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

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for applauding my riding and, I am sure, applauding the people in my riding. I certainly hope it was not for me. There are 90,000-plus electors in my riding who all deserve to be applauded, in part because they have to deal with this misguided government.

I would like to speak to this particular bill because it is a great example of how, when we add politics into the mix on something as fundamental as this issue, we get it wrong.

I would like to start my comments by saying something that is perhaps more philosophical than it is political. The bill is fundamentally about compassion. This is what it brings up. If there are people in this room who think one can get rid of addiction, let us talk about the 40,000 years of human history that prove them wrong. The reality is that the substances that exist today that cause addiction are not natural. They are not something that one can plant, that one can eat from the garden, or that can be cultivated. Even those things that are cultivated and can be created into a substance of addiction have been genetically modified. When we talk about heroin and these incredibly destructive drugs, we are talking about things that have been manipulated unnaturally.

No human being chooses on a whim to wake up one day and say, “I'm going to become an addict; I'm going to become a dropout; I'm going to become dependent; I'm going to lose who I am.” No young child wakes up in the morning thinking that the future is going to be like that. I am a parent, and I can only imagine having a child in that situation.

Let us start with the things that matter. The fundamental reality about humanity is that the thing that is the most difficult for us is human relationships. We can all figure out how to eat. We can all figure out how to have a house and how to warm ourselves. These things we can figure out. The hardest thing is to figure out how to have good human relationships. There is no one in this room who can tell me that the relationships that addicts have had in the past have not contributed to their situation, that none of this has to do with mental illness, that none of this has to do with abuse, that none of this has to do with hardship and suffering.

When we suffer, the answer is not suffering, it is not discipline, and it is not the heavy hand of government. The solution is love. The solution is compassion, not less of it, but more of it. That is what should motivate the creation of our legislation on something so fundamental as addiction.

The solution is not to make sick people sicker. The solution is to provide a comfortable, secure environment for them to deal with their problem. Addiction is like any other disease. It is not to be marginalized. It is not to be demonized. It is to be understood and dealt with rationally, using the correct solutions to the problem.

Sometimes I wonder if maybe as legislators we should all remind ourselves that we were once in love. When we are in love, and I am sure most of my colleagues have been, and not just puppy love but deeply in love, our entire view of the world changes, but we begin to forget it. We take things for granted. However, if we remind ourselves of those days, we realize that we view the world in a completely different way, in a better way, and we make the right decisions. I know I am getting psychological and maybe a bit idealistic. The point is that I believe that there are solutions to problems between people. I believe that if we use the history of humanity, all those incredible words written on honesty, compassion, and love, we can bring people back together, we can solve their problems, and we can heal any situation.

Let us get into the public security issue to get a bit more concrete. The reality is that injection sites are safe. That is the reality. They are not only safe for addicts, they are safe for the populations around them. They make neighbourhoods safer and cleaner and there is less crime in those neighbourhoods. Statistically, that is true. We know it. Unfortunately, the Conservatives ignore it. That does not surprise me, because they have put duct tape on the proverbial mouths of our scientists. They have refused to take evidence-based approaches to making legislation. We can only think about the recent legislation and the complete disregard for Supreme Court rulings, and that is the case for this bill as well.

However, the worst thing about this bill is the electoral aspect of it. It is completely irresponsible to demonize one sector of the population to fill the coffers of a political party, and that is what is going on with this bill. Fear is fear. Every human being has fear. What makes the sum of someone is how he or she responds to that fear. In my opinion, what makes the quality of a political party like ours is not to be governed by fear but to be governed by hope. The fear in this bad piece of legislation is fear of the addict. Instead of holding out their hand in help, instead of understanding the situation, they demonize them. By demonizing them, they think they are going to make electoral allies, people who will give them donations.

It is true. A lot of my fellow citizens do not want a safe injection site in their neighbourhoods. They are wrong. They do not understand the details and the statistics with regard to how injection sites make their neighbourhoods safer and how they reduce cases of AIDS and cases of communicable diseases. The responsibility of elected officials is to explain. It is pedagogy. It is not fear.

I have faith in the Canadian people and in their compassion. I know very well that there are people in my riding who, once it was explained to them how an injection site could improve the lives of their fellow Canadians, would say, “Okay, that is all right.”

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

Mr. Speaker, as far as the technical aspects of how this all came about, it was because of the opinion of the Supreme Court that this infringes on section 7 of the charter, which is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of one's personal security. In all of that there lies the deprivation of rights. People are deprived in the sense that they want to pursue and receive treatment in a safe way from this program that was set up in 2003 through the exemption in the act.

What possible defence will Conservatives have if and when this receives another charter challenge and they go back to court and do this again, because in this particular case, as my hon. colleague can comment on, there does not seem to be a proper defence other than the one defence, which is “not in my backyard”?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

That is an excellent question, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my Liberal colleague for it. It is true that the government has consistently defied Supreme Court rulings. Thank God there are judges who think independently of the government and come up with rulings that actually make sense and are evidence based.

The reality is that we can legislate electorally as much as we want, but the rubber hits the road when dealing with judges. They can look at the facts and tell what has a positive impact. Canadians have a tremendous amount of trust in judges. The Supreme Court certainly has more legitimacy than the government, and for good reason.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly appreciated my colleague's speech. It was very enlightening, and it will serve as inspiration for my own speech, which will be taking shape shortly.

During his speech, he mentioned that the Conservatives put forward a measure in order to replenish their coffers, implying that there was some sort of financial transaction.

Would my colleague like to expand on that so that I can draw from it later?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have done the exact same thing with a number of different issues, including crime and victim protection.

They identify a group of people and then stir up fear within another group of people as a reason for giving money to the Conservative Party. They do it all the time.

Unfortunately, they are choosing to marginalize groups; it sometimes frightens me that they do it with minority groups. For example, when they talk about immigration, it is all about those wicked immigrants. This plays on emotions that are unacceptable in a modern civilization such as ours, where all Canadians are equal and all Canadians deserve respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the comments the member for Cambridge has been making during this debate.

We should not live in glass houses. The member for Cambridge should know that the Waterloo region has the highest level of alcohol abuse in Ontario, and he should have some compassion for people in his riding who are having problems with substance abuse.

There was a task force of 26 individuals that included police, street workers, social workers, and government. It came up with a set of 99 recommendations to deal with this problem. Recommendation number 45 deals with the stigma and discrimination associated with substance use and the importance of people realizing that addiction is a health issue, not a moral issue, and can be addressed with treatment. That was from the task force in the member for Cambridge's own area. He should listen to his own constituents. Does my hon. colleague not agree with me?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally agree with those comments. I would also like to add that on this side of the House, our glass is pretty thick. Good luck breaking this glass house.

I am in the Pontiac. Do members think the Pontiac has a high rate of addiction problems? No. Yet I am standing here speaking about this issue, which is fundamentally important.

One would think that those members from ridings where addiction is a fundamental issue, particularly urban ridings, but not only urban ridings, because there is also addiction in rural ridings, and members who care about, for example, veterans, because many veterans, unfortunately, are dealing with addiction problems, should be standing in this House and speaking to the bill to ensure that we do the right thing.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House to speak on this important bill, Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I will begin by commenting on the sad state of affairs of our democracy. I was here last night, when I spoke to a similarly empty House, following numerous speakers from the NDP on legislation that has everything to do with the well-being of Canadians, the best use of our tax dollars, and the creation of the best possible public policy. At one speaking opportunity after another, it was members of the NDP who stood up and represented Canadians on these critical issues. Once again, here we are tonight.

We heard the rhetoric from the government that it cares deeply about the legislation it is putting forward. We heard the rhetoric that it cares about public safety, Canadians, and all sorts of things, yet when there is the opportunity for the Conservatives to defend their own legislation, we hear nothing but silence. There may be some heckling from time to time and maybe the odd question, but at every single opportunity they have to speak up and defend their legislation, as we have seen today and yesterday, they have chosen to sit down.

I think this is problematic for any Canadian, and certainly for those tuned in to CPAC. They will see the New Democrats working hard and representing their constituents and Canadians, but they will wonder what the government members are doing at this time.

On an issue like this one, I think it matters even more that the Conservatives are saying nothing. The bill we are discussing here today has everything to do with the most vulnerable people in our country. These are people who have fallen through the cracks of society, who are ill and struggling with addiction. Many of these people live in abject poverty and are homeless. Some live with the trauma of abuse. Certainly in my part of the country, many are still suffering from the impact of residential schools and the horrific sexual and physical abuse they experienced, which has led them to a life of addiction, self-harm, and struggle.

When these people, their families, or their communities tune in to find out what their parliamentarians are doing to try to help them or to help people who so often want to help themselves, all they hear is silence on one more piece of indefensible legislation that is not founded on evidence, on science, or on public health policy that makes sense. It has everything to do with a narrow, ignorant, ideological agenda.

This is not the first time we have seen a bill that has everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with evidence come to this House. Sadly, we see it every day, but I am deeply disturbed when it comes to this legislation. As my colleague alluded to, this piece of legislation is being used to divide Canadians. These people who need help, people whose lives we cannot play with, are being taken advantage of so that the government can score political points. It is unconscionable.

In my own political experience, sadly, I have numerous examples to point to as to how the Conservative government uses this kind of agenda in constituencies like mine.

One example is the way in which the government tries to score points at the expense of trans people and tries to foil the efforts of so many Canadians—including, I am very proud to say, our NDP—who are fighting for trans rights.

Why am I saying this? It is because I remember the calls we started getting in our campaign office a couple of days before the last election. People were concerned and distraught and upset that they were getting voice blasts telling them that their NDP candidate—me, in this case—was supportive of grown men going into girls' washrooms. One of the people who called us was the father of an eight-year-old girl who answered the phone and heard this message.

This message did not talk about what kind of policy this was about, or about parliamentary debate or legislation. It went to the lowest common denominator of electoral politics, something that the Conservative government has learned from its Republican cousins in the States. It knew exactly what it wanted to do. It wanted to drive a wedge into families, into communities, into where I come from, by saying basically that I was in support of human rights, including trans rights, and by saying how horrifying this was. The Conservatives did this by hiding the facts, by using cryptic language, and then by not fessing up until the last moment that it was actually connected to a very concerted Conservative campaign.

This is yet one more example of an ideological agenda being put forward by the government to score political points.

Another example is how the government targets first nations people. Instead of coming to the table and working in partnership with first nations people, whether it is on education, on health care, on ensuring that treaty rights are being implemented, or on economic development, sadly, the government has been too quick to put first nations down and to actually put obstacles in their way when they are trying to make a difference.

I remember that in one of the communities in my constituency, again leading into the previous election, an urban centre received mail-outs referring to the lack of accountability among first nations leaders. The mail-outs included rhetoric around corruption and associated corruption to first nations leaders and chiefs.

It is pretty rich when we hear that from a government that we know has done everything to suit its own friends, whether in the Senate or through various nefarious appointments or through various commitments it has made. We know that what was very much part of that agenda was the way in which it sought to divide Canadians, in this case non-aboriginal people versus aboriginal people, and build a kind of animosity toward people who are often on the margins of our society.

Bill C-2 is no exception. It falls exactly into that same pattern, and in this case, as I said, it plays with the lives of some of the most vulnerable people and communities across our country. It plays with the lives of people in our own families. In some cases it would be people who have gone through this House who have been touched by addiction, people who know what it means and how important help is.

The government has not listened to health care professionals or read the over 30 peer-reviewed studies that have been published in journals. It does not recognize the facts, such as the fact that the rate of overdose deaths in east Vancouver has dropped by 35% since InSite opened or the fact that the reduction of HIV and AIDS rates has been significant as a result of InSite in Vancouver. Instead of looking at these facts and applying evidence and the principle of care, the Conservative government is seeking to score political points.

We have heard from my colleagues about how this bill contravenes the Supreme Court decision and how it could certainly be challenged. We have heard about how the government does not have a leg to stand on with this legislation.

I want to finish by saying how proud I am to be part of the NDP. The NDP stands with Canadians who want to see us make a difference in our communities, who want to see care for the most vulnerable in our communities, who want to see a government take leadership. Canadians deserve far better than a government that is merely playing with the lives of people who need help and doing it all merely to score political points.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for people listening to this debate tonight to remember what we are debating. The bill is called the respect for communities act. Many of the comments that have been made by opposition colleagues have not focused on what the bill intends to do.

The bill asks for the community in which a proposed site is being considered to have a say in that decision. One of the criteria in the bill is that the groups seeking to develop a centre like this have to provide scientific evidence that it is warranted.

My bigger concern is why my colleagues would not agree that the community itself—the law enforcement people, the community groups, the school groups in that community—should not have a say in whether or not one of these facilities is parked in their backyard. Is that not a reasonable assumption, or does the member think that Ottawa knows best and that Ottawa should decide where these sites should be, regardless of what the community would prefer?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member across has a lot to contribute, and I welcome him to take a whole speaking spot to explain to Canadians what he thinks the bill is about. I am sad to say that window dressing of that kind is not what the bill is about.

We know from the rhetoric we have heard from the government that the bill has everything to do with preventing the opening of InSite harm reduction centres and denying opportunities to Canadians who need help to combat their addiction from getting that help.

Canadians can see through this and are increasingly seeing through the government's agenda. They will continue to see through it, as they will on Bill C-2.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was moved by the eloquent words of the MP for Churchill. She is right in everything she said. The only thing I would like to add and ask her to comment on, if she chooses to, is that the Conservatives not only have no empathy for poor addicted people and are not only not solving the problem, but in large part they have also expanded the problem and have helped to cause it.

Under the current government, gaps in income are growing. Under the current government, poverty is growing. Child poverty is growing. As a result, we have poor parenting, which often leads to addictive behaviours. It is sad and it is shameful.

I wonder if the eloquent member for Churchill would like to comment.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many parallels across northern Canada when it comes to the cycle of addiction that people face and the lack of services and places to go where they can get help.

There is talk about a poverty agenda, but the government is increasing poverty and further marginalizing communities that need help. If the government really wanted to make a difference in helping Canadians, where are the investments that need to take place in housing? Where are the investments that need to take place in child care or in training or in education? We do not see those kinds of investments. All we hear is the kind of thing we are listening to here tonight, fabricated stories about how the government is somehow going to stop heroin from coming into our backyards.

It surprises me how little the government members think that Canadians care. Canadians do care, and they can see beyond this thinly veiled attempt to score political points. I look forward to talking to more and more Canadians in my communities about the government's agenda.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill C-2. It is an example of a trend in the government. I will explain myself throughout my speech.

I am concerned about the way in which we go about making laws in this country. This legislation is an example of the Conservative government's leadership when it comes to drafting legislation and bringing it to the House. How the government acts in public really flies in the face of the Canada that I grew up in and the Canada I am proud to be a part of. Now when I stand in the House I feel very sad for our legislative process.

To begin, I want to talk a bit about what the bill is really about. It is not really about respecting communities, again a trend in some of the bills that we see, for example, safe communities and so on. This legislation is not at all about communities. It is about marginalizing those who are already marginalized. It is about putting further violence in the lives of those who already live with so much violence. It is about putting in danger those who are already in danger.

Essentially, this entire legislation is about InSite. For those who may not be familiar with InSite, it is a place in the Vancouver area where those who are addicted to drugs can go for safe injection. We all understand what addiction is, at least those of us on this side of the House, and that there are ways to make it safer for individuals to break a habit so they can escape the cycle of drug abuse. If they cannot break the cycle, and that can be the case for some, at least they would not be put in a more vulnerable position.

Following an increase in the number of overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993, Vancouver Coastal Health and community partners set up InSite. Since then there has been a huge decrease in diseases such as Hep A, B, C, and HIV/AIDS.

InSite was originally exempt under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In 2008, the exemption under Section 56 in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act expired. That has caused us to be in the situation we are in now. The minister of health at that time denied its renewal and that resulted in subsequent court cases. It was brought up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite, to not renew the exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, was a violation of the charter rights of those who were part of the program. The minister's decision was “...arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which include public health and safety”.

That is an overview of why we are here. We are here now because the Conservatives are not in agreement ideologically with the Supreme Court's ruling. This legislation would impose extremely stringent conditions on places like InSite and would really dissuade any other communities that have the need for such programs from participating in them.

In a sense this legislation is only about InSite. In a sense the bill exemplifies a trend in the Conservative government.

The Conservatives have such profound disrespect for any Supreme Court ruling that comes forward and that goes against their ideology. They have a complete disrespect for the judicial branch in this country and the fact that when a decision is made by the Supreme Court, if they do not like it, then too bad. They are not the defenders of rights and freedoms in this country, the courts are. That is why we have a separate judicial process. Unfortunately, the Conservatives keep finding ways of going around any of those decisions that are made by bringing forward legislation that flies in the face of it, sort of goes around it so that it fits their ideology.

For instance, the court in this case based its decision on section 7 of the charter, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of a person and the right not be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

This is extremely common. We are seeing the Conservatives disagree with fundamentally, ideologically, in Supreme Court rulings things that have to do with people's security, people's health, people's right to life. That is what is so scary about this trend. The Supreme Court did rule that InSite and other supervised injection sites must be granted a section 56 exemption when they decrease the risk of death and disease and there is little or no evidence that they have a negative impact on the community. InSite does not have a negative impact on the community, quite the opposite, it has a very positive impact on the community. The Conservatives now have to go through this bill to try to create stringent conditions for InSite.

This is blatant disrespect and disregard for the InSite ruling. it completely flies in the face of it. This is in the context of a government that has challenged the Supreme Court over and over again through these backward ways of bringing in legislation to the House that flies in the face of a ruling.

For instance, we are thinking of a very close case in my opinion, the same type of situation. Bill C-36 was recently put down. It really flies in the face of the Bedford decision, which was very clear that given the dangerous conditions of sex work, those who are engaged in it need to be able to take the steps to protect themselves. Now we have a bill that is so disempowering. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives would be put at risk due to this legislation.

We also have Bill C-24, which is the immigration bill that creates dual citizenship. Dual citizens are treated as second-class citizens who potentially would be deported and put in danger in countries they may never have even known.

This is also in the context of several crime bills that have been returned due to their unconstitutionality. We see over and over that the Conservatives are marginalizing at-risk Canadians and further marginalizing already marginalized groups.

The many justice bills of the Conservatives, as I mentioned, follow the same model. They ostracize, isolate, and divide people. Instead of trying to address the root issue, the Conservatives tackle symptoms without even looking for the source of the problem. They throw people in jail without helping them reintegrate into society, and that does not solve the problem.

Let us not forget the unelected and unaccountable Senate blocking my colleague's bill on gender identity, creating rights for trans Canadians who are so marginalized and are put in situations of violence. I do not think I have time to get into the difference between an unelected, unaccountable Senate going against the elected thoughts of the House, and the judicial process, which is to protect the rights of Canadians despite the democratic processes that happen in this House.

The Senate works against that process, but over and over, the government is choosing ideology over facts. In these cases, every time the government is going to outrageous lengths, really, to subvert the courts, and these bills. I am not exaggerating, I know am out of time but I really want to get this out. These bills are putting people in danger--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Before we go to questions and comments, I see the hon. government House leader may be rising on a point of order.

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.