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

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague, who once again mentioned some of the positive impacts that supervised injection sites can have. I would like to add some more.

These sites reach out to the most vulnerable groups. They help improve the health of people who use them, and as I mentioned, those who visit such sites regularly are more likely to use other services, such as detox services. These sites also help reduce the incidence of diseases often associated with this kind of drug use.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the exuberant, energetic member for Newton—North Delta.

This issue affects us all, but perhaps more particularly those of us who are lucky enough to be parents. I live in a fairly densely populated urban area, where our children ride around on their bikes and play with their friends in the sandboxes in the park or with neighbours in the lane behind our house. One of our fears as parents is that they might get their hands on drugs or on needles, which could prick them and give them very serious diseases.

As a community and as a government, how can we act to ensure that our streets, lanes and parks are safe for us all and for our children, who are not always very well informed about these kinds of dangers?

A place like InSite in Vancouver is a good example of how we can work together to enhance public safety while improving public health. The two are not mutually exclusive. They go together.

I much prefer to have someone inject drugs in a safe place rather than an unsafe place where there a risk of violence and a risk that objects may be left behind that can potentially harm our children.

One might think the idea of a centre where people can get help in injecting drugs is counterintuitive. Why help someone who injects an illegal drug that endangers his or her health? It is counterintuitive if the question is put that way.

However, sometimes in life, after in-depth studies and scientific tests are conducted, or after the facts are checked, what seems counterintuitive just may work. There are some fairly simple examples of that. A metal boat, for example, is counterintuitive because metal sinks, and yet it works. Another completely counterintuitive notion is that the earth is round, because everyone might initially think it is flat. However, that is not true; it is round.

The most important thing when it comes to public health is that we rely on facts, studies and evidence. That is also true of supervised injection sites, like InSite in Vancouver, which other municipalities would like to set up to combat substance abuse and addiction and enhance public safety.

Over 30 studies published in major scientific journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, describe the benefits of a centre like InSite in Vancouver. Furthermore, other studies show the positive impact of more than 70 supervised injection facilities across Europe and Australia.

Why not look at the positive experiences, such as the fact that these sites really help people, that they reduce the number of needles on the streets, that they decrease violence and that they reduce the number of deaths from drug overdose?

This is an important debate because people’s lives are at stake. In Vancouver, before InSite was set up, there was a 12-fold increase in the number of people who died from a drug overdose between 1987 and 1993. Twelve! Dozens of people died because of their drug addiction. Since InSite opened, the number of people who died from a drug overdose has dropped by 35%. The facts are clear. Injection facilities can save lives.

Unfortunately, in order to satisfy their electoral base, with a purely ideological perspective based on fear and prejudice, the Conservatives are trying to lock these successful experiments up so tightly that no other municipality in Canada will be able to set up this type of proven facility.

We have clearly seen the lengths they will go to to please some of their electorate. Just a few hours after introducing Bill C-2, the Conservative Party launched a campaign called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”, which made people believe that stopping the establishment of a supervised injection facility would improve public safety, while in fact the exact opposite is true.

It is a shame that they are trying to score points in the polls by using an issue that affects public health and people’s lives. Furthermore, the Conservatives’ position in Bill C-2 goes against a 2011 Supreme Court ruling. This is not exactly insignificant. The Supreme Court ordered the minister to consider granting exemptions for supervised injection facilities in order to strike a balance between public health and public safety. In our view, the Conservatives should respect the spirit of this ruling and move in the direction shown by the Supreme Court.

I would like to quote from a few documents. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the minister’s decision to shut down InSite was a violation of its clients’ charter rights, that the decision was arbitrary and that it undermined the purpose of the law, which includes public health and safety.

The Supreme Court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which says that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Supreme Court said the following:

The infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them. The grave consequences that might result from a lapse in the current constitutional exemption for Insite cannot be ignored. These claimants would be cast back into the application process they have tried and failed at, and made to await the Minister’s decision based on a reconsideration of the same facts.

We need to protect those who suffer from addiction and direct them to programs that can help them get off drugs. There are undeniable facts, and I want to mention some of them because it is important to rely on facts, not fear.

In one year, InSite referred 2,171 hard drug users to addiction counselling and other support services. That is more than 2,000 people who were referred through a process to help them escape their situation and their misery.

People who use InSite's services at least once a week are almost twice as likely to enter a detox program as those who visit the centre rarely or not at all. Visiting the centre therefore encourages people to seek the help of health care professionals in resolving their situation.

Just one year after InSite opened in Vancouver, there was also a substantial decline in the quantity of needles and drug-related waste discarded by people injecting drugs on the street.

Why would anyone want to prevent other municipalities in Quebec and Canada from adopting this tool, which has proven itself here in Canada and in Europe and Australia? Why indeed, except in an unfortunate attempt to please a certain Conservative electorate that, in wanting to do the right thing, is preventing us from moving forward?

We are all opposed to the use of hard drugs, but it is important to understand that we must support and help these people, not adopt a solely repressive vision. That vision will not help us improve public health or make our streets and laneways safer.

I would emphasize that the NDP is not the only group that has adopted this view. Most nurses' and physicians' associations support our position: here we have something that has proven itself, something that saves lives and improves public health and safety.

I therefore call on the Conservative Party to take off its blinkers, look at the facts, read the studies and amend Bill C-2 so that we can live in safer communities.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in his speech that, in a form, this is reducing public safety. However, the reality is, that drug is bought on the street from a dealer, then taken to the safe injection site to be injected illegally, and then the person goes back onto the street. I would like to understand his definition of public safety and how he thinks it has reduced anything. It has not done anything.

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

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

My impression, unfortunately, is that he listened to my speech rather distractedly. The essential aim of what I am proposing is to ensure that people do not inject drugs in parks or laneways where children go to play soccer with their neighbours. That is precisely why we need this tool, which the community and the medical profession are calling for. It is a tool that works. To ensure our children's safety and to increase public safety, we need resources such as these, which help the poor people who are struggling with drug addiction.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay—Columbia has addressed this issue on numerous occasion, but the bottom line is that the Conservative Party does not want to be confused by the facts. Conservatives do not want to listen to what the professionals or the many stakeholders have to say about why safe injection sites could prove to be a very valuable asset in terms of fighting crime or assisting abusers. This is something that is a real need and can be substantiated.

All that being said, no matter what sort of factual information is provided to the Conservatives, they say, “It is not good enough. It does not matter. We will have it our way, and our way means no injection sites”.

Would the member comment on how frustrating it can be when Conservatives do not want to listen to scientific facts and put blinders on and feel they have to go this—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

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

Since obtaining its majority mandate, this government has proven to be blind and driven by ideology. Furthermore, it has difficulty dealing with something as basic as reality. When reality is not aligned with its ideology, this government ignores facts, studies and science because it wants to go in a particular direction.

The government should make decisions based on scientific evidence and facts in order to improve society. Unfortunately, that does not happen with the Conservatives. I would like to remind them that The Flintstones is not a documentary.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague for bringing in the very important element of public health. This debate is about protecting public health and the health of the community.

It is quite astounding that we have heard from one Conservative, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, that even if there were support in his local community he would still say no. This is very illuminating. It tells us that the Conservative government does not want to look at the evidence, at public health. In fact, public health is one of the principles that the minister has to consider when she is looking at applications.

If the member's community supported it, would he expect the elected representatives to then agree that a facility should go ahead?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very simple question.

In a democracy, should elected representatives listen to the people? Quite simply, I believe they should. Unfortunately, the government is not listening to the people or the scientists. The government likes to muzzle scientists at every turn.

In my opinion, it is important to quote from the following statement issued by the Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition:

The bill is an irresponsible initiative that ignores both the extensive evidence that such health services are needed and effective, and the human rights of Canadians with addictions....It is unethical, unconstitutional and damaging to both public health and the public purse to block access to supervised consumption services which save lives and prevent the spread of infections.

Will the Conservatives listen one day?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work done by my hon. colleague from Vancouver East. When it comes to this file, working on public health and representing her community, we could have no better role model for the service she provides. Case in point, she spoke on this issue today. Even the question she asked was about looking at what was best for our communities and public health.

The government just wants to start throwing darts and arrows if we take a position that is contrary to what it says. I want to make it perfectly clear that as a mother, a grandmother and a lifelong teacher, I do not support people going out and doing drugs, in whatever form they are.

As a teacher and a counsellor, I have seen first hand the impacts of drug addition on our youth and their families. As a teacher, mother and grandmother, I want our communities to be safe.

However, our communities will not safe if we just turn the other way. To take on the drug issue in our communities, drug addiction, drug abuse, we need comprehensive policies. We need a comprehensive approach that takes science evidence and opinions of the professionals into account when we make policy or legislative decisions.

Ideology is fine, but ideology does not fix things that are broken. Drug abuse is a serious problem in parts of the community I come from. Parents, grandparents, community members are very concerned. I also know it is not an issue that is going to be dealt with by denying oversight and a comprehensive approach.

InSite, specifically, has a proven track record. First, 80% of the people in east Vancouver support the InSite operations. Let me assure members that 80% of the people in east Vancouver do not go to InSite to inject themselves with heroin. However, what they have seen with the operation of this centre over the last number of years is the huge impact it has made on public health and public safety in that area. They have seen people go in, get counselling and rehabilitation. They get put into rehab programs and drug treatment programs. It also takes the needles off our streets, not 100% but at least from those who go into that centre.

Not only do we have evidence that it works in east Vancouver, but safe injection sites operated in over 70 cities in six European countries and Australia in 2004, and there are far more now. A study was done in 2004 that showed that supervised injection sites reached out to vulnerable groups and were accepted by communities; helped improve the health status of users and reduced high-risk behaviour; reduced overdose deaths; and reduced drug use in open spaces.

At the InSite centre in east Vancouver, which I have visited a number of times, long before I became an MP, when I was a teacher and a high school counsellor, there are very strict guidelines in place. The centre opens for a lengthy number of hours and it has absolutely outstanding counselling and support services.

As I look at this whole issue and, I am sure the parents in the House will appreciate this, sometimes when things go wrong and our children do something, we say, “I told you not to do it”. If telling people not to do things that are not good for them would stop them, we would not have some of the issues around drug abuse and drug addiction, but it does not work like that.

Once again, I am led to the same conclusion over and over again that we have a government whose members are ideologues and are not listening to science or evidence. Nor do they pay attention to the professionals who work on this first hand.

There are not too many people in the House who will have spent all night travelling through some of the safe houses around Vancouver or who have spent a couple of evenings in east Vancouver. I did as a counsellor. One thing I learned was that we needed to provide every bit of support we could for the public health and public safety of not only those who used and abused drugs, but also for the communities around them.

The Canadian Nurses Association criticizes the government. Remember the nurses are the first-hand service providers, and this is what they said:

Evidence demonstrates that supervised injection sites and other harm reduction programs bring critical health and social services to vulnerable populations—especially those experiencing poverty, mental illness and homelessness...A government truly committed to public health and safety would work to enhance access to prevention and treatment services—instead of building more barriers.

The Canadian Medical Association also had the following to say, “Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy”. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about harm reduction. Nobody is saying this is the total answer to taking on the issues of drug addiction and drug abuse. The Canadian Medical Association then goes on to say, “Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion”.

We have the Canadian Medical Association, nurses, research and endless sound evidence from the only operating site in Canada right now in east Vancouver, InSite. All of that evidence is there and everybody admits that it is not a simple answer to this whole issue. Yet the government is determined to proceed with legislation that would prevent people from getting the supervised health care they need.

Once again, it shows that the government has some kind of an allergy; it is allergic to facts and evidence-based decision making. I do not know why that is so. I also find it hard to believe, maybe not, that the government would try to use fear to push forward an agenda that would make communities more unsafe. The Conservatives say that this is about public safety and public health, but they are taking us in the wrong direction.

We also have a Supreme Court decision. For a government that is all about law and order and our court systems, once the Supreme Court makes a ruling, the Conservatives do not like that ruling. They do not like science. They do not like evidence. They do not like what the front line evidence providers are saying. What they will do now is try to circumvent a decision made by the Supreme Court. Once again, it is a government that is not willing to listen.

I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the House to address this issue in a comprehensive way and let us not have blinders on and allow ideology to lead to greater public unsafety.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing we can all agree on in the House, is that addiction and drug usage is something we should all be paying attention to as legislators and figure out ways to deal with this major problem. It affects not only the people who are in the situation, but it affects their families and employers. It is an issue of great sensitivity.

My colleague talked about our government not being willing to listen. She also mentioned the Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court ruling stated that the federal health minister could block a safe injection site after considering:

—the impact of such a facility on crime rates, the local conditions indicating a need for such a supervised injection site, the regulatory structure in place to support the facility, the resources available to support its maintenance, and expressions of community support or opposition.

When the member talks about listening and evidence-based decisions, does she not think that, given the Supreme Court ruling in this matter, it is appropriate that we consult with the community on an important issue like this, which is at the heart of what this bill is about?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, whenever my colleague stands, I always enjoy listening to her lead-up to the question, because up to the lead-up there is very little I disagree with, until she asks the question, which I will respond to now.

The Supreme Court ruling did indicate a number of factors that had to be taken into consideration. However, the bill is a deliberate attempt to circumvent that ruling.

I agree that we need a multifaceted approach, but we do not need more and more power in the hands of the ministers.

We have proven evidence that InSite, and operations like that, work. However, where communities are willing, and community safety has to be taken into consideration, we have had MPs from the other side saying that, even if their constituents want this, they would oppose it. Let us hear what they really want.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to what we need. What we really need is a Conservative government with an open mind on the issue.

It is very clear from one of the speakers from the Conservative Party that even if the evidence was there, and we know that it is there, it just did not matter. There are those within the Reform/Conservative government who just do not support the concept of having safe injection sites. What is needed is an open mind in recognition of the issues surrounding addiction and drug use.

Could my colleague add to the importance of approaching things with an open mind and listening to what the stakeholders and professionals are in fact saying? Science does make sense.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the bill, it is contrary to what scientific evidence tells us. It also presumes and tries to impose the government's ideology. It does not look at the scientific and medical support that is required to deal with addiction.

Addictions are very serious. When we deal with heroin addictions, the cost to society is very high. Yet, here we have a way to look at harm reduction and a transition to rehabilitation and treatment centres. We would not be doing the right thing for the Canadian taxpayers if we were to turn our backs on this kind of an option.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say from the start that there is no argument. We are unequivocally opposed to Bill C-2 as there is no reason for the bill. What the bill seeks to do is deny a high-risk group of patients access to proven life-saving health care services. That is what it will do. That alone is unconscionable.

We are looking at a bill that is trying to refute all of the evidence that has been gathered with regard to safe consumption sites, which is what InSite in Vancouver is. It is the only one in Canada.

However, I would like the House to know that there are 90 safe consumption sites around the world, in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark and Australia. Switzerland introduced safe injection sites in 1986 as a public health harm reduction model. Since 1986, the evidence has been mounting and clearly shows that safe injection sites achieve exactly what they are meant to achieve. They reduce patient harm and decrease the number of patient deaths. They decrease the number of new cases of diseases such as HIV-AIDS, hepatitis C, as well as many other diseases transmitted through needles. Therefore, health and the reduction of morbidity were two things.

Switzerland, since 1986, and the other countries in Europe that have done this also show a reduction in public harm. There is order as well as less criminal activity. For example, the number of break-ins to get money to buy drugs was reduced. This has been proven since 1986. It is not something that someone just dragged up last year and decided this was what they wanted to do because they thought it was a good idea. This has been proven. It is because of that kind of evidence, in 90 sites around the world, that we in British Columbia decided to have a clinical trial. We did not just look at it and say we would do it. It was done by way of a clinical trial.

I want members to know that I was there when this began. I want to give credit to Philip Owen, the mayor of Vancouver, who was sick and tired of what was happening in his city with the number of deaths and the increase in break-ins, petty crimes and muggings that went on just to feed a habit. He decided to go to Europe to see what was going on there. We used to have something called a city caucus at the time wherein government and non-government members of Parliament, the provincial legislature and city councils came together to discuss problems that were common to the city of Vancouver. When this topic came up he said, “We have to work together”.

I was designated the minister responsible for the Downtown Eastside at the time by Mr. Chrétien. We had the NDP minister for communities who was designated to be in charge of that file, and we had the mayor. Together, the three levels of government did extensive public consultation with community groups, the police, the RCMP and businesses in that area in order to form the Vancouver agreement in 2000. One part of the Vancouver agreement dealt with this particular public nuisance at the time, in terms of crime and public health problems.

We are not talking about criminal activity alone. Rather, we are talking about addiction. An addiction is a chronic and relapsing health condition best served and treated by evidence-based public health care. That is what this is all about. Since 1986, 90 safe injection sites in many countries around the world had given us the evidence that prompted us to suggest in the 2000 Vancouver agreement that this is what would happen.

I came back to the federal government and brought this forward. There was a great deal of agreement around the table. The evidence was compelling. Then there was an election. When we came back in 2003, the federal government, through section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, agreed to a pilot project run by the University of British Columbia and clinicians in the area, who were experts from the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

As I said, evidence was at the heart of what we were doing. We did not want to translate things from Australia and Europe into Canada. We did not know if that was going to work, so we said “let us do our own pilot project”. It was funded and put together, and the pilot project proved without a doubt that InSite not only saved lives, but reduced mortality and reduced the spread of HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C. InSite also increased people's desire and ability to get help. They were a very high-risk group of users, people who never went to doctors and did not want to go to nurses or any kind of institution. It was found that these people sought detox. It was found that they wanted to be helped.

We replicated everything that was shown in Europe and Australia. In other words, we found that it worked in British Columbia, without a doubt. It is not only that. It is not just the British Columbia study that we are talking about. What happened was that peer scientific groups around the world checked the evidence from InSite. They looked at it, they analyzed it and they all agreed that it was authentic.

I just want to give the House a little background about the reality of this problem. In 1988, there were 39 deaths due to overdose from intravenous drug use in Canada. In 1993, there were 357. I know that some people may decide that those 357 deaths were okay because they happened to be drug users, people who were the most vulnerable because they lived on the streets, or because they committed petty crime. That must have been okay in some people's minds. It was not okay in the minds of the federal government of the day, the provincial government of the day in British Columbia, the municipal government of the day in British Columbia or the Vancouver Police.

It is interesting to note that of those overdose deaths, 50% of them occurred in Vancouver. British Columbia actually only carried about 14% of the population, yet 50% of those deaths were in British Columbia, most notably in Vancouver. In 1997, as a result of the escalating death rate and escalating disease, the chief public health officer of Vancouver, John Blatherwick, decided to call a public health emergency in the city of Vancouver.

I just wanted to talk about HIV for a second. I wanted to paint a picture of what was then and why people felt it was essential to move forward on this issue. In 1989, there were 120 new cases out of 100,000 in Canada. After InSite, in Vancouver alone, this had dropped to 31. In the rest of Canada, the number of new cases remained the same.

That is evidence, folks. We do not have to be a scientist to figure out that this is evidence, when we look at the number of deaths that were brought down and when we look at the number of diseases such as HIV-AIDS that were actually prevented in this area.

I am talking about what we saw and what happened as a result of InSite. InSite was so successful that within a year a half, the people who were running InSite formed a facility above it, called OnSite, where 25 beds were there for immediate detox. If anyone here knows about addictions, they know that when someone wants to quit or they feel moved to quit, if they do not get in somewhere then and there, they go right back to drugs in two days' time. This is the truth about people who are addicted. OnSite was there so we could say “right on, up you go”. That is what has been shown with this.

If anyone in the House can stand up and say that this is not an important piece of evidence in terms of deaths, morbidity and the spread of HIV-AIDS, and if anyone thinks it is funny and hilarious that people should die and that no one should care, and that this was not an absolutely essential thing to do, given that the chief public health officer felt that it was an emergency, then that person is callous. I am hearing laughter on the opposite side of the House. I do not think that this is funny at all. I had many patients who were addicts. Their lives were ruined. I have seen those people begin to have hope and begin to live new lives again.

This is evidence. This is what a government is supposed to do: care about all of its citizens, not just the ones it likes.

This is not something I stand to say because I happen to have been the minister for the Downtown Eastside and the minister for the Vancouver agreement. What I am saying is that across the country we know that many municipalities want to have safe injection sites because they have the problem. They have seen the evidence. The evidence was agreed upon by international peers. Scientific communities around the world agreed upon this. This is going on. There are 90 safe injection sites around the world.

I am repeating this because this is not some little pitch that the government is trying to stop. It is denying people the right to life. All of those 395 people who died of a drug overdose in that year. I think most of us believe that their lives were worth saving and the lives of subsequent people are worth saving. When the number of drug overdose deaths went down so dramatically after InSite, this is something that the government should be considering.

The government fought InSite on moral grounds, on ideological grounds, but certainly not on evidence because it did not have a leg to stand on if it looked at the evidence. The evidence was compelling, but the government did not look at it. It had an idea that this was morally wrong, all these people were shooting up heroin and we were letting them shoot up, and all this kind of judgmental attitude toward citizens of Canada who are vulnerable. They are vulnerable. They are in need of help by the government. They are in need of a good, solid public health response to addiction.

I want to say this is our public health, yet the bill brought in by the Minister of Health is going to be sent to the public safety committee, not the health committee. We see that the whole issue of public safety was served, not only here but in the 90 safe injection sites in countries of the world. This showed the most important thing, which was that law order and order prevailed. The number of petty crimes went down. The number of people shooting up in the streets went down. The number of people who were begging and being a public nuisance went down. Law and order was served. This is an important piece, as well, if all the government thinks about is law and order and not about people and not about compassion and not about public health.

The government spent millions of dollars taking this case through the courts. When the British Columbia courts agreed that this should happen, that this is evidence-based and the evidence is compelling, and when the Supreme Court of British Columbia agreed that the evidence was compelling, the government took it straight to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada said the evidence that it listened to was compelling and said that while the federal government had it in its power to deny access, in fact, it was something that it should not do because ethically this would deny section 7 of the charter, which is the right to life, liberty and security of the person. If a person going to die and something would help him or her, that is security of the person. That is life. This is a government that likes to talk about caring about life, but it does not care about certain lives. Some lives are not worth it, as far as the government is concerned.

Now, the government is building a case beyond what the Supreme Court asked. The Supreme Court said, yes, we should consult. This is not consultation; this is legislation. Consultation is to go around and talk. When we started InSite in Vancouver, the city, the province, the federal government, the police and the communities all agreed to do so. Sixty-five per cent of people, at the time, supported InSite in Vancouver because they saw the harm that was being done.

Finally, before I finish, my colleague in the NDP brought forward a motion that the bill be not brought to second reading. I want to say that I support that motion because the bill is not in the best interests of public health and it is not in the best interests of the most vulnerable Canadians.