not even bothering to get up out of their seats, or to argue their point of view. I would like to see a government member get up and explain why saving Canadians’ lives is neither the government’s fundamental duty, nor an important consideration for the member himself.

These sites lower crime rates. They are known to save lives, stem the tide of crime and make our streets and communities safer.

Moreover, what strikes me as passing strange is that the minister has already issued an exemption. He has done this once before. Why? For the purpose of impact studies to determine whether the sites worked. The findings of the studies were unambiguous: supervised injection sites drive down crime and mortality rates, and make our streets safer. Why then is the government standing in the way of a second exemption?

I will say it again. The inherent role of Parliament is to help the most vulnerable. People who used InSite were twice as likely to enrol in a detox program and seek help than those who were left out in the street.

I know that the government does not really like the Supreme Court's decisions and that it does not always comply with them. The Supreme Court was clear:

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.

I talked about fundamental justice at the beginning of my speech. Members of Parliament have the vital role of ensuring that people get help. In 2008, Health Canada published a report indicating that, since 2006, InSite had intervened in 306 overdoses and that there had not been any deaths. Canadians' lives were saved. I cannot believe that a Conservative member can stand here today and say that this kind of site has no purpose. The government cannot argue that this is not in the interest of Canadians.

A comparison of the situation six weeks before and 12 weeks after InSite opened indicated that the number of people injecting drugs in public had decreased. All municipalities agree that this kind of site reduces crime in their communities. Even the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has shown that supervised injection sites reach out to the most vulnerable groups, are accepted by communities, help improve the health of drug users and reduce drug use among frequent users. According to the Health Canada report, people who used InSite services were twice as likely to seek help and enrol in a detox program.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this is about saving Canadians' lives. The government cannot say that it is not in Parliament's interest to pass legislation that will save lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent, heartfelt speech on this issue.

Does she agree with me that this is a hidden, sneaky, disguised attempt by the government to prevent other safe injection sites like the one in Vancouver from opening in other Canadian communities? That is my impression.

Does my colleague get the same impression after reading Bill C-2?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

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

To ask the question is to answer it, and I think I was clear in my speech. Political ideology should not trump the well-being of the public. All of the experts and all of the studies have shown that this kind of supervised injection site saves lives and makes our streets and communities safer.

That makes us wonder about the government's intentions. The experts, the studies, the reports and even the Supreme Court all say that this kind of site is safe and saves lives, so what is the government's intention?

Why does it want to sabotage this kind of organization? What is its intention? Not a single government member has risen today to tell us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will wrap things up in the House before summer. I would really like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech.

Thanks to the perspective she brought to this issue, I noticed some similarities with the government's decision to remove long guns from the gun registry. For years, the Conservative government basically granted an amnesty to gun owners who did not register their weapons. It completely undermined the gun registry, which is practically a way of breaking the law.

Listening to my colleague, I realized that the same kind of thing is happening with the bill before us. It was introduced to prevent new sites from opening and to close the existing site in Vancouver even though the court ordered the minister to keep it open.

I would like my colleague to share her views on this approach to getting around rulings and the courts.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

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

This is an unfortunate way of doing things, since the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the British Medical Journal and even the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction agree that this type of site is beneficial.

Is that not what the Conservatives want: to reduce crime, decrease drug use and make our streets safer? I think that is part of their basic discourse. The fact that the Conservatives are introducing a bill that goes against the very basis of their ideology shows that rational thought is not part of their discourse.

They bring forward legislation only if they can use it to win votes and do some fundraising. They are not at all interested in the inherent role of Parliament, which is to help our communities and make them safer, while complying with the Supreme Court's clear decisions. In this case, even the Supreme Court stated that this kind of site was in the best interest of Canadians.

To my colleague who asked the question, I would say that the answer is obvious. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the Supreme Court does not share their completely irrational ideology; yet, once again, the Conservatives want to introduce a bill that does not comply with the Supreme Court's decision.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. At the outset, I just want to make a couple of comments for context.

I understand this issue quite well, given that I am not only a member here, but previously sat on a city council and, for that matter, sat 13 years at Queen's Park. I know there is a difference between passing something at the federal level, where it can be very lofty and desirable in what it says, and when it gets all the way to city council where people actually have to implement it, things can then look very different.

The subject we are dealing with tonight is, for a city councillor, one of the toughest because it is one of those situations where it is not just right or wrong. Right versus wrong is easy. Most of our moms taught us the difference between right and wrong. The challenge is when it is right versus right, but only one can be supreme. In this case, at the city council levels across our country, that is where the issue of halfway houses, detox centres, like the one Mayor Ford is in, and InSite would be one of those challenges.

However, when I said “right versus right”, if we asked people if they could just say no and that would be the end of having any chance of having an InSite operation on their street, would they say it? Most people would. They would say, yes, that they would rather not have that on their street. Why? Mostly they think about their families, the kids and their security, which is foremost on any parent's mind. However, it is not that simple until we figure out a way to have a human race that does not involve people who break the law and humans who are not constructed in such a way that they can become addicted to things like alcohol and other substances, and all the mayhem and damage that is done. If the Conservatives really want to talk about things that are doing damage in this society, let us start talking about what alcohol does to people.

However, for those people, those parents who, if we gave them a chance, would say that they did not want any of those things on their streets, that it should be put somewhere else, there is another set of parents and another set of human beings who have love and compassion for their family members or friends, only they are the victims of the addiction. They are equally worthy of our concern as lawmakers. It is at the city council where the rubber hits the road, because those people are the ones who have to make the decision of “where this goes”. It is not easy.

When people's homes are the biggest investment in their life, it is the old castle, their domain that is for themselves and their family, it is their little place and they want to keep it as secure and safe as they can for their family. When one of those family members is in need of these services, whether a halfway house, a detox centre or a safe injection site, the other side of it is that those individuals are as worthy and as deserving of the protection of lawmakers as well as the support of lawmakers, given the importance we put on health care and ensuring it is universal. For those of us who see this much more as a health issue than as a crime issue, it becomes that much more difficult, because we cannot just say no.

The reason I am raising that is because what the government is attempting to do, in the NDP's view, is micromanage the requirements to the degree where, when I looked at the bill, it looked to me like a zoning application at city council. Those are the questions it asks: What does public health say? What do the police say? What do the zoning experts say? What does the local councillor say? Let us have a public meeting and talk to the families who live in the area, as well as the families who are positively impacted by the service that exists.

We know that this issue should not even be in this bill. All that was required was an extension of the exemption. I am from Ontario, not B.C., but to the best of my knowledge, notwithstanding some day-to-day issues, for the most part, this was working and was saving lives. It was making the community safer and better for everybody. All that was required was, “Yes, we will go for another extension. That is a good project, doing some good work, let's continue.” That is when ideology got in the way, where the government wants to stand behind a bumper sticker slogan. The answer to the Conservatives is just say no. Just say no to the application, do not allow InSite, and just say no to drugs.

Tell people who have a challenge with alcohol just say no. Is there nobody in this place who has a problem? I know some place not that far down the road where a very high-profile person had a problem. That problem does not make the individual a bad person but a person who needs help. In the community that person is in, guess what, there is a detox centre, and that high-profile individual is getting the compassion and supported required. That is exactly what is happening in Vancouver, except that it is not as acceptable as having a little drinkypoo at the end of the day, or a little happy hour kind of thing, or a having a beer watching the game. No, it is not that.

This is tough stuff. This is hard-core addiction, with all that goes with it. Anyone who has ever been to Vancouver and seen the challenges of those communities would understand why it is important that Vancouver has a federal partner that actually wants to help. City council members are doing the heavy lifting. They are the ones having to go into those communities and make the argument that this is good for people and that they all have to kind of share the load in terms of the broader community and the services they have to have. They are the ones that have to put their seats on the line. Trust me, when people are on city council, they do not get to go to the airport and fly hundreds of kilometres away from their constituents and the problem. As soon as city councillors walk out the front door, they are then meeting with their constituents and it stays like that all day until they get home. Then they get up the next day and do the same thing.

Those are the people who have had to go to public meetings and tell moms and dads who are fearful for their kids why this was still a good thing for Vancouver to do. We should be saluting Vancouver's city council for having the courage to take these kinds of steps. Instead, here we are in the House of Commons with a federal government that is doing everything it can to stop the process, to stop the ability of these lives to be saved. I was going to, and maybe I will get a chance in questions and comments, read some of the quotes from the Supreme Court of Canada and what it said about the importance of ensuring that these kinds of safe sites exist for our fellow citizens.

New Democrats stand resolutely opposed to this bill. The bill is wrong-headed, it is wrong in detail, it is wrong in its direction, and it just plain wrong. Canadians deserve better. When there is an NDP government in 2015, they will get that better government.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a day like this, when we are debating this issue in the House and another decision was made in British Columbia today for British Columbians, we see the hypocrisy of the government. It is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Out of one side of its mouth it is saying it wants to consult with Canadians to judge the locations of these centres and, out of the other side, it is saying it does not really want to listen to Canadians in consultation for something like northern gateway.

Could the member perhaps elucidate for the House and Canadians the record of the government in terms of public consultations and due diligence in listening to Canadians?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this important question, and it gives me a chance to use up some of my other notes. It is important to see who is onside with the way we see it, and not the way the government sees it. Well, a little outfit called the Canadian Medical Association happens to believe this is important enough for it comment on, and I quote:

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 Canadian Nurses Association has said much the same thing.

My colleague asked what is happening in B.C. right now. Clearly, the government did not listen to British Columbians and all the various groups within that province who are opposed to the decision the Conservatives made today, and this is no different.

When the government does not want to hear something, it does not matter who says it, where it is coming from, what the credibility is. The Conservatives either tune it right out or worse yet, they attack it. In this case, it is clear that the only people who are opposed to this are hard-core, ideological right wingers. Every other Canadian with a heart and compassion wants these injection sites for Canadians to make our communities safer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I always enjoy them. I particularly liked the part about the ideological bent, but I want to go to the charter side of things. When this year is done and we have all these year-end reviews about what happened in the news, I think two words will come to mind: charter challenge.

Here we find another bill that runs up against the charter under section 7, in the pursuit of life, liberty, and security of the person, which is a fundamental justice. It is a fundamental right for people to preserve their health in a situation where they find themselves wanting to get help. This is about harm reduction.

What bothers me is that it would not be so bad if the argument from the government was that there were problems with this particular site in the way it administers the plan and so forth. The minister has the discretion to get rid of it. However, the argument is fundamentally, “not in my home town”, “not in my backyard”. For some reason, the Conservatives have used this as a defence. In addition to that, what is even more insulting, is that they use it to raise money to win the next election.

I would ask my colleague, have we gotten to the point where all the evidence pointing to harm reduction has been so lost that the goal is only to win the next campaign and to fund raise?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague.

In fact, just within the last few days, I was standing in exactly the same place making an issue about the fact that the current government passes laws that it knows will not survive a charter challenge, even though it has a requirement to check that ahead of time. The Conservatives know it will not happen, but they do not care. They are worried about the politics of it.

I mean, we get it, we are all in politics, but when one is in government, one does have some responsibility to get above that, especially when we are talking about human rights and charter rights.

For a government to care so little and show so little respect for the Canadian people that it would just pass laws that work politically, knowing they will not survive a charter challenge, is despicable. There is no other word for a government that would do that, which is exactly what the Conservatives are doing here.

The Conservatives know that this is going to go off to the courts. They know that it will not survive a challenge given what the court has already said, but they do not care. What they care about is what my hon. colleague has said: passing a law they can use to raise funds to get votes to get re-elected rather than help the Canadian people. They are not doing that, but when 2015 comes and we get a new NDP government, we will.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

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.

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

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

I would like him to continue along the lines of what he was saying. Can he explain the potential benefits of a safe injection site for communities? Why do a number of studies show that such sites are beneficial for communities? In Canada, the only place with a site like this is east Vancouver. Could he elaborate on these data and studies?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

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.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague fromLaval—Les Îles on his speech. I would like to ask him a very specific question.

Obviously, this is a very sensitive issue. It is also a public health issue, one that is handled appropriately, in a manner approved by the Canadian Medical Association and other response groups. However, it appears that the Conservatives are using this issue as a campaign tool, a way to boost their fundraising. They are polarizing this whole question, which seems to me a very dangerous tack, simply to use it as a fundraising tool now that the gun registry cannot serve that purpose.

What does my colleague think of using such an important and sensitive issue for political reasons and to get funding for the next election, when a level-headed, more scientific approach would be more appropriate?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

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.