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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent work on this issue.

We know that this is a public health and safety issue. Unfortunately, since being elected, we have noticed that the government does not work for all Canadians. I get the impression that it works for its electoral base. I think it is disappointing that they are using this type of issue that affects all Canadians. We have seen this before with other unconstitutional procedures. However, here we have more evidence of the Conservatives going against the Supreme Court decision on injection sites.

Does my colleague not find this approach undemocratic?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise this evening to speak to this rather sensitive bill. I happen to be very familiar with it as I have heard a great deal about it and have spoken about it with members from all parties. The issue is near and dear to me. I am referring to Bill C-2, also known as Bill C-65 before prorogation. No one will be surprised to hear that we will oppose the bill at second reading.

We already debated the issue back in January. Since then, nothing has happened. For reasons unknown to me, the government did not introduce the bill earlier. It certainly seems to be an urgent matter today, however. We are now in June, faced with a time allocation motion to ensure its speedy passage. It seems to have taken six months for the government to realize the urgency of the situation; after five hours of debate, it has decided to set things in motion.

The bill has been gathering dust on the desk of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for months now; he did not seem the least bit interested in putting the bill on the agenda. I am nevertheless happy that the government has finally decided to get moving. Of course, the fact that it had to do so on Bill C-2 is a real shame. The government could have been made to see the light and amend the bill in order to change its content.

That is not the case, and the bill we are debating today is yet another direct affront to the Supreme Court, as a number of experts have said. We are all aware of the strained relationship the government has with the Supreme Court these days. Once again, the government has no problem defying the Supreme Court, which ruled on this issue in September 2011.

Bill C-2 could very likely violate the Supreme Court's ruling. The government itself asked the Supreme Court to rule on the case in British Columbia.

The government had asked the Supreme Court to review the B.C. court's ruling, since the government was hot happy with it. It was not happy with the Supreme Court's ruling either, but that is the highest court. The government therefore decided to introduce a bill that would directly challenge the Supreme Court of Canada's 2011 ruling. That is pretty brazen for the government to move forward like this. As I said, we oppose this bill.

I want to thank the member for Vancouver East, who has been working on this issue for many years. This situation has been dragging on for years. If memory serves me right, it was in 2008 or even earlier that the federal government's health minister at the time refused to grant an exemption to InSite, the supervised injection site in east Vancouver. The reasons the federal government refused to grant an exemption were probably ideological. It seemed to be against the idea of a supervised injection site.

Today, the Conservatives have asked questions, but they have unfortunately not made any speeches. We have only gotten bits and pieces of information from the other side about their position on the issue. Based on what I have heard in the debate today, they seem to be ideologically opposed to the idea of safe injection sites. There is only one in Canada right now, but steps are underway to open others. In fact, some groups in Quebec City, Montreal and Toronto are working to open such sites.

Many groups have noted the benefits of this type of site. Many studies done in Vancouver have shown the same results. More than 30 peer-reviewed studies— it is important to note this—published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have described the benefits of InSite. Organizations that work on solving the problem of drug use in our communities have noted the beneficial impact of InSite, in east Vancouver. They are trying to replicate Vancouver's positive experience.

[An hon. member]

It is a model.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a model that is beneficial to the public and local communities. In fact, it has the near total support of the east Vancouver community. Many surveys have shown public support for the safe injection site in east Vancouver.

Many studies have explicitly shown the benefits of InSite for public health and safety. Some of my colleagues have explained in more detail how this site is good for public health and safety. People grappling with drug addictions are in very difficult situations, but if they had access to a safe injection site like the one in east Vancouver, they would be much safer. However, it is worth noting here that the ultimate goal is to get all illegal drugs off our streets.

It is safer for these people to have access to supervised injection sites, like the one in Vancouver, that make resources available to help them get off drugs. That is the goal of safe injection sites. They do more than just tell people to come and get a fix before asking them to leave. They look after them and try to help them get off drugs.

The main point I want to make today is that safe injection sites are more than just a safe haven where addicts get a fix and then leave without having access to resources. These sites make resources available to addicts who want to get off drugs.

Unfortunately, the government used that issue as a campaign tool to raise money from its supporters. I remember that, just hours after the government introduced Bill C-65—the first version of this Bill C-2—in the House, we received a fundraising email asking for political donations.

We therefore have to ask ourselves the following question: is that how a good legislator works? The role of the legislator in the House of Commons and in Parliament is to review and improve laws. Is it appropriate for a government or a legislator to use an issue and change laws for political purposes? The government's top priority should be ensuring that Canadians are safe. However, the Conservative's priority is asking for political donations and introducing partisan bills. That is not how a competent legislator should work.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that I will be the one asking a question. I cannot say for certain, but you seem disappointed. Nevertheless I have a very important question to ask my colleague who delivered a great speech on this issue.

He talked about doing things for political purposes. We need to be very careful about partisanship and money from political parties that play a part in the drafting of bills. As everyone well knows, demonizing one group of people may gain support from another group that will provide funding. That is unfortunate and this is not the way to be a responsible politician and representative of the people.

I wonder whether the member would comment on this trend that we are seeing on the part of the Conservative party.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is in fact not an isolated case. It is consistent with a trend that we have observed since the Conservatives have been in office. The Liberals were no better. However, I have a rather short memory when it comes to everything the Liberals did.

This is an unfortunate trend because the lawmakers who draft and amend laws must assume their responsibilities and work for the common good of all Canadians, not simply impose their own ideology within their political group.

It is no secret that in our parliamentary system, the government, the executive branch, sits in the House alongside the legislative branch. Unfortunately, the executive branch will sometimes use certain bills and issues for electoral purposes to advance its political agenda, since the legislative and the executive go hand in hand.

Of course we cannot dissociate the Conservative party from the Government of Canada. They are one and the same. The government of the day introduces bills to advance its own ideology. It solicits funds a few hours after tabling a bill in the House of Commons. In my view this is unacceptable behaviour on the part of a legislator.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Sherbrooke for his clear and articulate speech on a subject that is of public interest and that involves the safety as well as the health of the public.

The New Democrats have stressed that this is a health issue. The opening of a supervised injection site in Vancouver has not only saved lives but has led to an increase in the number of people enrolled in drug treatment programs. These very positive and concerted efforts are well documented here at home and abroad.

I would like my colleague to comment on the public safety aspect of this issue. A supervised injection site reduces the number of needles used in back alleys and parks and discarded behind trees or fences. The fact that this Conservative piece of legislation would prevent any new supervised injection sites from opening will increase the risk of our children finding needles, which are sometimes blood stained and could potentially transmit diseases.

Should the government members not be concerned about these realities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he cares very much about public safety. I also know that he has young children and that he would not want them to walk around a park where they could find dangerous used needles.

Thanks to the success of these supervised injection sites, used needles are kept out of our communities. Nevertheless, the Conservative campaign is “Keep heroin out of our backyards”, and they just did exactly the opposite with the bill preventing the opening of supervised injection sites, which keep various dangers out of our communities.

This is a missed opportunity by the Conservative government. It could have strengthened public safety, and I thought that was paramount to the government. However, it turns out that this does not seem to be its priority. The Conservatives do exactly the opposite of what they claim they will do.

I am disappointed with Bill C-2 and I will vote against it at second reading.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This bill addresses safe injection sites. I will be opposing this bill at second reading for many reasons, which have already been outlined by my hon. colleagues tonight.

The main reason I am opposing it is because safe injection sites have had many documented, positive effects on communities and on people who are dealing with addictions to certain substances. We have seen that in Vancouver, where there is already a safe injection site known as InSite. We have also seen that other parts of the country are interested in opening other safe injection sites and in doing something else to help those dealing with addiction and to protect our children and our communities.

I am opposing this bill because it goes against the Supreme Court ruling concerning these sites. I would like to provide a bit of background.

We need to go back to 2011, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that InSite, in Vancouver, was providing essential services and should remain open under the exemption provided in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court ruled that the charter authorized users to have access to InSite's services and that similar services should be authorized under an exemption.

I imagine that many Canadians who are watching the debate at home are wondering what a safe injection site is, how it works and what it looks like, so I will talk about how the safe injection site in Vancouver, InSite, works.

It is highly regulated. There are many medical professionals on site who can provide medical assistance, if necessary. To access InSite's services, users must meet certain requirements. They must be at least 16, sign a user agreement and comply with a code of conduct. Of course, they cannot be accompanied by children.

InSite is open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. seven days a week. The facility provides services every day of the week. Users bring their own drugs to InSite, and staff members provide clean injection supplies. This is important when it comes to prevention, because people who use intravenous drugs often use syringes that are used, and therefore unsterilized.

Often, when people do not have a place to inject their drug, they will leave the blood-stained or contaminated supplies in public areas, such as parks where children play, as my colleague mentioned earlier. It is very important for these supplies to be available at supervised injection sites so that users have access to them and so that we can prevent the spread of disease.

Nurses and paramedics who supervise the centre provide emergency medical assistance if necessary. Once users have injected their drugs, their condition is assessed by the staff and they are sent to a post-injection room or treated by a nurse in the treatment room for illnesses associated with the injection.

InSite also does some important prevention work by helping people recover from their drug addiction. InSite employees provide information on health care and advice, and they refer patients to health care and social services.

InSite also houses the OnSite centre. OnSite provides detox and rehabilitation services. OnSite is managed by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the PHS Community Services Society, with the support of local law enforcement agencies, provincial and municipal governments, provincial and federal government representatives, health care providers, and members of the community. People are united behind this initiative, and it has the support of community members who are already seeing the benefits.

I would like to share some figures to show that supervised injection sites have positive effects. Between 1973 and 1987, the number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver went from 16 to 200 per year. That is a high number. However, the rate of overdose deaths in east Vancouver has dropped by 35% since InSite opened.

The reason why it is important to ensure that InSite remains open and to study this model in order to apply it elsewhere is that it saves lives. It contributes to prevention and rehabilitation rather than punishing people with addictions. These people are vulnerable and do have a lot of problems, but they also have a right to safety and life.

As an aside, I will speak to the Conservative government's bill on prostitution, because it is a crosscutting and current issue. I am drawing a parallel with Bill C-2 because this is another way for the Conservatives to show their contempt for Supreme Court rulings. They endanger the lives of vulnerable individuals and of women working in the prostitution business.

The Conservative government's bill on prostitution can put lives at risk. It punishes the clients of sex workers, which puts their lives at risk. This bill was introduced in the House of Commons after a Supreme Court decision announced in December struck down a number of key provisions in Canada's prostitution laws.

A number of people and members in the House have said that this new bill introduced by the Conservative government was also unlikely to pass the test of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms imposed by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Conservative government does not respect the right of vulnerable individuals to safety and to life. I am therefore proud to rise in the House to oppose the bill on prostitution as well.

I will use the short time I have left to sum up my position on Bill C-2. The InSite model has a part to play in public health and community safety. Members need to oppose this bill in order to protect vulnerable InSite users' right to safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her fact-based speech. She showed caring and common sense in describing the tragic conditions that exist in our communities, especially in east Vancouver.

I would simply like to point out that no one from the government side has been rising or taking part in the debate on this bill, even though one would expect them to be deeply committed to it, given the fundraising campaign they launched right after the bill was introduced.

In fact, Conservative members are refusing to claim their share of the debate and join in that effort with everyone in the House. As a result, we have to state the facts, describe the situation, and point out how little respect the government is showing for Canadians.

Could my colleague comment on the Conservative government's attitude and its refusal to take part in and be present for the debate for the sake of all Canadians?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

My colleague is right, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have indeed been playing petty politics with Bill C-2.

They had the chance to send out pamphlets in their ridings before the bill was called. They were able to organize a fundraiser called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”.

It is plain to see the Conservatives are fearmongering. They are using scare tactics in order to raise more funds.

The irony in all this is that the government's Bill C-2 will make it nearly impossible to open safe injection sites, which will push heroin back out into the streets.

This is the irony with the Conservative campaign. If Bill C-2 passes, it will put lives in danger and greatly compromise community safety.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member opposite, but she is mistaken on the points of the bill.

The bill would bring more safety by allowing parents in a community where an injection site is thinking of setting up to enter the decision-making process. It would allow those folks who want to do that to provide scientific evidence around the actual need for that injection site, which would be hard to do in my riding of Cambridge-North Dumfries. The NDP wants to set up an injection site there, but I doubt the people in Cambridge would want that.

The fact is that the bill would allow science to enter the decision-making process. It would also allow parents to enter the decision-making process. What exactly is wrong with allowing Canadians who live in the community to decide what their needs are?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is an attempt to put safe injection sites out of business. The Conservative member is being disingenuous. I have here a list of criteria that new applicants will need to meet. The purpose of the bill is to dissuade people from opening new safe injection sites. The rules are much too strict. In fact, departmental officials have told us that if an applicant mistakenly forgets to include something, the application could be automatically denied without further review. Even if the applicant has all of the documents needed for the application and the community's full support—which the member opposite mentioned—the department will still have the option of denying it.

InSite had garnered the support of most of the people in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today, at about 9:00 p.m., to work for the people of Drummond. The Conservatives had opportunities to speak this evening, but they decided not to rise. They are in the process of beating their record for the number of time allocation motions. This is the 74th time allocation motion that has been imposed, which is unbelievable. The Conservatives are also beating their record for staying seated and not working for the people of their ridings.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, will no doubt end up before the Supreme Court after it is passed because this bill will probably be unconstitutional. The Conservatives are becoming champions of thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court and its rulings. Their attitude is truly disappointing. It is arrogant of them not to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, of which we are very proud. That is why the NDP will oppose the bill at second reading.

This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down safe injection sites. The Conservatives do not have the courage to say what they want to do. They are addressing this issue in an underhanded way, as they do with others. This bill once again represents an ideological Conservative approach. The Conservatives are opposed to safe injection sites, which is too bad, because these sites have been proven to be successful. Since the Vancouver site opened, the figures have been speaking for themselves and have been quite convincing.

Between 1987 and 1993, the number of deaths by overdose in Vancouver rose from 16 to 200 a year. The Supreme Court of Canada said that this situation was very serious. In Vancouver East, however, since InSite opened, the rate of drug overdose deaths has fallen by 35%. That shows that this approach works well. Over a one-year period, 2,171 users of InSite's services were referred to addiction counselling or other support services. That is proof that these sites are beneficial to the public. The mandate of these sites is not to encourage people to use drugs, but rather to supervise them in order to keep them healthy and safe. These people meet nurses and social workers who are willing to support them. When they are ready to ask for help, they can find it on site. It is important to have these types of sites because they can support these people.

Those who use InSite at least once a week have been shown to be 1.7 times more likely to enrol in detox programs than those who visit infrequently. Therefore, it is possible to see the beneficial impact of this site. The more the users visit this site, the more they care about their health and safety, because they do not use hard drugs for fun. These people are vulnerable and sick, and they need help.

That is why these sick people must be supported while they are using drugs and must be able to quickly access help when they are ready to get off drugs.

The number of discarded needles and injection paraphernalia and the number of people injecting drugs in the street dropped dramatically one year after InSite opened. There was a significant drop in the number of needles and injection paraphernalia in the streets around parks and public places one year after InSite opened, and that is very important.

This allows us to make areas safer for the general public, youth and communities who live near more vulnerable people. That is why it is important to have an approach based on science and not on ideology. These facts are pointing us towards the science.

Let us continue in the same vein and say that this bill is unfortunately based on the Conservatives anti-drug ideology. This is another attempt to rally the Conservative base, as demonstrated by the famous “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign, which was purely ideological and simplistic.

No one wants heroin in their backyard. Using that slogan is to give in to simplistic rhetoric. Anyone can use it to raise money, but that is not how we are going to educate and serve the people we must serve. That is not how we are going to look after the health and safety of Canadians. It is not by engaging in such simplistic inflammatory campaigns that we should be doing politics.

We must be much more serious than that and run campaign to promote better health. This should be a health issue and not a public safety issue. This bill should be based on facts and deal with public health benefits.

The problem is that this bill will make it almost impossible to open safe injection sites. Unfortunately, it will promote the opposite, that is the return of heroine to our neighbourhoods.

Bill C-2 flies in the face of the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling calling on the minister to consider granting exemptions for supervised injection sites in order to strike a balance between public safety and public health. The decision called on the minister to examine all of the evidence in light of the benefits of supervised injection sites rather than draw up a long list of principles like the one we have here.

Lastly, any new legislation regarding supervised injection sites must honour the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling, which this bill does not do. The NDP believes that harm reduction programs, including supervised injection sites, should be granted exemptions based on evidence that they will improve community health and save human lives. That is what the Supreme Court asked for in its ruling.

Unfortunately, once again, the Conservatives have introduced a bill that will be challenged because it does not abide by either the spirit or the letter of the Supreme Court ruling. This bill is, without a shadow of a doubt, unconstitutional. It does not respect the charter and will not protect the health and safety of our fellow citizens. That is the main thing we have to think of when we make a decision.