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

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why people who have been in contact with this problem and who have seen the resulting harm would be afraid of seeing such a site open near their home. They are afraid because of a lack of knowledge and understanding.

Politicians and those who work in this field need to raise public awareness about these sites. They need to clearly explain exactly what a safe injection site is and what it is for, as well as the benefits such sites can bring to our communities and to people struggling with addictions.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I want to be clear from the outset that New Democrats oppose the bill at second reading.

Bill C-2 is a deeply flawed bill based on a deeply flawed premise. This premise, advanced by Conservatives, takes the position that I think goes back to the Reagan years in the United States. Members may remember Nancy Reagan's “just say no to drugs” position. It is a very simplistic appealing approach, but it has been proven in the United States that this anti-drug and abstinence approach on the issue of addiction has been a colossal failure.

The approach of New Democrats is one of promoting health and safety for those who, sadly, are suffering from addiction, but also promoting the safety of communities and neighbourhoods. Our approach is one of harm reduction. In other words, it would promote healthy outcomes and hopefully reduce the harm that those who suffer from addictions are exposed to.

The bill, in fact, is a thinly veiled attempt to stop safe injection sites from operating. At present, in Canada, there is only one safe injection site, InSite, which is operating in Vancouver. However, since the Conservatives took the provision of harm reduction out of the national drug strategy in 2007, they have been opposed to the operation of InSite. Finally, this issue was taken to court and there was a Supreme Court decision on this. I will get to that in more detail in a few minutes.

In essence, Bill C-2 is an attempt to lay out conditions that are so extensive, so arduous, with benchmarks so high that InSite or other potential sites would be unable to surmount these obstacles and thus unable to operate. We believe that, in fact, is the goal behind the proposed legislation. Thus, the “do no harm” approach or “harm reduction” approach would be thrown out the window.

Our belief on this side of the House among New Democrats is that decisions about programs must be based on whether or not there are benefits, which must be based on facts rather than ideology. However, we believe that those on the other side of the House are driven by ideology on the bill and are wilfully ignoring the facts in this case.

I mentioned the Supreme Court. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that InSite, this facility in Vancouver that provides a safe injection site for people with addictions, provided life-saving services and in fact should remain open. To do that, it required an exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act under section 56. This is an exemption under which InSite has been operating for a number of years. The court ruled that it was within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for InSite users to access this service, not only in Vancouver, but at sites that operate elsewhere.

What is this scientific proof that I am talking about based on?

In fact, there have been over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in reputable, distinguished journals, such as The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the British Medical Journal, which have described the beneficial impacts of InSite.

Furthermore, studies of more than 70 safe injection sites in other countries, in Europe and Australia, have shown similar benefits. InSite has been extremely beneficial for those who use it and should be allowed to continue to operate, but we would argue that it has been beneficial not only for those who use InSite but for the community in which it is located.

The Conservatives, with the launch of this bill, also immediately tried to rally their base and launched a campaign called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. I am sure they raised a lot of money with that campaign and generated a lot of data in preparation for the next federal election, but in fact, it is based on a false premise. This bill would actually put heroin back into people's backyards, because if there are no safe injection sites, people who are hopelessly addicted will resort increasingly to crime and to injecting in communities, on our streets, and in our neighbourhoods rather than in a safe injection site. Therefore, not only will people who have a serious health issue due to an addiction put themselves at greater risk, but they will also be putting communities at risk.

I come from a community that is, I believe, one of the finest communities anywhere. My riding of Parkdale—High Park is a very diverse community. There are people from all different socio-economic levels, and in spite of one of the local city councillors attacking the Parkdale community and trying to label, stigmatize, and stereotype people in the community, the people who live there do not feel that way. They believe that society as a whole includes people who have imperfect lives, people who have mental health challenges, family problems, and yes, sometimes suffer from addictions, regardless of what income level they happen to be in. There are certainly people at very high income levels who suffer from addictions and sometimes spend a lot of money supporting those addictions.

Therefore, my community includes a wide cross-section of people, but whether it is community agencies, neighbourhood organizations, police, or community helpers, people have come together with political representatives and said our goal has to be one of harm reduction. They say if people are suffering from poor mental health or addictions or whatever challenges they are facing, we should find a way to help them through this in as safe a way as possible and, hopefully, help them to recover and lead normal lives. One of the big advantages of a facility like InSite is that the people who use that facility can access health professionals, counselling, and support and, hopefully, transition through their addictions and come out the other end to lead normal lives. There are certainly many instances of that.

In conclusion, I want to say this is a deeply flawed bill. New Democrats believe it is in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling and, once again, pits the government against the judicial system. It will do far more harm than good and should be rejected by the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last issue that my colleague raised is extremely important. I will give her a chance to tell us more about the Conservatives' approach to the Supreme Court.

As we know, the Conservatives have been trying to destroy all of our institutions, including environmental regulatory bodies and administrative tribunals. What is going on between the Conservatives and the Supreme Court? As Canada's highest institution, the Supreme Court makes rulings and sets out principles, things that the Conservatives do not seem to give a damn about, if you will excuse my language.

Could my colleague tell us more about the Conservatives' habit of violating Supreme Court rulings?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

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

As she pointed out, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that InSite provided essential services and that it could stay open under the exemption provided for by section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court held that the charter allowed users to access InSite's services and that similar facilities should also be allowed to operate under an exemption.

Apparently, the government thinks that it is not ruled by the charter, and that its own legal judgment is better than the Supreme Court's. That is mind-boggling. The charter underpins Canada's entire legal system. It is imperative that the government comply with the charter and with these rulings.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would require organizations to submit evidence demonstrating why they feel an injection site is warranted. I wonder if the member could first answer why she opposes the Minister of Health making an informed decision based on scientific evidence and in the public interest.

There is also the issue of consultation. Would the member opposite want a safe injection site that was, for example, to be located next to a schoolyard, a church, or a building where young children were located, or should there be a consultation process established there as well?

I wonder if the member would comment on those issues.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we believe in community consultation. That is why, when there is some kind of new facility going into a community, there would normally be consultation with community leaders, law enforcement, and political leaders. The community would be involved.

What would not make sense is to have an opportunity for a fearmongering campaign to say, as a city councillor did in Toronto yesterday, that a community is full of pedophiles, so our children are going to be in danger. Here, we can imagine a campaign that would say that people who are addicted would be injecting drugs in front of our children when, in fact, the opposite is true.

With a very long drawn-out consultation period and tests and barriers so high, many organizations will probably not have the resources to even fulfill this long drawn-out process. It seems that the intent of the government is to prevent any such facilities from being established. The Conservatives may feel that makes more sense.

I do not doubt the member's sincerity in his question, but I ask him to consider that, if there are not safe sites where people can go when they are addicted to try to get what they need, and hopefully get some help and support, maybe they will be out in the community, truly putting kids at risk. For us, that is a greater risk.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is this evening, back in January, or whenever it was that the government last brought this legislation before the House, I have heard a number of the Conservative members stand in their place and pose questions like “Do members oppose consultation?” and “What's wrong with consulting with others before any form of decision is made?” because that, after all, is incorporated in the legislation.

It is important for us to recognize that Canada has one InSite location, in Vancouver. I can assure all Conservative members that there was, in fact, a great deal of consultation. In the questions and statements they put forward, they try to give the impression that, without this legislation, there would not be any sort of community consultation. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have seen a great deal not only of consultation but of individuals within our community who truly care about what is happening in our communities and who believe that the particular site we are always making reference to has actually given a great deal of value in being able to change the reality in many different ways.

I would ask the government to recognize that, at the end of the day, when we come to the House of Commons, we are trying to improve the conditions of our communities. If done appropriately—and that also includes consultations and working with the different stakeholders—we will make a more significant difference, in a positive way, in the communities we represent.

I represent a wonderful constituency. I am very proud of all regions of my constituency. There are some areas that have different types of challenges and different issues from other areas. In the areas around Main Street and Selkirk Avenue, for example, there is a lot more drug addiction and drug abuse. There is perhaps a higher degree of exploitation. We need to be thinking outside the box on how we might assist our communities, in whatever ways we can help develop and ultimately promote. I am not suggesting there has to be an injection site located there. However, if the argument were made from the different stakeholders, as it was done in Vancouver, then it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge the potential that would ultimately benefit the broader community. I for one want to make a difference.

When the government brought forward this legislation, within an hour or an hour and a half of the legislation first being introduced what did the government do? It issued a very crass and misleading fundraising letter that went out to its supporters, stating that Liberals and New Democrats want addicts to shoot up heroin in the backyards in communities across the country. There is absolutely no merit to that press release. However, I can understand from that release what the real agenda of the Conservative Party is. What we need to see more of from our government is a caring attitude, some compassion, and a real desire to make a difference in the different types of communities we all represent.

The issues that face our communities vary, not only within regions of our country but even within municipalities. I would ask the government to look at what it can be doing to play a more significant role in making a positive difference in those communities.

If we look at Bill C-2, it is about injection sites and the Supreme Court ruling and how the government has responded to the ruling. I was provided some fairly extensive notes in regard to the ruling. As opposed to reading that into the record, suffice to say that the Supreme Court ordered that the minister grant an exemption to InSite under section 56 of the CDSA. However, this would not affect the minister's power to withdraw the exemption should the operation at InSite change such that the exemption would no longer be appropriate.

There is a fairly long, convoluted argument as to why it ended up in our court system and why the government responded as it did.

We have found the government wanting in the area of demonstrating compassion and recognizing a very important community.

What I would like to emphasize is that this did not just occur overnight. The injection site we have today actually came into being through an immense amount of consultation and co-operation with a wide variety of stakeholders and individuals who had a vested interest in advancing what has been a very successful project.

The government, and in particular the minister responsible, has never been out to the safe injection site we are referring to. How does the minister responsible for legislation that is going to have such a profound impact on injection sites, if in fact there are going to be any additional injection sites, not check out the one injection site we have? Unless the minister has visited the site in Vancouver recently, I believe that is an accurate statement. I would ask the government to correct it if it is not accurate.

What is it we are suggesting? When we talk about the important role Ottawa plays in our communities, part of that is the work done with stakeholders. What have we had in regard to this injection site in Vancouver? We have had the municipal government, the provincial government, and the national government all working together to try to bring into existence what was initially a pilot project.

Many different stakeholders that had an interest were brought in, including law enforcement officers, health care professionals, social workers, and other advocacy groups that understood that there was a need to try to make a difference. All came together with the idea, and it was launched.

In the years that followed, InSite received accolades from many of the same stakeholders who helped make it a reality. The evidence is there.

If the government would only spend some time and check out the site and look at the evidence, I believe we would have a government that would see a lot more value in demonstrating more compassion.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the first speaker this evening talked about a site located in Montreal, and the latest speaker talked about a site located in Vancouver. Are there two sites? How many national sites are there?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but it again demonstrates the understanding of the issue within the Conservative caucus. From what I understand, there is one site.

If the Minister of Health had taken the time to go to that one site in Vancouver, I suspect that she would have had her eyes opened to the reality of the many benefits. Members talk about the needles and the things involved in injections. I would just as soon have that sort of thing, or witnessing people injecting heroin, a deadly drug that no one in this chamber support, at the site as opposed to in the back lanes and schoolyards in our communities. These are the types of things that were happening and still are happening throughout communities across our country.

It was at such a high concentration that it was deemed necessary in Vancouver to provide this service to improve the quality of life in the community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

It seems obvious that the government introduced this bill in an underhanded attempt to make it more difficult to open a safe injection site. That is a major problem, because it is standing in the way of local initiatives that may prove to be quite successful, like the one in Vancouver. Among other things, these initiatives can help address a public health issue and even save the lives of those who do drugs like cocaine and heroin. Unfortunately, the government would rather drive thousands of Canadians across the country further underground.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the motivations behind the government's approach.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we do not have a large number. I am not personally aware of any further requests for supervised injection sites.

The reason I take great offence to the bill is that it makes the assumption that no consultation is being done. The government is not basing its decision on facts or information and the many success stories we have had from the one injection site. The political motivation seems to be to raise money for the Conservative party and to give the impression that they can be tough on crime and individuals who fall on the other side of drug abuse.

I like to think of the Liberal Party as one that truly cares, does not mind extending a helping hand, approaches things with an open mind, and makes decisions based on facts and information. We listen to what our officers of the law, our health care workers, our social workers, and others are saying. If we do that, we will make it a better life for many residents.

[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.