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

[Kellie Leitch]

moved that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Eve Adams, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to our government's respect for communities act, which would help to ensure the health and safety of our communities.

Our government has always maintained the principle that Canadians deserve a voice in how their country and their communities are developed and protected. The legislation before us today proposes to entrench this belief into law regarding supervised injection sites and is guided by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2011.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provides the legal framework for the control of substances that include dangerous and addictive drugs. Because of the potentially harmful nature of these substances on the health and safety of our communities, there need to be guidelines around their use. The respect for communities act helps to strengthen that framework and entrenches elements of the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling into law.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act prohibits the possession, import, export, production, and distribution of controlled substances. However, there are certain situations when there may be a legitimate activity that involves the use of a controlled substance. These include activities by researchers, law enforcement agencies, and health professionals. The act has the capacity to allow for these activities under section 56.

In its ruling, the court affirmed that it remains the Minister of Health's authority to exercise discretion in granting section 56 exemptions and noted that its decision was not an invitation, for anyone who chooses, to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a safe injection facility. This ruling was unique in that it touched upon illicit substances and their application with regard to supervised injection sites. No such provision exists in the current wording of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Given what we know about the serious risks associated with the possession, use, and production of illicit substances, exemptions to undertake activities with them should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and only once rigorous criteria have been addressed by the applicant seeking to conduct such activities.

The court included five factors in its 2011 ruling that it indicated the minister must consider when assessing an application to undertake activities at a supervised injection site. These factors include evidence, if any, on the following: the impact of such a site on crime rates; local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support the site; resources available to support its maintenance; and expressions of community support or opposition, which is quite critical indeed.

The bill being debated here today would codify these factors into law and provide a mechanism for the minister to receive the information needed to properly assess any such applications. The proposed approach would add a new section to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that would deal specifically with exemptions for activities involving the use of illicit substances. This section would also establish the rigorous criteria an applicant would have to address before the minister would consider an exemption for activities involving illicit substances at a supervised consumption site.

I would like to use the remainder of my remarks to explain some of the information applicants would have to provide when applying for an exemption under this new regime for activities involving illicit substances at a supervised consumption site.

In order to have an application for an exemption considered by the Minister of Health, an applicant would have to address all of the criteria included in the bill before us today in the application. This would give the minister the information needed to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling on the decision-making process. This information would obviously have to be provided before an application to undertake activities at a supervised injection site could be considered.

First, the applicant would be required to provide evidence that there was a need for a supervised consumption site.

This evidence could include such information as the number of persons who consume illicit substances in the vicinity of the site and in the municipality in which the site would be located; relevant information, including trends, if any, on the number of persons with infectious diseases that may be related to the consumption of illicit substances; and finally, relevant information, including trends, if any, on the number of deaths, if any, due to overdoses in relation to activities that take place at the site.

The applicant would also need to provide a description of the potential impacts of the proposed activities at the site on public safety. Information about crime, public nuisance, public consumption of illicit substances, or the presence of inappropriately discarded drug-related litter, such as used needles, would need to be provided, along with any law enforcement research or statistics on public safety.

There would also be a requirement to provide information on how the applicant would mitigate the risk of illicit substances being diverted from the proposed site. The applicant would have to describe the measures to be taken to minimize the possible diversion of controlled substances or their precursors as well as the risk to the health, safety, and security of all persons at the site. This could include criminal record checks for key staff members and careful record-keeping on the disposal, loss, theft, and transfer of controlled substances and precursors.

The applicant would also have to provide a letter from the head of the local police force for the area where the proposed site would be located. This letter would describe his or her opinion on the proposed activities and any concerns related to public safety and security. The applicant would also be required to indicate any proposed measures to address concerns identified by the head of the local police force.

The applicant would have to provide a letter from the provincial minister responsible for health describing his or her opinion on the proposed activities and how the activities would be integrated into the health care system. The letter should also identify any available treatment services for individuals who would use the site.

The applicant would also have to provide a letter from the local government of the municipality where the site would be located describing his or her opinion on the proposed activities at the site. This would include any concerns, again, about risks to public health or safety. If any relevant concerns were noted in the letter, the applicant would have to provide a description of the measures that had been or would be taken to address them.

The applicant would also have to include a report on the consultations held with relevant community groups in the municipality where the site would be located. This report would provide a summary of the opinions of the community groups about the proposed activities, copies of all of the written submissions received, and a description of the steps that would be taken to address any relevant concerns that were raised.

Once all of the information was submitted, including, if necessary, the explanation of why there was a lack of information or evidence for certain criteria, the Minister of Health would be able to consider the application. The minister could also ask the applicant to provide additional relevant information, as required, to help in the decision-making process.

These application requirements for supervised consumption sites are in line with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and would enable the Minister of Health to make informed decisions on supervised injection sites. Combined, they form the heart of the respect for communities act. They would ensure that Canadian communities are given a voice when any such application is made.

Given the importance of understanding the potential impacts supervised consumption sites may have on the communities in which they exist, the proposed legislation would also provide an opportunity for the Minister of Health to call for public input during a 90-day comment period. It is crucial that members of the community, those individuals who will live and work in the same vicinity as the proposed supervised consumption site, have the opportunity to provide feedback. These are the individuals who would be most impacted by this type of local decision, whether it is the mother pushing a stroller down the street toward the park as an individual who has taken drugs comes out from the supervised consumption site, or whether it is the senior citizen walking the dog down that very same street. Surely these individuals ought to have an opportunity to express their comments.

In assessing an application for an exemption for activities involving illicit substances at a supervised consumption site, the Minister of Health must exercise discretion by balancing both public health and safety. The approach outlined in the respect for communities act would strengthen our laws and give our government the tools we need to follow through on the ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada. I urge all of my hon. colleagues to support the bill and to work toward its speedy passage.

In the remaining time allotted, if I might digress, I would like to speak a bit to some of my experience as a former municipal councillor. There is a similar consultation process undertaken by communities when any development application is brought forward. As an example, for the sake of this debate, let me cite an elegant four-storey, live-work development being brought in. The proposed tenants are a creative florist and a creative architect who propose to have their shops down on the main floor, and these proprietors would live upstairs.

Before this type of development could take place in my community, the applicant would need to submit a number of items that the municipality would consider. These items would then be circulated to all sorts of bodies within our community, including utilities, Bell, Rogers, and our local airport authority. Schools would be consulted, both on traffic patterns and the availability of school space in the area. All of this information from these external groups would then be gathered and assessed by professional planning staff in our municipal department. They would then make a recommendation to elected councillors and the mayor. All of that information would be available during a public, open, evening meeting. However, long before that public, open meeting ever took place, I would have a local community meeting. I would never drive my constituents down to city hall. I would go to a local school gymnasium or a local church basement and present the application to them.

The applicant would be required to have a number of consultant studies done before this application was even circulated in the community. For example, we could require a shadow impact study. The applicant would have to go out and hire a technical consultant and engineering firm that would then model the shadowing impacts on neighbouring residences' backyards and front yards. They would model for us so that the community could see the shadow impact throughout the day. It would show the impact it would have on the neighbouring homes as the sun rose and set. We would then require them to model what it would look like throughout the course of the year, as the days were shorter or longer, and the impact it would have on residents in the community.

This is a very fair thing to require. I think there is a general consensus nationwide, and certainly in Ontario, that individuals who have already chosen to make their homes in a community ought to be consulted before something new comes into their community. These are the individuals who have helped to build the fabric of that community. They are the ones who define the character of the community. These are the moms and dads and children who come out and volunteer and clean up our green spaces. They are the ones who have fund-raised to build the local arena. They are the individuals who have perhaps lived in the same neighbourhood in the same community for generations. They are the ones who have offered their sweat, their toil, and their vision to build the neighbourhood they would like to live in. When they pop their heads out the front door and look down their sidewalk, the impact of what that streetscape looks like, what the walk to their school looks like, and what the walk to their local grocery store looks like will impact them each and every day.

Therefore, if we have these types of requirements before we allow what by anyone's estimation might be a lovely four-storey development to come into a community, surely it is only reasonable that we would seek the input of local police enforcement officers and local community members before we would allow an illicit drug consumption site to be erected in a community.

Let us remember what this site is actually doing. Individuals are not taking prescribed medications within these sites. They are going out and illegally purchasing illicit drugs. No one knows the contents of those drugs. The addict does not know the contents of those drugs. When the addict walks in with those drugs and is then injected under supervision, even those offering the supervision do not truly know the content of those drugs. That individual then leaves the premises hopped up to do as he or she would. This addict may hang out on the sidewalk or wander down to the local park or the front of the grocery store as our mothers may be trying to walk down that very same street. Surely our mothers ought to be consulted about the impact this will have on their local community.

We also have a number of schools in each and every community. The schoolchildren and their moms and dads ought to be consulted before one of these types of facilities is erected in their community.

We do a lot of debating and a lot of talking here in the House of Commons. We all value an excellent dialogue, a good conversation and a healthy debate. It is incumbent on us to ensure that we allow for that same type of conversation, that same dialogue, to exist within our communities when something of such significance is imposed upon them.

I am very proud to stand in support of Bill C-2 and to support our government, our Minister of Health and our Prime Minister in bringing the bill forward.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member for Mississauga—Brampton South on her appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

Here we are debating the first bill. The bill could be more properly named the anti-public safety bill because it is very stacked against public safety. Despite what the member has just said, if one looks at the bill and examines it very closely we can see that it is designed to prevent any safe injection site from ever being able to operate.

I would like to ask the member if she knows anything about InSite, the only safe injection site we have in Canada, which is operating in Vancouver, or how it operates. Is she aware that it went through all of the municipal requirements that she just talked about? As a former city councillor, I am very familiar with public notification, input, and so on. I wonder if she is aware that InSite went through a vigorous process of public scrutiny, city council looking at the application, and so on. In fact, it is now very well accepted in the community. Has she ever visited the facility? Does she know what goes on there?

If the member thinks the municipal process is a good process, then why not let these applications be dealt with at the municipal level? Why does it require that the minister have all these criteria in effect so that she can turn it down?

[Eve Adams]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the kind words of welcome. I, too, look forward to working with the hon. member. I know how passionate she is about the health of Canadians.

By way of clarification, I am not looking to simply impose the same types of municipal controls as we would have on a development application on a site of this nature. I was looking to offer an example before any development takes place. I think I used the example of a flower shop or an architect's office, and the level of scrutiny, circulation, detail and public consultation that takes place before a simple building would be erected. Similarly, the bill proposes that for something that would be a consumption site, which is something that clearly falls under the jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court has ruled, the Minister of Health would use her discretion to invoke a number of factors in making any decision. We should bring that level of scrutiny, detail, rigour and public consultation to something as serious as this.

InSite is currently functioning out in Vancouver. I am well aware of the facility. When its operating status expires it will need to come through this very same system that is being proposed. However, I think that these are very reasonable measures. If we are looking to bring a consumption site into a community, it is very reasonable to have community consultation and to look at surrounding crimes rates.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to my colleague. I wish her well in her new challenges.

As a former municipal councillor, I am well aware of the challenges that communities face when they are trying to find other solutions to what they call “safe injection sites”. I also know the scrutiny that the one in Vancouver underwent. Has the member ever visited the site?

Secondly, it is clear by the millions of dollars and time that we have all invested in the issue of prevention that what continues to be the goal we all want is safe communities, without question. However, we have a serious problem. The only success I have seen so far, which is limited, is the safe injection site in Vancouver. I visited that site and the community with much trepidation, I have to say. I watched it and all of the fears that many of us had were unwarranted. It seems to be a step forward in harm reduction that is actually going to help people. I do not hear a whole lot of complaints from those communities. Even though I am from a Toronto community, I have watched it because what was in Vancouver was a trial project.

If the member does not think this works, what does she think should be done?

[Eve Adams]

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. I thank the member for her kind words. I look forward to working with her.

The bill sets out, based on the Supreme Court's ruling, the factors that the Minister of Health must consider before permitting consumption sites to be erected in a community. Contrary to the member's remarks, scientific evidence is one of the factors that the Minister of Health must consider. We need to respect good science.

To speak to the heart of the issue, of whether or not we are genuinely helping drug addicts continue with their drug addiction, I do not think that is anyone's goal here. I hope that is not anyone's goal here in this chamber. I think the ultimate goal that any compassionate individual would have would be to see a drug addict fully recover and regain a lifestyle that is drug free. That should be our prime goal. For those who are not reaching that goal, we need to offer compassionate, science-based treatment.

The bill certainly recognizes that. In fact it requires that the Minister of Health consider that, along with community impact, local crime rates and public safety factors and considerations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her thoughtful and thorough presentation today. Clearly, she is dealing with this issue from a well-informed position as a former municipal councillor. I, too, congratulate her on her new role.

I would like to ask the member how the legislation will ensure that Canadian families get a say when a supervised injection site is planned to open down the street from their homes, schools or businesses. How will we know that families will have a say in that relocation?

[Eve Adams]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question. The member for Toronto is incredibly hard-working and has spent a great deal of the summer consulting with his community and residents, not only on this issue but on a number of pressing issues that the GTA faces.

This question speaks to the heart of the issue. Many of these illicit and illegal drugs are purchased and acquired through illicit means, such as the proceeds of crime. That is how these drugs are being purchased and taken into an injection site. The individual then leaves the injection site hopped up on drugs.

The bill would require the Minister of Health, when the individual looks at all the information that the applicant looking to establish this type of facility is proposing, to also seek community input. There are a couple of ways to do that. The applicant would be required to seek community input and all written responses would need to be provided to the department. The minister would also have the opportunity to post a public notice and invite comments for a 90-day period.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of concerns about the parliamentary secretary's statements, both in her speech and in her responses to questions.

I live in a community where there is an average of 16 deaths per year from overdoses by injection. We are working very hard in our community to find a solution. When the parliamentary secretary says things like “deaths, if any” and “evidence, if any”, it seems very clear to me that the government has not considered the real evidence here.

The minister who has to make these decisions would be the Minister of Health. It seems very peculiar to me that the government has now chosen, in contrast to the previous bill, to send the bill to the public safety committee, where I sit. It seems to me that the only conclusion one can draw is that there is an attempt right now in the House to create false fears about public health and safety, which I think is a very serious concern to communities that are grappling with this very serious problem.

[Eve Adams]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court very clearly laid out five rigorous criteria sets that need to be considered by the Minister of Health before any such consumption site can be authorized. That is what the bill does. The bill seeks to enact specific and guiding legislation to assist the minister in making a decision.

I do not know why someone would take issue with providing basic information, basic local statistics, so that the minister can make an informed decision and so the information can be presented to the community, so that the community can make an informed decision.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the parliamentary secretary present the bill today. It is very important that we look back at the history of this case and begin with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2011, because it has been referenced a lot. If we can just remember, InSite, as I mentioned earlier, did go through a rigorous process to establish itself in the city of Vancouver and has been a very successful operation in saving people's lives, preventing overdoses and improving public safety in the neighbourhood. Of course, it was challenged all the way by the Conservative government and it did end up at the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that InSite was a very important health facility. I want to quote a very key part of its ruling because the legislation that is now before us is supposedly based on this ruling.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling said:

On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. 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. Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

That is what the Supreme Court of Canada said. What was the government's response to that? Reading from the press release that the Minister of Health issued June 6 when the bill was first introduced, she began by saying, “Our Government believes that creating a location for sanctioned use of drugs obtained from illicit sources has the potential for great harm in a community”.

There was nothing in this press release and in fact when one reads the bill, there is nothing in it that strikes the balance that was referenced by the Supreme Court of Canada for public health and public safety. From the very beginning, from the get-go, it has been very clear that the bill is a stacked deck. It is designed to frustrate and to make it virtually impossible for any safe injection site to be established in this country.

One has to ask the question: why is the government so biased on this issue? Why have Conservatives refused to consider all of the evidence that has been put before them? We just had the recent situation, a very similar case where the Minister of Health overruled her own experts on an application that was approved to provide heroin maintenance in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside in the inner city. It was quite astounding to see that the minister ignored all of the evidence, overruled her experts, stepped in, intervened and made it clear that this special application, which had been approved by her officials, would not go ahead.

What was most disturbing was to see that both of these cases, the safe injection site bill and also the application for heroin maintenance, within 24 hours, became a fundraising letter for the Conservative Party of Canada. Imagine that government legislation and an intervention and interference by the minister is catapulted and turned into a fundraiser for the Conservatives' base. I find that really alarming and it illuminates for us what this debate is really about. It is about creating an environment of fear. It about creating an environment of division. It is about creating an environment based on them and us. It is about an environment that the Conservatives want to escalate that demonizes people who use drugs and people who are facing serious addiction issues.

The parliamentary secretary made some references to the bill. When we actually read through the bill to see what is required, it is quite incredible. First of all, the parliamentary secretary said that the minister must consider criteria that are laid out as part of a submission for an application to set up a safe injection site in any particular community. However, clearly what the bill says is that the “Minister may consider an application” once the application has been submitted and the criteria met. It is not even that she must then look at it, but she may. Even the discretion takes place at that level.

When we look at the criteria in the bill it literally goes from (a) to (z). There are 26 different criteria considerations that are so onerous and so stacked that they would make it virtually impossible to even meet the criteria laid out in the bill.

For example, it requires a letter from the provincial minister who is responsible for health. It requires a letter from the local municipal government. It requires a letter from the head of the police force, outlining any issues that it has. It requires a letter from the leading health professional organization. It requires a letter from the provincial minister responsible for public safety. It requires a statistical analysis. It requires police checks for people. It requires extensive public consultation.

All of this has to be gathered in addition to a 90-day public notification period that the minister herself can also conduct. There are two streams of information coming in, and even then, as we can see from the bill, the minister actually does not have to consider the application. Once this information has been gathered, there is further consideration in the bill, subsection (5), that lays out that the minister may only grant an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after having considered the following principles. I think these principles clearly lay out the government's intent.

The principles are:

illicit substances may have serious health effects;

adulterated controlled substances may pose health risks;

the risks of overdose are inherent to the use of certain illicit substances;

strict controls are required...;

organized crime profits from the use of illicit substances;

and criminal activity often results from the use of illicit substances.

What I find really curious about these principles on which this bill is based is that there is absolutely no mention of public health. There is no mention of preventing overdoses. There is no mention of preventing serious infections, like HIV/AIDS or hepatitis C. There is no mention, no principle of ensuring basic public health or protecting public safety.

What are the principles about? Clearly, they are about frustrating any application and giving the minister so much room that she can easily turn down any application, if she even decides to consider it in the first place. We attended the briefing that the government gave on the bill, and in that briefing it was made very clear that, if the criteria are met, the application may be considered but it will not necessarily be approved.

We find this bill offensive, and we will be opposing it. Clearly the bill does not live up to the spirit and the intent of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. It is designed to frustrate that ruling, and in fact I would suggest that there will probably be ongoing legal challenges about this legislation. This bill is designed to create a situation where everything will run in the government's favour to not even consider applications or, if it does, to simply turn them down based on the principles it has outlined.

Let us just take a couple of minutes to talk about the one case that we do have in Canada, which is called InSite in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Setting up InSite was probably the most important health measure that has ever been undertaken in this country. It took years for it to be up and running. It went under incredible local scrutiny. There was opposition.

In Vancouver today, not only do the police support the safe injection site, but so do local businesses, the board of trade and municipal politicians. In fact, I think members would be hard pressed to find anyone in Vancouver who would actually dispute the value and the importance of this particular facility that is located on East Hastings Street.

The facility has been scrutinized and has been the subject of 30 scientific studies and reports. It has gone through enormous evaluation.

However, what I think is most important is that if we actually visit the place, we can see for ourselves what work is being done and how important it is to provide a safe, medically supervised environment for people with serious addiction issues to get off the street and to be in an environment where they are safe, where they are taken care of and where they can make contact with health care professionals.

I have seen that because most of the people who use this facility are my constituents. I know many of them personally.

What I find really just incredibly disappointing is that no ministers of health have had the courage, or even just the reasonable wherewithal, to actually visit InSite to find out for themselves what is going on.

So, all of this rhetoric, all of this bias that the Conservatives show is based upon an ideology that they are perpetuating. It is not based upon either experience or first-hand knowledge. It is not based upon consideration of the incredible body of evidence that now exists. It is simply based upon a political position that they have staked out because they think it caters to a Conservative base.

I find that really quite abhorrent, in terms of how we approach public policy in this country.

I do not know how much money has been spent on all of the litigation involving InSite. It is probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yet, this facility in Vancouver has survived. It has survived all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and is still continuing to operate.

In fact, just a few weeks ago it celebrated its 10th anniversary, and I use the word “celebrate” because it was a celebratory event. To see the people in the community who have become part of the clientele of InSite, to see the people who are actually still alive, who are better off, who are doing better, who are better connected, who have a health connection—these are very important things. Without InSite, many of those individuals would likely have died of overdoses.

However, is there anything in the bill that would address that, the simple basic human fact that InSite is part of the solution, not part of the problem? We do not see anything in the bill on those issues.

I know that the government has come under intense scrutiny and criticism from a number of organizations across the country, which of course it has ignored. For example, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and the Pivot Legal Society issued a statement in which they made it very clear that:

People who use drugs are entitled to needed health care services just like all other Canadians. 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.

I think that is it in a nutshell. What we are talking about here is public health. It is about community safety. It is about people giving people very basic access to health services. Yet, we would never know that by looking at this legislation; we would never know that by reading the minister's press release; and we would never know that by listening to the rhetoric we have heard from the government side on this bill and on the issue generally.

The Canadian Medical Association issued a press release when the bill first came out, in June, in which it said:

...the CMA is deeply concerned that the proposed legislation may be creating unnecessary obstacles and burdens that could ultimately deter creation of more injection sites.

Dr. Evan Wood, a renowned scientist who works for the B.C. Centre of Excellence in HIV/AIDS, points out that one of the important aspects of a safe injection site is that, given that each HIV infection costs on average approximately $500,000 in medical costs, InSight has contributed to a 90% reduction in new HIV cases caused by intravenous drug use in British Columbia, which is why the B.C. government has been such a strong supporter of the program. That is from an article he wrote in The Globe and Mail in June.

We also have Dr. Mark Tyndall, who is the head of infectious diseases at the Ottawa Hospital. He says:

Supervised injection sites will be opened in Canada and the government will be challenged for its callous and misinformed policies through legal avenues and whatever else it takes to do the right thing. Thousands of Canadians, the poor, the addicted, the mentally ill, our brothers and sisters, are depending on us.

These are just a few of the opinions and analyses that have come in from people who have studied this issue over and over again.

We need to understand that if this bill goes through, not only would it prevent other safe injection sites from being set up in Canada—and we do know that there is a great interest in Toronto, Victoria and Montreal—but it would also have an impact in Vancouver. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, the current exemption permit for InSite will be up in March 2014, so it too will have to go through this process. Given the incredibly ridiculous and absurd criteria and considering the stance of the government, we can see that approval is very unlikely, or it will be very difficult to get.

What does that mean? It means that a place that has been operating successfully for 10 years, that has been well accepted in the community and that went through all of the approval processes will potentially be shut down, and people will be turfed out on the street. It means people will die of overdoses. It means we will see open drug use on the streets. It means we will see greater pain and suffering in this community, and the whole community will be impacted by that.

I want to keep coming back to the most basic point of this whole debate, and that is that a safe injection site is not some kind of bogey man or some kind of scary place; it is simply a health facility. It is a health facility that provides a service that helps people who are facing very difficult addiction issues. It provides a safe, medicalized and supervised environment. It helps people get into treatment. It helps people get off the street. Most important, it stops people from dying of overdoses.

Does that mean anything to these Conservatives? Do they even care that people are dying? What they want to do is vilify those people. We heard the parliamentary secretary. She talks about her mother and somebody else's mother walking down the street. This is about creating fear in local communities. Maybe that is the reason, as my colleague has pointed out, that this bill is going to go to the public safety committee, because the Conservatives want to have it viewed only through a lens of law and order, as opposed to a needed, necessary and essential public health approach that is about public health and public protection for people, not only the drug users but the community as a whole.

This bill that we have before us is the antithesis of a public health approach. What is this bill really about? It is about fear. It is about dividing people. It is about demonizing people. I find that really offensive because we are talking about individuals. Drug use cuts across all classes. It cuts across people of all different political persuasions. So we have to examine whether this bill is something that would hurt not only the existing safe injection site but the potential for others across the country that would save lives.

I will finish my remarks by moving a motion. I move, seconded by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, because it:

(a) fails to reflect the dual purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) to maintain and promote both public health and public safety;

(b) runs counter to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Canada v. PHS Community Services Society, which states that a Minister should generally grant an exemption when there is proof that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and when there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety; and

(c) establishes onerous requirements for applicants that will create unjustified barriers for the establishment of safe injection sites, which are proven to save lives and increase health outcomes.

(d) further advances the Minister's political tactics to divide communities and use the issue of supervised injection sites for political gain, in place of respecting the advice and opinion of public health experts.

[Kellie Leitch, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I will start by saying, and this is in my role both as a parliamentarian and as a pediatric surgeon, is that fearmongering is about who talks about fearmongering and that is all the opposition member is doing. We are focused on ensuring that parents with young children feel safe in their communities. All the member opposite wants to focus on are those things that really get parents anxious and concerned and I encourage her not to do that.

Canadians are so proud of their health care system. If we want to save lives, the very best place is in an emergency department. That is where we have all the facilities. That is where we can take care of people and ensure we save lives, unlike what happens when one is on the street and things like that happen. We are proud of the facilities we have in Canada. The physicians who work in those facilities do excellent work and we should commend them for their service.

What I am most concerned about is the lack of understanding of what communities really want and need. What are the member's thoughts with respect to the involvement of communities and families? Why is she, as the parents in my riding of Simcoe-Grey would say, pro-heroin and anti-salt? Why is she pro-heroin and against the potato growers in my riding? Maybe she could answer those questions.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's ignorance is absolutely breathtaking, especially since she is a health professional. To suggest that people just be trundled off to the emergency department tells us that she knows absolutely nothing about InSite and what it does. One of the reasons it was set up was to prevent people from going through a revolving door at the emergency department at an astronomical cost of ambulances and being in and out of emergency departments.

InSite is about public health and public safety. It is not about whether one is pro or against heroin. These drugs and substances exist in our society and unfortunately there are people who use them. Our job as legislators is to bring forward sound public policy based on evidence, not a demonization of people, not on fearmongering, but to bring forward programs based on public policy and health facilities that actually save lives. That is what InSite has done. I challenge the minister to visit and find out actually what it does.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to applaud my colleague. I know the amount of work she has done in her community in the Vancouver area on these kinds of issues. She understands them far better than any of us in the House. She has visited InSite many times. I repeat the fact that I had a lot of apprehension when that InSite location started and I have watched it carefully. Clearly, prevention has not worked to the extent that we wanted.

What other suggestions does the hon. member have with respect to Canada's policies to move forward on the whole issue of drug prevention and to help those when it comes to harm reduction?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague took the time to visit and to find out.

What InSite represents is part of a bigger regime that we call the four-pillar approach, which includes prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. This was actually pioneered by the city of Vancouver about 13 years ago. There has been a lot of focus on InSite, but it is a very important element of a broader picture. Therefore, yes, prevention and treatment are very important, education is very important, but so is harm reduction.

What is really concerning is that the Conservative government dropped the pillar of harm reduction in 2007. It decided unilaterally, on a political basis, that harm reduction would no longer exist in our country. In actual fact, it is a very important element in ensuring there is street access to health care for people, ensuring that services being provided are accessible and literally get people in the door, into a safer environment, so they can get into treatment and the help they need.

InSite is part of that continuum. It does not exist on its own. It is part of a broader health continuum that needs to happen.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, supervised injection sites are based on the principle of harm reduction, which is an increasingly popular public health principle. Condom distribution is a simple example of harm reduction. We realized that simply telling young people not to have sex did not work. They had sex anyway, and they had unprotected sex. We figured we should at least give them condoms so that they would not get sick.

Can the member draw some parallels with other harm reduction strategies that have proven effective or have worked to keep people from getting sick?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has a background in nursing and understands these questions very well. She makes a very good analogy that we have all kinds of programs, whether it is safer sex or needle exchanges, to reduce the risk, because this is about public health.

One of the problems with injection drug use is the increase and risk of communicable diseases, like HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C. By ensuring a safe and medicalized environment, we are preventing the increase of these very infectious and communicable diseases.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will be four minutes remaining for questions and comments after question period.

We will move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

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 amendment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is truly sad that this is the first bill being introduced by the government. It is as though this bill would really be in the public interest, when clearly it is one that would be harmful to people who need our help the most.

Bill C-2 was formerly Bill C-65. Bill C-65 was killed by prorogation. Perhaps one positive thing about the prorogation is that it delayed the conclusion of a bill that would be harmful to many Canadians.

Specifically, this legislation would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, 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 the act. It specifies the purposes for which an exemption may be granted for those activities; and it sets 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.

What does that actually mean? Let us put a human face on this. This legislation is really about human beings. It is about family members, brothers and sisters, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers, who suffer from the disease of addiction to drugs, a disease that has no geographic boundaries, no social boundaries, no economic boundaries but is found in communities across Canada, a disease that often ties into factors that are beyond the control of the person suffering from the disease—for example, mental illness or childhood abuse. Let us bear in mind that these are human beings, that these are family members.

I am proud of the leadership that was taken by the City of Vancouver more than a decade ago. The mayor of Vancouver and other people who wanted to address the challenges faced by people with drug addiction on the streets of the Downtown Eastside created a safe consumption site, formerly called a safe injection site. This site, called InSite, has been operating in Canada pursuant to a section 56 legal exemption since 2003. Proponents of the site include the Portland Hotel community services society and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users. These organizations challenged the federal Conservative government's refusal to continue the legal exemption to InSite in 2008, and this challenge was taken all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 2011, the Supreme Court declared that the health minister had violated the charter of rights of people who need access to such a health facility and ruled in favour of the exemption, ordering that this exemption to the act be granted a continuation by the federal health minister.

Bill C-2 is just the government's latest attempt in a long series of attempts to shut down any effort to open a safe consumption site elsewhere in Canada. For clarity, we should really be calling this bill the “banning of safe consumption sites act”.

Bill C-2 is an ideological bill from a government that has always opposed evidence-based harm reduction measures such as safe consumption sites. These safe consumption sites must be part of a broader evidence-based national drug policy, which would save lives, reduce harm and promote public health.

The Liberal Party of Canada does support the need for broad community consultation with respect to the establishment of any safe consumption site, which is exactly how the Liberals participated in the establishment of Canada's first safe consumption site in the Vancouver Downtown Eastside.

Liberals consulted broadly and worked in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments, public health authorities, business associations, and the public. InSite was the product of co-operative federalism, a concept not well known to the current Conservative government.

There were a number of authorities and stakeholders that combined forces in their efforts to create it. It was initially launched as an experiment that has proven to be successful in saving lives, in improving health, and in decreasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area. In fact, not a single injection overdose fatality has occurred with InSite, a safe consumption site, which is one reason the Vancouver Police support InSite. InSite is also supported by the City of Vancouver and the British Columbia government.

In contrast, the current health minister has never even set foot in Vancouver's InSite facility. Her legislation is based on ideology, not on evidence.

One piece of evidence of harm reduction from InSite is in the most recent annual research on the incidence of HIV and the HIV virus. Only 30 new HIV cases were found in the Downtown Eastside. That is remarkable, because in 1996, we had 2,100 new cases of HIV in the Downtown Eastside. Compare that: 30 new HIV cases versus 2,100 new HIV cases. That is the kind of reduction of harm and all the attendant social and economic costs that this facility has provided.

The current Conservative government has been trying to shut down that facility and now wants to prevent those facilities from opening in other communities. The Liberal Party does not support Bill C-2, clearly. As Liberals, we support evidence-based policies that reduce harm and protect public safety. The bill would do neither of those things.

As I previously said, the Vancouver safe consumption site has proven to be effective not just in reducing HIV infections but in reducing crime and in protecting public safety in the area surrounding the facility.

Unfortunately, the bill would raise the criteria to establish a new safe consumption site to such an extraordinarily high level that it would be nearly impossible for any future consumption site to be established in Canada. That could mean that InSite will remain the only safe consumption site in Canada. Other cities that want to open a safe consumption site would be virtually prevented.

I just want to go back a bit to why the Supreme Court ruled that the government had to provide a continuation of the permission for the safe consumption site, InSite, to continue.

The case was based on a violation of the claimants' section 7 charter rights. 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. Determining whether there had been a breach of section 7 involved a two-part analysis by the court. The court considering any potential section 7 violation must ask, first, whether there is a deprivation of the right to life, liberty, or security of the person, and second, if so, whether the deprivation is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The Supreme Court found that both conditions had been met, and I will quote the Supreme Court's ruling:

The Minister's decision thus engages the claimants' s.7 interests and constitutes a limit on their s.7 rights.

This is a decision to try to shut down InSite. Continuing the quote:

Based on the information available to the Minister, this limit is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It is arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the [Controlled Drugs and Substances Act], which include public health and safety. It is also grossly disproportionate: the potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition on possession of illegal drugs on Insite's premises.

It is very clear that the Supreme Court forced the federal government and the federal health minister under the Conservatives, to allow InSite to continue operating as a matter of justice, and that is in addition to all the other health and public safety benefits that evidence has shown this facility provides. The Supreme Court ordered the minister to grant an exemption to InSite under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Now we have a new bill that is trying to take another route to undermining these kinds of services to human beings that actually help their ability to get off drugs and improve their safety while they are still in the grip of their addictions.

In the last 20 years, supervised injection services or safer consumption sites have been integrated into drug treatment and harm reduction programs in western Europe, Australia, and Canada, and they have saved lives. The Toronto drug strategy has provided an excellent review of the research on these services and has found that programs such as safer consumption sites reduce overdose deaths, reduce needle sharing and HIV and hepatitis C infection, reduce public drug use, do not cause an increase in crime, and even increase use of detox and other treatment centres. What is not to like about these results?

The government's bill is based entirely on ideology and not on evidence. It is based on unsubstantiated beliefs that are unsupported and contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus. Let me outline a few of the problems with Bill C-2, and there are many.

Bill C-2 creates an unnecessarily cumbersome application process for an exemption for what is foremost a health care service. As the Toronto medical officer suggested in a recent report:

The requirements of the bill...stretch beyond the scope and spirit of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. The requirements will pose significant barriers for health services applying for an...exemption [from the act].... The likelihood that an applicant can obtain letters of support from all required bodies is low.... The required consultation process is beyond the capacity and budget of most community based health services.

Bill C-2 focuses on public safety at the expense of public health. It is an approach that runs counter to the Supreme Court of Canada's emphasis on striking a balance between public safety and public health and it ignores comprehensive research showing that safer consumption sites do not negatively affect public safety and do support better public health.

The bill requires that staff working at such a site obtain criminal record checks. This requirement will effectively discriminate against potential staff or volunteers who have a history of drug crime. This is of concern, because the involvement of peer workers in these services is critical to their success. People who have gone through this tragic disease and have managed to beat it and come out the other side are the very kind of counsellors who can help people still in the grip of the disease of addiction.

Bill C-2 did not involve any consultation with provincial health authorities, nor with key professional bodies, including the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association.

This is a health issue. These sites are a health benefit. Canada's primary health associations were not consulted. In fact, the Canadian Nurses Association is very concerned about this bill. They are concerned about what the meaning of broad community support is in the bill and whether one group's opinion could outweigh that of several other groups. It is not clear in the bill.

The Canadian Medical Association supports evidence-based harm reduction tools, such as safer consumption sites. In a statement, the CMA stated:

The CMA's position is founded upon clinical evidence. Bill C-[2], it would appear, is founded upon ideology that seeks to hinder initiatives to mitigate the very real challenges and great personal harm caused by drug abuse.

These are doctors saying that the government is hindering their efforts to mitigate the harm experienced by human beings with the disease of addiction.

A study co-authored by Dr. Julio Montaner, who is an international leader in HIV/AIDS research, found that there was a 35% reduction in overdose deaths following the opening of InSite. That is a 35% reduction in overdose deaths in the community of the Downtown Eastside following the creation of a safer consumption site. These are all important indicators of the sense it makes to allow these sites.

Bill C-2 is trying to prevent more sites from opening. It requires groups to seek letters of opinion from civic and provincial authorities and essentially vetoes the provision of health care services by organizations that may have a vested interest, through a narrow mandate regarding the use of illegal drugs. Such organizations may not be aware of the broad spectrum of other issues for which these safer consumption sites are so beneficial. Those vetoes may prevent a site from going ahead.

Bill C-2 also specifies that a report on the consultations within a broad range of community groups must be included with an application. The Liberals believe in community consultation. The bill provides a 90-day period during which the minister may receive comments from the general public on any application for an exemption. That is concerning. Will a single person's comment then be used as an excuse to scupper a safe consumption site?

Public consultation is an important component of establishing these sites, but the two sections I have been describing give undue emphasis to the opinions generated in public consultations. That can potentially allow a vocal “not in my back yard” minority opposition. It could enable that NIMBY factor to halt the implementation of lifesaving health services, services that reduce HIV infections, deaths, and other harms in the community.

Why is the Conservative government doing this? It is about politics. Unfortunatley, it is recognized as being about scoring political gain over justice and scoring political gains over health benefits. The clearest indication of this is that only an hour after the legislation was introduced back in June, the Conservative campaign director, Jenni Byrne, issued a crass and misleading fundraising letter to supporters stating that the Liberals and NDP want addicts to shoot up heroin in backyards in communities all across the country. Send us money, said Jenni Byrne, the Conservative.

The intention of the Conservative government is clear. It lost the gun registry as a way to misinform the public and raise funds for their campaigns. Now it wants safer consumption sites to play that role so that it can undermine the actual truth and the people suffering from this disease in order to raise money for the Conservative Party. That is not okay, and this bill must not go ahead.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and concerns that the Liberal Party's critic has put on the record in regard to this bill.

I can speak first-hand, having dealt with a number of young people in Winnipeg's north end where there are issues related to addiction. One of the most addictive drugs that we have seen was a product known as “crystal meth”, which has literally destroyed lives. People have died as a direct result of being users of that particular drug. There is a need for government to proactively do more to assist individuals who are hooked.

Can the member comment on the importance of education before individuals even look at experimenting with the crystal meths and the cocaines and the other addictive types of drugs that are out there?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague.

Yes, education is critical. In a community that I represented provincially a number of years ago, I hosted a crystal meth forum in the school gymnasium. We had people who suffered from that addiction and had come through it, as well as psychologists and police officers, speak to the public and talk to the parents and the students who were in the gym about the dangers of crystal meth.

However, that is the very kind of thing for which the government cut funding in its Bill C-10, when the Conservatives decided that their justice system should be about reducing flexibility of judges, having mandatory sentences, and locking people up and throwing away the key. They are actually reducing funding for the very kinds of preventive and educational activities that are so badly needed in communities.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member was as surprised as I was this morning to see the change in the committee to which this bill is being referred.

In its previous incarnation, it was to be sent to the health committee, and this clearly is, after the Supreme Court decision, a health matter. Now, suddenly this morning, we learned that this bill is being sent to the public safety committee. This gives the appearance that the Conservatives are trying to create fear around this issue by implying that somehow safe injection sites are a threat to public safety, when in fact we know that their impact is exactly the opposite.

I wonder if the member was as surprised as I was to see this reassigned to the public safety committee.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out that manoeuvre, which is consistent with what I have been pointing out as being a reprehensible toying with the most vulnerable, refusing them the supports they need to prevent deaths and infections and to help with their health concerns.

Why? It is for political gain. It is about reinforcing some messages around public safety that are based on misinformation. The health committee is clearly where this bill should go; it is a health issue and a justice issue, and the evidence shows that public safety is improved with these sites.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her presentation on this matter.

I have taken the time to actually talk to medical specialists and others who are concerned about this issue and who are trying to find better ways to prevent health decline from drug use and prevent communities from being harmed by the illegal use of drugs in their communities and their back alleys.

A good number of Canadians across the country, and in particular doctors, are pursuing this very carefully, looking at evidence elsewhere and carefully examining the experience that occurred in British Columbia. Resoundingly, they are finding that the proposals for medically supervised safe injection services are going to be the best route to go.

They argue that this approach would be better for overdose prevention in that it would be better to be injected in clean places than in back alleys. It would be better for the community because it avoids the presence of needles and disreputable people in backyards, because it prevents HIV spread, and because it enhances the opportunity to work directly with those who are addicted to drugs to help them reform.

Could the member advise if she supports the actions by these doctors and the concerns with the direction the government is going?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. The medical community is clear. That is why I was quoting the statement that this bill appears to be founded upon ideology from the Canadian Medical Association itself.

The previous comment about the switching of this bill from the health committee to the public safety committee is more indication of that ideological basis. This bill is not based on evidence. It is not based on compassion for people and family members, many of whom are suffering from previous abuse, mental illness, and other challenges.

Our job is to support them in rehabilitation and in staying safe, and in helping communities stay safe at the same time. This is exactly what the medical community is saying these sites accomplish.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate on this bill all morning, and I have heard some inflammatory comments coming from the opposition talking about fearmongering and talking about the concerns they feel about moving the consideration of this bill from health to public safety. Clearly the Minister of Health has control of this issue under her purview.

I thank the honourable member for her presentation, but I just wonder what it is about an open, honest debate on this issue that has her so concerned that we can not have families and communities fully engaged in this debate on safe injection sites.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear that the Liberal Party supports consultations, and those kinds of consultations took place before InSite's ribbon was ever cut.

We support consultation. We support involving the community. What we do not support is a veto by a small number of vocal voices that are acting on a “not in my backyard” basis or on the basis of a very narrow focus on the fact that the drugs that are being used at these sites are illegal, ignoring all of the preponderance of evidence that this is healthier for the community, safer for the community, and saves lives.

Bill C-2 is unworthy of the hon. members opposite. The evidence is very clear that these facilities are positive for the community as well as for those with the illnesses that require their services.

It is not my time to be asking questions at this point in the debate, but I would say that if there is anything inflammatory, it is actually the Conservative member's party campaign director who, an hour after this bill was tabled, sent out a fundraising letter with the statement that Liberal and NDP members want addicts to shoot up heroin in backyards of communities all across the country. How is that for crass political undermining of the very interests of justice, of undermining the health and well-being of community members?

That is shocking. It speaks to the Conservative government's strategy with respect to this bill and why it is pushing forward with it despite all the evidence that it is the wrong way to go.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me echo what my colleague just said.

I think many of the Conservative MPs in this House are deeply embarrassed by what is happening here with respect to this bill. They know better. They know in their own cities, their own urban settings, that this is a very important health promotion issue. In due course, it is also one that can defer costs in terms of infections.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate today. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

One of our government's top priorities is to keep Canadian families safe. We have delivered on this commitment time and time again during this Parliament, and we are building on the success through the bill before us today, the respect for communities act. The bill details proposed amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, a piece of legislation that exists to protect public health and maintain public safety.

Substances that fall under the act include dangerous and addictive drugs that can have horrible impacts on Canadian families and their communities. Currently, under the act activities involving controlled substances, including possession, import, export, production, and distribution, are illegal except as authorized under an exemption obtained through its section 56 or its regulations.

This section gives the minister of health the authority to grant exemptions from the application of the act in order to respond to unanticipated situations or a legitimate activity using a controlled substance that is not provided for in the regulations.

These exemptions may be granted if in the minister's opinion the exemption is necessary for medical or scientific purposes, or is otherwise in the public interest. An exemption is required in emergency or unanticipated situations. An example would be the Red Cross needing to have access to controlled substances for natural disaster relief efforts.

We know that substances obtained illicitly often contribute to organized crime and increase the risks of harm to health and public safety, especially when those substances are unregulated or untested. This can have a profound impact on our families and on the communities in which we live. Given this, any exemption that allows for the use of controlled substances obtained from illicit sources should only be granted under exceptional circumstances.

In order to demonstrate these exceptional circumstances, applications for exemption should be subject to specific, clear criteria. Only by addressing rigorous application criteria would the Minister of Health have the information required to be able to balance effectively the public health and public safety needs of a community.

Our government is therefore proposing a new approach that would separate the exemption authority found at section 56 into two regimes, one for the use of licit or legal substances and a second for activities using illicit substances, which oftentimes amount to street drugs. This new approach would provide further transparency for applicants seeking to conduct activities involving the use of these street drugs at a supervised injection site.

For applicants who are applying for an exemption to use controlled substances obtained from legitimate sources, the process to obtain a section 56 exemption would not change with the passage of the bill. It would remain as it is.

Currently, Health Canada receives a significant number of exemption applications each year, most of which are for routine activities such as clinical trials or university-based research. These activities involve controlled substances obtained through legal sources, such as licensed dealers, pharmacists, or hospitals, and as I stated, the exemption process would not change for these applicants. What is being proposed in Bill C-2 is a new approach to deal with exemptions involving activities with controlled substances that are obtained through illicit sources.

There is a very high risk associated with the use of these substances for individuals and for communities, so it is important that public health and safety concerns be balanced and that relevant information be considered thoroughly to determine whether or not an exemption should in fact be granted.

In a 2011 Supreme Court of Canada decision the court identified five factors that the Minister of Health must consider when assessing any future section 56 exemption applications to operate a supervised injection site. The legislation would amend section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to include a section specifically on supervised consumption sites and codify rigorous and specific criteria that builds upon those factors identified by the Supreme Court. Once the bill is passed, an applicant seeking an exemption to undertake activities with illicit substances at a supervised consumption site must address these criteria before the Minister of Health would consider such an application.

One of the factors established by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision relates to the need for the applicant to provide evidence of community support or opposition for any future sites. It is this element of the court's ruling that is particularly crucial when evaluating the merits of the bill before the House today. That is a key point.

Recently I read in the Ottawa papers about a local group that wants to apply for an exemption in order to build a safe injection site in the Sandy Hill area. Without passing any kind of prejudgment on its merits, I do find it concerning that this group thinks that by accelerating its application it can avoid consultation with the community at large.

I would like to dwell on that point for a brief moment. Our government is seeking passage of legislation that would help ensure that communities have a say on the use of street drugs in their neighbourhoods, and an organization is so opposed to this principle that it is trying to circumvent that very issue. Let me assure the House that our government will ensure Canadian communities get the respect they deserve through actions that include the passage of this very legislation. Government needs to hear from those Canadians who will be living and working near sites where addicts will be using dangerous and addictive drugs. It is that simple.

Given this, the respect for communities act provides opportunities for community and stakeholder input related to their support or opposition to a proposed supervised consumption site. In this new approach, the Minister of Health would have the authority to post a notice of application once an application is in fact received. This would provide for a 90-day public comment period. This public comment period provides an opportunity for members of the community to make their views known to the Minister of Health and any relevant feedback would be taken into account in the consideration of the application.

This consultation process is an essential part of the legislation. We need to know what those living, working or going to school near the potential supervised consumption site think of the proposal. We need to know their opinions.

Under this new approach, the government will also require that applicants provide letters outlining the opinions and concerns of key community stakeholders who are important to the success or failure of that site. For example, valuable input and local perspectives will be sought from the provincial ministers responsible for health and public safety, the head of the local police force and the local public health professional in the province. In these cases, the applicant would be required to provide a letter from the stakeholder indicating their opinion on the proposed activities.

I did not misspeak on that particular issue with regard to the respect for communities act. I did say when dangerous and addictive drugs are sold. An important factor for members to consider with the bill is that it provides for consultations, notices and data of all sorts in this application process. However, at the end of the day these sites will not supply addicts with the illicit drugs they are abusing. They will have to bring these substances to the centres themselves through buying them on the street, in effect creating a lucrative market for drug dealers.

I will be voting in favour of the bill. It is common sense for Canadians to be consulted when centres for dangerous and addictive drugs are looking to open down the street from our families in our communities.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, coming from the Northwest Territories, a small town, injection is not really a big issue in my community. However, where I live, and my hon. colleague happened to mention Sandy Hill, is very near what I call an unsafe injection site, the back side of a church in Sandy Hill, where addicts go on a regular basis to inject drugs.

Quite clearly, the community understands that. Quite clearly, people are trying to make a move to find a way to deal with this. By putting all these qualifications in place, the government is not helping the situation in Sandy Hill. The situation in Sandy Hill can be helped by the community, through its municipal ordinances, through the municipality coming to a decision that this a good idea.

I certainly do not want to walk out of my house in the next little while and find someone dead on the street from an overdose because of the delay that is going to be imposed upon getting any of these injection sites located into the communities. Will my colleague assure me that this terrible occurrence will not happen to me with this legislation delaying forever the introduction of a safe injection into this city, the capital of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the first important issue is that the people of Sandy Hill, the community of Sandy Hill, should have an opinion as to where they want that safe injection site. Whether it is in the back of a church, where it is illegal and where it is tolerated, does the community in fact have any say in that situation? Or will it in fact land in their own backyards when the population at the back of that church overflows and that is the only place to go?

We have to have a degree of consultation, conversation, about this issue. It is a serious issue. There is no doubt about it. However, we need to have families and communities engage so that we understand what the outcome can be. Certainly I understand his concern. I would caution him to vote with us and we will have this thing put together right.

[Cathy McLeod, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate for a good number of hours now. What I find absolutely stunning is hearing the opposition members referring to four pillars, but really, all they are talking about is one pillar. That is, of course, the harm reduction and the importance of InSite.

As a nurse, day in and day out I certainly had many experiences where I had people who were desperate for detox services, who were desperate for rehabilitation, and to be quite frank, those services were very sorely lacking. I find it a little odd that they would put so much energy and effort into one piece of the pillar but really have ignored the very important lack of resources for those people who want to leave a life of drug addiction behind. I think that is a funny feature of this conversation we have been having, especially from the opposition members.

I think the hon. member did answer my question a bit in his last response, and it sounds like this is what this legislation is intending to do. However, as a former mayor, I think we, local government, local communities, are in a very good position to have responsibilities in terms of the zoning bylaws, bylaws, consultation and community input.

I would like you to focus on how important the community engagement in this conversation should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly the member's experience in her previous career, both politically and in nursing, gives her tremendous insight into this situation.

It is fair to say that the people of Canada expect our government to provide safe and healthy communities for their families and for their communities. This particular issue is an emotional one, and one that does need absolute care. I think your point of addicts wanting to get off drugs, that clearly has to be at the root of what they expect and I think that you—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member is out of time for his response and I did hear the use of the word “you” quite a few times. I want to remind him and all members to address their comments to the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, as His Excellency the Governor General put it so well in the Speech from the Throne earlier this week, “Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children.”

Dangerous and addictive drug use has a major impact on public health and public safety in communities across Canada. The impact that these drugs have on our communities is often severe and the cost to our health and justice system significant. Our government takes seriously the harm caused by dangerous and addictive drugs. These drugs can tear apart families, lead to criminal behaviour and ultimately destroy lives.

The bill before us today addresses this challenge through, among other measures commented on by my honourable colleagues, ensuring that residents and parents have a say before drug injection sites open in their communities. In addition to this, I think all members of the House can appreciate that dangerous and addictive drug use requires a multi-pronged approach to be successful. That is why, as part of our national anti-drug strategy, our government has been focused on preventing our children and youth from using drugs in the first place and strongly deterring existing use of harmful and addictive drugs.

This strategy is our government's comprehensive response to fighting dangerous and addictive drug use in Canada. The goal of the strategy is to contribute to safer and healthier communities through coordinated efforts to prevent use, treat dependency and reduce the production and distribution of illicit drugs. This strategy has three pillars: prevention, treatment and enforcement.

Since its introduction in 2007, our government has invested significantly in this area. Under the prevention action plan, our government invested $30 million over five years in a targeted mass media campaign to raise awareness among youth aged 13 to 15 and their parents about the dangers of illicit drugs. The mass media campaign saw impressive results and 25% of parents who recalled one of our TV ads took action by engaging in discussions with their children about drugs. Results from the campaign also identified an increase in the proportion of youth who said they knew about the potential effects of illicit drug use on relationships with family and friends.

Also, under the prevention action plan, Health Canada delivers the drug strategy community initiatives fund. This contribution funding program supports Canadian communities in their collective efforts to address concerns related to health promotion and the prevention of illicit drug use among youth aged 10 to 24. This fund provides approximately $10 million annually in support of a wide range of provincial, territorial and local community-based initiatives to address illicit drug use among youth. It also promotes public awareness of dangerous and addictive drug use and its harmful impacts.

Another key impact is the drug treatment funding program. This program provides funding to provinces, territories and key stakeholders to initiate projects that lay the foundation for systemic change leading to sustainable improvement in treatment systems in their jurisdictions. This initiative is a great example of our government's commitment to reduce and prevent the use of illicit drugs across the country.

The bill that we are debating here today, the respect for communities act, is consistent with our government's approach to addressing dangerous and addictive drug use in the national anti-drug strategy.

At the federal level, there are several legislative tools that play an important role in maintaining public health and public safety, including the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This act has a dual role: to prohibit activities with controlled substances while allowing access to these substances for legitimate medical, scientific and industrial purposes. The amendments that we are proposing through the respect for communities act would help ensure that residents and parents have a say before drug injection sites open in their communities.

Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act gives the minister the authority to grant exemptions from the application of the act or its regulations for activities that, in the opinion of the minister, are necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or otherwise in the public interest. For applicants applying for an exemption for the use of controlled substances obtained from licit sources, the process to obtain a section 56 exemption would not change. Most applications reviewed by Health Canada are exemptions of this nature.

What is being proposed is a new approach to deal with the exemption applications involving the use of illicit substances, which are typically street drugs. Under this new regime for illicit substances, the proposed legislation includes a section specific to supervised injection sites.

These changes are in line with a Supreme Court of Canada decision handed down in 2011 and codify the court's ruling that community opinions must be considered by the Minister of Health with regard to supervised injection sites. The court stated that its decision is not a licence for injection drug users to process drugs wherever and whenever they wish, nor is it an invitation for anyone who so chooses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a safe injection facility.

The Minister of Health must also verify that adequate measures are in place to protect the health and safety of staff, clients and also the surrounding area.

The court identified five factors the Minister of Health must consider when assessing any future exemption applications in relation to activities at a supervised consumption site involving illicit substances. The specific factors outlined by the court that must be considered in making the application under an exemption include evidence, if any, on the following factors: the impact of such a site on crime rates; local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support the site; the resources available to support its maintenance; and expressions of community support or opposition.

Our government respects the court's ruling on this matter and used these factors as a guide in drafting the bill before us today. Under the proposed approach, an applicant would have to address rigorous criteria when applying for an exemption to undertake activities involving illicit substances at a supervised consumption site. Demonstrating a benefit to an individual and public health is an important factor in making this decision. For example, the applicant would have to provide scientific evidence demonstrating that there is a medical benefit associated with access to the supervised injection site.

In addition, the applicant would have to provide a letter from the highest ranking public health official in the province outlining his or her opinion on the proposed site.

A letter would also be required from a provincial minister of health outlining his or her opinion on the proposed site as well as an explanation as to how this site fits into the provincial health care regime.

Understanding the potential public health impacts that a supervised consumption site might have on a community in which it exists is also important. Under the proposed approach the applicant would have to provide a report on the consultations held with the relevant provincial licensing body for physicians and nurses as well as those with local community groups. If any relevant concerns are raised by community groups with respect to impacts on public health or otherwise, the applicant would have to provide a description of the steps taken to address these concerns. Once all the information has been submitted, including, if applicable, an explanation of why there is a lack of information or evidence for certain criteria, the Minister of Health would consider the application.

The proposed changes clearly set out the criteria applicants must address when seeking an exemption to undertake activities involving dangerous and addictive drugs at a site. The information the applicant would have to provide in support of the criteria would directly relate to the public health and public safety considerations surrounding such activities.

In addition to all the information the applicants must provide, the respect for communities act would require that all applications that would seek to renew previously granted exemptions also include evidence of any changes in public health impacts and crime rates within the community since the first exemption.

I urge all members of the House to support this legislation that would help ensure that residents and parents have a say before drug injection sites open in their communities. This assurance is the least we can provide for Canadians who will be residing in areas that are set to see a rise in crime and addictive drug use.

Let the burden of proof lie on those who would seek to provide spaces for addicts to use these dangerous, illegal and addictive drugs.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very simple question.

Perhaps my colleague has already noticed this issue elsewhere, not just where safe injection sites are involved. Take the housing shortage in my region, for example. Everyone agrees that housing complexes need to be built. However, every time there are plans to build, people say that they do not want them to be built in their neighbourhood or in their backyard.

Similarly, even though everyone agrees that we need safe injection sites, which reduce risk in the neighbourhood, it is likely that no one will want a site at the location that is announced.

How do we fix that problem? How to we deal with that situation, when we know that these sites save lives? They keep people from injecting on the street and overdosing. They keep our children from witnessing that. We know there is a risk that no one wants this in their backyard. How do we negotiate that?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very pertinent question. It is a dilemma that is not easily resolved. We recognize the importance of such a site. No one wants to live near it, that is for sure.

The only way to find the ideal location for such a site and to minimize the risk that children and other vulnerable people will be affected by the site is to proceed with the consultations required by this legislation. There is definitely not a good location for such a serious problem. Consulting and working with local authorities is paramount in identifying the ideal location.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what this bill really does, and Canadians should know this, is make it now entirely a matter of the federal Minister of Health deciding whether or not an InSite location would be opened in the country.

That is the truth of it. The member knows it. The effect of this is actually quite dangerous. Here is how the government referred to this question in the Speech from the Throne. I think was difficult for the Governor General to even utter these words. It callously referred to the addiction question as “loopholes that allow for the feeding of addiction under the guise of treatment“.

That is more than disappointing. I am sure it is disconcerting for a lot of Conservative MPs who know the truth of the matter.

Here are a couple of facts I would like to introduce into the debate for the member to respond to. If we look at the Vancouver east InSite location, there were only 30 new cases of HIV in 2006, as compared to the 2,100 new cases of HIV in 1996. We know it costs $600,000 over a lifetime to treat HIV infection in the health care system. That is one thing I would like the member to address.

We also know that 87% of InSite's clients suffer from hepatitis C, another terrible, difficult chronic disease. It costs a fortune to treat these conditions.

Why would the government make it more difficult for us to act coherently in a public health fashion by taking this traditional partnership approach away from the provinces, taking it right up to the office of the Minister of Health, subject to the vagaries and ideology of a government that clearly does not subscribe to science?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we reject the premise of the comments that we do not rely on science. In fact we rely wholly on science.

The applicants who will make the application to the minister to prove that the location is suitable will have to base their determination on science, on the increase of crime rates, and it will be science that will determine whether it will be the best spot.

There is absolutely nothing that is mutually exclusive with diminishing the number of people who have HIV or other diseases contracted by virtue of using needles and placing it in a safe location where it has lesser effect on public safety and on vulnerable children and diminishing crime rates.

What is so incompatible with placing a location for a site in a spot where it is less disruptive to safe communities? Canadians expect safe communities. They do not have be subject to the placement of these sites when there are better places for it. That is what the whole consultation process is designed to elicit.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

This is the first time I have spoken in the House since Parliament was prorogued. I would therefore like to take a moment to say hello to my constituents and tell them that I am ready to return to the House and I look forward to participating in the debates. I am also pleased to speak about health because I am now a member of the Standing Committee on Health and this is an issue of particular interest to me.

That being said, I was very surprised this morning to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health give the first speech, since the government had decided to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for review. There is a slight imbalance in that respect. Of course this bill is related to the health and public safety of Canadian communities; however, it would have made sense for it to be examined by the Standing Committee on Health. I wanted to take the time to say that.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2 or former Bill C-65 today. Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is a very thinly veiled attempt by the Conservatives to put an end to supervised injection sites. They want to give the minister more power, as we have already seen with immigration and other portfolios. This government wants to hold all the power.

If we add a long list of criteria that must be met in order for a supervised injection site to be opened, we will end up not having any more such sites. Right now, there is one such site in Canada called InSite, which I will talk about a little later. This bill shows that, sadly, we are still dealing with a very ideological government that puts its own thoughts and values ahead of scientific facts. We know that the Conservative Party is very anti-drug. Of all the Conservative bills, this one is aimed at pleasing the Conservative base by proposing to eliminate drugs in Canada.

It is unfortunate, because this bill will not have the effect they want. There was a big Conservative campaign this summer called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. It is a shame, but heroin exists. Like all other Canadians, I am against it and I would love to be able to say that it no longer exists, but it does. There is a problem.

Deciding not to address this problem or not to create health centres to deal with it will not solve the problem. That is very irresponsible. By preventing communities from building supervised injection sites, the government is saying that instead of putting all injection drug users in one place so they can get clean syringes and be supervised, it would rather have them shoot up in churchyards, in parks where children play and in schoolyards. That is what the Conservatives are telling us.

Personally, I would rather know that there is a supervised injection site in my neighbourhood than know that these people who are unfortunately using drugs could be anywhere. That is what I understand from this bill. Supervised injection sites do not provide drugs. Earlier I heard a Conservative member say that they do, but that is untrue.

People who use these sites go there with their drugs and ask the people there to help them with their injections so that they can have clean equipment and access to experienced staff who can help if they overdose or if there is a problem.

This is a huge health problem. The government has made huge cuts to healthcare. We are talking about $31 billion in cuts. The government should take this seriously. I think these injection sites can help with prevention. We can try to prevent diseases and stop them from spreading instead of having hospitals treat countless cases of AIDS or hepatitis A, B and C.

Currently in Canada, there is one supervised injection site, namely InSite, in Vancouver. I would like to talk about what InSite does. Facts and figures can really help people understand what a supervised injection site does. People often have unfounded biases or preconceived notions about this.

To use these services, users must be 16 years old, sign a user agreement and follow a code of conduct. This is clearly not a place with a free-for-all philosophy. Not at all. There is a code of conduct and a focus on safety. Obviously, patients cannot have children with them.

InSite is open during the day, seven days a week, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. It has 12 injection stations. Users bring their own drugs. Drugs are not provided.

Nurses and paramedics who supervise the site provide emergency medical assistance if necessary. Overdoses can occur. Personally, I prefer that this be done in a supervised injection site with trained staff rather than out on the streets.

Once users have injected their drugs, their condition is assessed before they are sent to a post-injection room and before returning to the streets. If there is a problem, they will be treated by a nurse. Staff members also provide information on health care, counselling and referrals to health and social services. Users can then be referred to Onsite, which is located in the same building as InSite. This is a place that provides detox treatment.

Some of my family members have had to go to drug treatment centres, so I know that they are essential. When people are struggling with this problem, they often have no choice. I am not saying that 100% of addicts are going. There are those who, sadly, want to stay on drugs, and that is very unfortunate for them. However, there are some who want to try to get clean.

I find it very interesting that in one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addiction counselling or other support services. I think this is very positive. If the 2,200 people who were referred for drug treatment had injected their drugs on the street, they would not have received this service.

In 2006, Wood et al. published another interesting statistic: those who used InSite at least weekly were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program. Once again, this shows the influence that InSite has had on people who use the service.

In addition, the rate of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver East has dropped by 35%. This means that one in three lives were saved thanks to a centre like that.

I know that some Conservatives will say that they think it is bad for communities. My colleague just asked a question. Of course, no one wants this in their backyard. I live in a very cool little neighbourhood in Lachine. If someone told me that such a centre existed near my house, I might have some concerns at first, and that is only normal.

That being said, when asked, 80% of the people who live or work in that area of downtown Vancouver support InSite. Furthermore, the number of discarded needles and injection paraphernalia and the number of people injecting drugs in the street dropped dramatically one year after InSite opened. These are all positive aspects.

In closing, I do not have enough time to laud it properly, but an organization in my riding called Head & Hands in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce does some work with people who are unfortunately addicted, and it distributes injection paraphernalia. Once again, the entire Notre-Dame-de-Grâce community supports this. Since the organization's inception in the 1970s, crime has decreased and the number of people using detox services has increased. I think that is important.

Of course I will be opposing this bill, because I think we need these supervised injection sites in our communities in order to reduce crime and help people who are suffering from addiction.

[Cathy McLeod, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and I heard many things about the safe injection site, how many lives it saved and a little about detox. However, does the member know how difficult it is for people who want to get into detox and rehabilitation? There are no beds available. There is no support. There are no services. I continue to be astounded about how those members want such money, effort and time put into one pillar of what is a four prevention strategy, and completely ignore the lack of opportunities for people who want to get off drugs through detox or rehabilitation.

The comment the member made that stunned me the most was the one about how it is NIMBYism if we do not want a safe injection in our area. I believe she said “I would not want one in my area”. I thought that was stunning to hear from the member. I would like her to explain why she believes that communities will not support them, if they are so important, and why she would not support one in her area.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

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

I find it a bit odd to hear her say that she listened with great interest to my speech and then ask if I know about the difficulties with drug treatment programs. I said that people in my family have gone through detox programs. I wonder if she was really listening and where she was. Perhaps it was an issue with the interpretation.

In my speech, I also said that in one year, 2,171 InSite users were directed to drug treatment services, which, to my mind, is significant. In addition, approximately 30 peer-reviewed studies that were published in journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal described the benefits of InSite. The Canadian doctors' association says that it has a positive effect on people's health and that it benefits the community because it puts all drug users in the same place. They receive support and are encouraged to check into a drug treatment program. I know that it is difficult. I am not saying that it is easy, but they need good services and a place to go.

In Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, I spoke to a street outreach worker who distributes injection kits. I heard how difficult it is to reach these people and convince them to check into a drug treatment program. I believe that InSite helps address that problem.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech on this bill was very honest and straightforward. It was very refreshing and very appreciated.

I wanted to build on my colleague's response to the former question. I have had discussions with doctors, particularly those who have been working in my city of Edmonton, on trying to deal with the problem of addiction and trying to seek safer places even within the community to deal with the problem of drug addiction, which is evident across the country. The member spoke to the issue of what the doctors are telling me, which is that it is pretty hard to create a path toward detox and better health alternatives if people are hiding in back alleys, getting HIV and avoiding prevention and rehabilitation.

Could she speak again to the issue of what the experts are finding in their analysis of B.C.'s Insight program that, in fact, it may well be the best path toward better health alternatives?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I said and what I have been hearing in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. It is a matter of building trust with the individual, which is difficult. A drug addict is not going to decide to go for treatment overnight after seeing the $2.7 million government ads urging them to do so. It is a process. A supervised injection site like InSite will attract them because they will know that they can get help there. Then, they can work towards getting treatment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 18 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 amendment.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-2. What the Conservatives are trying to do with the bill is quite clear, despite their pretending to do something quite the opposite. The consequences of the bill will prove to be very dire for the most vulnerable in our society and very costly for our health care system.

While the bill pretends to address public health and safety concerns about safe injection sites, in fact it has three other completely different goals. I believe the bill aims to shut down InSite, the supervised injection site in east Vancouver, and to prevent any other supervised sites from operating. I believe it aims to nullify the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour safe injection sites, and I believe it constitutes a further attack on the principle of harm reduction.

The question of why the government would pretend to facilitate safe injection sites is in some respects easy to answer. Conservatives know the bill flies in the face of informed public opinion, so it is necessary to create false distractions by manufacturing concern over safe injection sites as threats to public health and safety, when in fact the evidence shows directly the opposite to be true. The bill raises the spectre of neighbourhood opposition to safe injection sites when surveys show that 80% of those living and working in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside support InSite, the existing safe injection site.

Bill C-2 pretends to implement the 2011 unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the case of Canada v. PHS Community Services Society, the decision upholding the right of InSite to operate and upholding the charter rights of those who are addicted to receive health care services.

Yet in its “principles”, Bill C-2 makes no reference to public health and no reference to any of the principles on which the Supreme Court of Canada decision was based. This indeed is a bill that will result in litigation, as its intent seems to be an end run around the Supreme Court decision on safe injection sites. Cynics might even say the government might welcome endless litigation, which would not only delay new safe injection sites but also consume the scarce resources of organizations that have a different view from the government on how best to address the addiction crisis in our communities.

The Conservatives also know that the false concerns about public health and safety that Bill C-2 raises will appeal to their narrow base who believe with a near religious fervour and a clear disdain for evidence that being tough on crime will somehow solve addiction problems.

Let me talk a little about each of these three not-so-hidden aims of Bill C-2: shutting down safe injection sites, getting around the Supreme Court ruling and destroying harm reduction programs. Bill C-2 pretends to facilitate the licensing of safe consumption sites, while instead creating a long list of criteria for licensing and setting up a system without any requirement for the timely disposition of those applications. The bill lists 26 criteria on which applications will be judged, literally A to Z in that section. It establishes long timelines for public consultation on an application, but imposes no timelines on the minister for actually making decisions.

Perhaps my greatest concern about the bill is the ultimate discretion granted to the minister. In the bill, the minister “may” grant a permit for a safe injection site that has met all the criteria, when in fact what I believe the bill should read is that the minister “must” grant a permit if the criteria are met.

As I said, Bill C-2 purports to implement the 2011 unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour of safe injection sites. In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly found that safe injection sites save lives. The court ruled that the existing site should remain open with a section 56 exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court ruled that InSite users have a charter right to access the service and that similar services elsewhere should be allowed to operate with an exemption. The court did not say we need a new bill and a new process.

Finally, Bill C-2 pretends to be about public health and safety, when it actually aims to dismantle an important harm reduction program. It ignores the very evidence that exists on the positive impacts of InSite. More than 300 peer-reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated that safe injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, as well as reducing deaths to zero from overdoses. In a study conducted over a one-year period, there were 273 overdoses at InSite. None of these resulted in fatality.

Bill C-2 also ignores the real savings to both health care and public safety budgets that come from safe injection sites. They ignore the real savings in terms of reduced demand on first responders and emergency rooms with the reduction in overdoses, and they ignore the increased number of clients who actually get into treatment programs as a result of visiting save injection sites.

My colleague from Vancouver East pointed out in her speech on Bill C-2 last week:

Dr. Evan Wood, a renowned scientist who works for the B.C. Centre of Excellence in HIV/AIDS, points out that one of the important aspects of a safe injection site is that, given that each HIV infection costs on average approximately $500,000 in medical costs, [InSite] has contributed to a 90% reduction in new HIV cases caused by intravenous drug use in British Columbia, which is why the B.C. government has been such a strong supporter of the program.

When the evidence is clear, how can we proceed with a bill such as this, which intends to frustrate the creation of new safe injection sites? Unfortunately, I believe Bill C-2 is part of the Conservative agenda to eliminate harm reduction programs. We saw this agenda begin in 2007, when the government removed the term “harm reduction” from the list of goals of Canada's national drug strategy.

I am standing here today because there is a need for action to address the crisis in overdoses in my own community that the provincial health authority, social service agencies and local police are trying to address. The most recent B.C. Coroner's Report from October 2012 found that there were 44 deaths from illicit drug use on Vancouver Island in 2011, with 16 of those occurring in greater Victoria. This makes Vancouver Island the region with the highest rate of deaths related to illicit drug use in British Columbia at 7.88 per 100,000 residents.

According to the Centre for Addictions Research at the University of Victoria, this makes the local per capita death rate nearly 30% higher than that in the Lower Mainland. If people need evidence of the positive impact of InSite versus a community such as mine, which does not have access to a safe injection site, they should keep that figure in mind. There is a 30% higher death rate from overdoses on Vancouver Island than where a safe injection site exists in the Lower Mainland. The need for action in my community is very clear, yet Bill C-2 would take away the best tool for responding to this health crisis. It would take a safe injection site off the table for my community.

I have one last question. Why the rush? It was surprising to see Bill C-2 as the first bill the Conservative government brought forward for debate in the second session of the 41st Parliament. Yes, it would help re-establish its tough-on-crime credentials, but more importantly I suspect the Conservatives are in a rush to bring in this new law to head off the opening of new safe injection sites, as there are some applications for section 56 exemptions that are quite advanced. What they want to do is change the law and send the applicants back to the drawing board under this new legislation with its long delays and near impossible criteria.

The real threat to public health and safety in my community turns out to be the narrow ideological agenda of the Conservative government, which ignores the evidence of the real contribution that safe injection sites make to public health and safety. It has already sent a fundraising letter to its base talking about donating to the Conservatives to help them keep drugs out of our backyards. Ironically, of course, that is exactly what safe injection sites do. They move drug use off the streets and out of our backyards into a safer setting for both those who are injection drug users and our communities as a whole.

New Democrats are opposing the bill at second reading and sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety. I would say this is another piece of Conservative propaganda around safe injection sites. Why is the bill not going to the health committee where it belongs? This, as the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out, is clearly a health issue and not a public safety issue. The NDP will be calling witnesses in committee to bring the evidence, once again, to the attention of Conservatives of the very positive role that safe injection sites play in both public health and safety. The very fact that the Conservatives have chosen to send the bill to the public safety committee illustrates to me their intention to distract the public by characterizing safe injection sites as a threat to public safety rather than an important health measure that would save both lives and money.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with pretty well everything the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has said. I spent some time at the injection site in Downtown Eastside Hastings a number of years ago. They are there for health and for making progress in getting peoples' lives relatively back in order. These are people who are on drugs for whatever reason. We certainly do not want to see people on drugs. Injection sites do not encourage the use of drugs. They are recognizing the reality of the world and trying to find a reasonable solution to drug addiction. The member makes a number of good points.

Especially when the British Columbia government is on side, what is the reason, from his perspective, for the government going this way? Is it just that it believes in punishment or in ideology? These drug injection sites make sense from a health perspective, and I also believe they made sense from a crime perspective by reducing crime and trying to prevent peoples' lives from being destroyed.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do suspect the government's motives with Bill C-2. I really believe it is trying to get around the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which found there was a charter right to access health services that save lives. Therefore, my hope is that when we get to committee with the bill and present the government once again with the evidence of the very positive role that safe injection sites play in communities—the very opposite of what it is alleging here, that they are somehow a threat to public safety and a threat to public health by encouraging drug use—that it will reconsider.

We know what the record is at InSite. We get far more injection drug users into treatment when there is a safe injection site where they can establish relationships with health care workers and counsellors, and establish the confidence to get the help they need to do something about their drug addiction. When we leave people on the street, it causes all the various public disorder problems that are associated with injection drug use.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has given a very excellent overview of not only how InSite operates but why it is needed in his own community.

I am very curious. I believe that if we canvassed residents in B.C., generally, we would be hard pressed to find people who oppose InSite. They see it as part of the solution, not part of the problem. The members of Parliament from metro Vancouver here in the House, whether West Vancouver or the North Shore or wherever it might be, I bet their own constituents also understand and support InSite. That makes it all the more perplexing and distressing that the government has taken such a rigid hard line, such a politically motivated line where it is basically politics over medicine.

I would like to ask the member what he thinks about local representatives on Vancouver Island. I know in Vancouver one would be hard pressed to find any elected representative who would oppose what InSite has done.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her question and I want to applaud her for her constant advocacy for safe injection sites in the Downtown Eastside.

I am a former city counsellor. We had these discussions when I was on council. The council that I sat on said it was much better for us to zone for public health care services, such as injection sites, and have public hearings and get the public out to express where they would like to see these services located. My council felt it had a responsibility to take its share of those public health services and address these problems, rather than trying to leave them to the police to address or leave them to neighbourhoods where they became a problem with things such as needles in parks and school playgrounds.

Therefore, we would have been hard pressed to find people in my community who were opposed to this reasonable approach to dealing with injection drug use.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians, we are blessed with safe streets and communities in which to live our lives and raise our children. Indeed, Canadian families expect and deserve safe and healthy communities in which to live and work. That is why our government has consistently delivered the tools needed for all parties to contribute to keeping our streets and communities safe. These include legislation passed during this Parliament, such as the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Other acts, such as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are important tools for ensuring that our communities remain safe. This act provides the legal framework for the control of dangerous and addictive drugs that can tear families apart, lead to criminal behaviour, and destroy lives.

What is important to appreciate in framing this whole debate on the bill before us and the NDP's amendment is that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act applies to both substances that can be obtained legally and those that cannot, both licit and illicit substances.

All controlled substances have the potential to be abused. That is why they are called controlled substances. However, the risks are increased when those substances are unregulated and untested and are bought on the street, as illegal drugs often are.

For this reason, our government is recommending amendments to the act, through the bill currently before the House, that would strengthen the legislation and better protect Canadian families and communities.

Before I get to the substance of my speech, I would just like to mention how disappointed I am with the NDP. I find it completely irresponsible that the NDP, through the member for Vancouver East, has chosen to try to prevent Canadian parents, through the amendment tabled just recently, from having a say before drug injection sites open in their communities.

Now, as highlighted by my colleagues earlier, under our current laws, activities involving controlled substances are strictly prohibited. These include possession, import, export, production, and distribution. However, there is a caveat to the prohibition, which is the minister's ability to issue an exemption under section 56 of the act. This section allows the Minister of Health to grant exemptions from the application of the act or its regulations for activities that, in the opinion of the minister, are necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or are otherwise in the public interest.

Today we are proposing changes to this section to ensure that Canadian families and communities are shown the respect they deserve in the process. Through the respect for communities act, those who are seeking an exemption to use controlled substances obtained from legal, or licit, sources would follow the same process set out in section 56 today.

Most of the exemption requests received by Health Canada are for routine activities, such as clinical trials and university research. These trials involve controlled substances obtained through licensed pharmaceuticals, pharmacists, and hospitals. What is being proposed in our bill is a new approach to dealing with exemption applications for activities involving dangerous and addictive drugs sold on our streets.

Currently, exemption requests for illicit substances are assessed in the same manner as licit ones are. The respect for communities act would include a new regime to assess applications for activities involving these illicit substances. It would include a section specific to supervised injection sites that would outline rigorous criteria derived from the 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

These drugs are inherently dangerous. They are illegal for a reason. We know that the proceeds from the sale of these substances contribute to organized crime and make our streets and communities less safe.

In the 2011 Supreme Court decision, five factors were identified that must be considered by the Minister of Health when assessing any further exemption applications for supervised injection sites. The factors that must be considered include evidence, if any, on the impact of such a site on crime rates; local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support the site; resources available to support its maintenance; and expressions of community support and opposition. These criteria need to be addressed by an applicant seeking an exemption to undertake activities involving illicit substances at a supervised injection site before the Minister of Health can properly consider the application.

Ensuring that families and communities are kept safe has been an important consideration when assessing an application. For example, the applicant has to provide detailed information on how public safety risks will be mitigated. They have to provide information on security measures, criminal record checks, record-keeping, and procedures for the safe disposal of any controlled substances, and anything that facilitates their consumption, left on-site.

I find that when using catch-all word phrases, such as “substances”, “consumption”, and “facilitation”, it is easy to lose sight of what we are talking about. I can tell members, from personal experience in my former career as a police officer, that heroin is, without a doubt, one of the most addictive drugs known. It is physically and psychologically addictive. It is one of the worst, if not the worst, drugs to come off of. Think about the worst days and times anyone in this place has had, and multiply it by 100. People addicted to this drug will do anything for their next fix, including, but not limited to, shoplifting, robbery, break and enter, assault, and many other Criminal Code offences.

That is why the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Minister of Health needs to hear from those who put their lives on the line every day to protect communities from harm. They include local police and social workers as well as other key stakeholders in the area where the proposed site would be located. The applicant has to respond to the concerns outlined by local police. Information about crime, public nuisance, public use of illicit drugs, or inappropriately discarded drug-related paraphernalia, such as needles, also has to be provided in the application.

I have highlighted some of the criteria in the new regime that address matters related to public safety. The respect for communities act considers the issue from multiple perspectives and requests that information be provided on a wide range of relevant topics so that potential threats are identified and addressed.

One of Health Canada's related responsibilities under the current Controlled Drug Substances Act is to monitor the distribution of controlled substances and to inspect facilities, as needed, to verify compliance with the act and the terms and conditions of the exemption. This is done to minimize the risk of diversion and any negative impacts on public safety.

Through the respect for communities act, we would make changes to extend these inspection authorities to validate information on any exemption application related to supervised injection sites. These amendments would authorize inspectors to enter any supervised injection site for which an exemption was granted to verify compliance with current laws.

Our government also believes that the public should have a voice in the process. Every community is different, and public consultations provide a unique window into understanding the public health and safety impacts on that community. Valuable input and local perspectives would be sought from provincial ministers responsible for health and public safety, the head of local police, the lead public health professional in the province, and the licensing bodies for physicians and nurses in that province. All of this information would need to be collected as part of the consultation required under this bill.

I urge all members of this House to stand and support the respect for communities act and help give Canadian families safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. If there is support in the local community, whether it is Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton, Toronto, or Victoria, where we know there has been a lot of consideration given to setting up safer injection facilities, would the member be supporting those applications?

I know that the Minister of Health has that decision to make. However, if it were in the member's local community, and he could see that it had local support, if he could see the statistics from East Vancouver, where the rate of overdose deaths has dropped by 35% since InSite opened, would he then be supporting such a facility in his own community?

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

Mr. Speaker, I personally would not support any safe injection site anywhere in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that was the essence of the question I was going to ask, and I appreciate the boldness of the answer.

I am a little surprised, given the many stakeholders who have a caring, compassionate attitude and want to deal with the social issues surrounding substance abuse, which destroys lives and families. It is a cancer within the community. A fairly significant group of people believe that safe injection sites will not resolve all the issues but that they are a step in the right direction. Some communities want to see this happen.

I now know what the member's position is. Can he indicate whether his position is the same as the government's position?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Minister of Health or any other member of Parliament in this place, but I do know, from personal experience, as a police officer for 20 years as well as three years in drug enforcement, that heroin is, if not the worst drug, one of the worst drugs people can inject or ingest. It is a dangerous drug. As far as I am concerned, it has no useful purpose in society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We served together on the Standing Committee on Health.

In an article on the Conservatives' website, the government is asking for our help in keeping heroin out of our backyards. How does it propose to do that, when this bill will send injection drug users back onto our streets and into our neighbourhoods?

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that heroin is illegal, and whether we have safe injection sites or not, it is still purchased illegally and taken to that safe injection site illegally, because it is an illegal substance. We are not going to stop anything with safe injection sites.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member may have worked with youth, but he is not the only one. I, too, have done work with youth shelters and street outreach workers, who often meet people involved in the drug scene to try and get them to leave it.

There is broad consensus in Quebec: the best way to do that is to offer people places where they can meet with someone who is there to help them get out of that hell.

If they do not have an appropriate spot, there will still be the parks, the barns and all of those other places where we do not want to see those people. That is my comment. I find the member's attitude appalling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a difference between providing a place to go for recovery and providing an area where people can safely inject an illegal substance.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and address Bill C-2. Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. That is why our Conservative government is moving forward with the respect for communities act to ensure that parents have a say before any drug injection sites open in their communities and the most rigorous criteria apply.

Why is this necessary? It stems from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in 2011, which rendered that any application for a supervised injection site must, among other factors, be considered with an understanding of the circumstances in the community that had led to the need for a site, as well as the opinions of the community in which it would operate.

However, the court was also clear in its ruling that it was not “an invitation for anyone who so chooses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a “safe injection facility”. That is why the government is acting on this Supreme Court ruling. Given the inherent risks in using dangerous and addictive drugs obtained on the street, exemptions to use them at a supervised injection site should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, once rigorous criteria have been addressed by an applicant.

Specifically, the bill would amend the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the federal statute that restricts the usage of dangerous and addictive drugs. Under this act, activities involving controlled substances, including possession, import, export, production and distribution, are prohibited, except as authorized through an exemption obtained through section 56.

As I just said, we believe that exemptions should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and subject to rigorous criteria. That is why this bill, the respect for communities act, would divide section 56 into two distinct categories. Street drugs, or illicit substances, would have a section specific to supervised injection sites. Applications to use illicit substances at such a site would need to address rigorous criteria before such an application would even be considered by the Minister of Health.

One of the criteria an applicant would have to address would relate to the treatments for the proposed site's users. The applicants would have to provide letters from their provincial minister responsible for health, describing their opinion on the proposed activities, how the activities would be integrated in the provincial health care system and any treatment services that would be available in the province for individuals who would use the site. An application would not be considered by the Minister of Health without this information. In addition, an applicant would have to provide a description of the drug treatment services available at the site, if any, for persons who would use this site and the information that would be made available to them in relation to drug treatment services available elsewhere.

These criteria demonstrate that our Conservative government takes the harm caused by dangerous and addictive drugs very seriously. We need to support those in need with treatment and recovery programs. Drug treatment and recovery programs must be focused on ending drug use.

That said, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of other actions the Government of Canada is taking to address dangerous and addictive drug use.

In 2007, we launched the national anti-drug strategy. The strategy's goal is to contribute to safer and healthier communities by reducing and eliminating illicit drug use in Canada. Like the bill before us today, the national anti-drug strategy is designed to protect public health and maintain public safety. That is why its three pillars are prevention, treatment and enforcement.

Today, I would like to focus specifically on the treatment aspect of the national anti-drug strategy and outline some of the services that are part of it. The strategy supports innovative approaches to treating and rehabilitating those with illicit drug addiction who pose a risk to themselves and the community. Health Canada also works to increase access to and improve the quality and effectiveness of addiction services for first nations and Inuit youth and their families. Specifically, it aims to enhance treatment and support for first nations and Inuit people, support treatment programs for young offenders with drug-related problem, enable the RCMP to refer youth with drug-related problems to treatment programs and support research on new treatment models.

While responsibility for the delivery of most treatment and rehabilitation services remains with provincial and territorial governments, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of continued investments in drug treatment programming and works closely with the provincial and territorial governments and other key stakeholders. Our end goal is always to help treat and end the scourge of drug addiction that plagues communities and families. The drug treatment funding program is one such example of this multilateral approach. This program supports provincial and territorial governments, as well as other stakeholders, in making strategic investments in three key areas.

The first area is through the implementation of evidence-informed practice. Health Canada supports the uptake of best practices such as continuous knowledge development and information sharing to improve service delivery.

The second is in strengthening the evaluation and performance measurement capacity and activities. While all jurisdictions collect performance information pertaining to their treatment, services and programs, the type and nature of the data collected as well as the approach to data collection and analysis vary considerably. With the funding in this area, projects are in place to identify and standardize best practices, evaluation and performance measurements.

Third, the program supports linkages and exchange among the funded projects. This is an essential element of the work undertaken in the first two investment areas and includes enhancing knowledge sharing and disseminating lessons learned. For example, in some of these projects, work is under way to implement knowledge-exchange mechanisms for concurrent mental health and substance use best practices. Other tools are also being developed to improve linkages between the specialized addiction sector and other health and community service providers.

Since 2007, this program has provided over $100 million in funding to provinces, territories and key stakeholders.

To highlight one particular project in Alberta, community agencies that serve youth were supported by providing a manual and curriculum to improve staff skills around basic addiction, counselling and screening practices as well as mental health knowledge. The result of this project demonstrated that community service providers improved their skills and confidence in evidence-based addiction practices. In addition, at-risk youth had greater access to addiction information and basic services through the community agencies that they frequented.

Another approach has been taken by Saskatchewan, a project enabled services directed at youth by building upon a strong pre-existing framework. Through these services, individual assessment plans are developed followed by brief interventions and referral to more formal services. Through community partnerships, the project is tracking the impact of its services and moving youth into recovery programs. The program provides between 30 to 50 brief interventions every month with between 200 to 335 participants.

Additionally, as part of the national anti-drug strategy, our government provides almost $10 million annually to improve access to quality addiction treatment services for aboriginals. These investments are targeted in four key areas: improving the quality of services by increasing access to certified training and supporting treatment centres to become accredited; increasing the effectiveness and relevancy of services by supporting these centres to re-profile or strengthen services in response to recognized service gaps; improving access to services by piloting community-based multidisciplinary teams to provide comprehensive additions and mental health services to aboriginal communities; and a comprehensive review renewal process for first nation addiction services carried out in partnership with first nation communities and leadership.

Our government remains committed to addressing dangerous and addictive drug use through the national anti-drug strategy and will continue to invest in prevention and treatment. The respect for communities act is consistent with this strategy and, once more, it takes action in the wake of the Supreme Court decision ensuring that parents have a say before drug injection sites open in their communities.

To me, this is an important point in the bill. It gives local law enforcement, municipal leaders and local residents a voice before a permit is granted for supervised drug consumption sites. Communities must have a say.

All told, the bill would provide the Minister of Health with the information necessary to balance public health and public safety considerations, including how the proposed site would fit within a province's overall approach to treatment services.

Why the NDP, through the motion of the member for Vancouver East, is seeking to kill this bill is beyond me. What NDP members are saying through their motion is that they are against giving parents a say before drug injection sites open in their communities, that they are against the Supreme Court's ruling on this matter and that they are against ensuring that addicts are provided the treatment and support they need at these sites.

I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of the respect for communities act and give the Minister of Health the tools she needs to do her job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague a question.

In writing a bill, we always look to achieve some kind of balance. In this case, it is a balance between public safety and health. However, it seems to me that the Conservatives are shifting the balance in favour of public safety, away from health. Places such as InSite, which are found around the world, are safe and give due consideration to the importance of health.

I would like to ask my colleague to talk some more about the importance of health in this type of project.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced the bill. I have the bill in my hand and I am on page 8. I am trying to figure out what criteria the member feels is too onerous.

Here is how the bill begins, as far as the criteria is concerned. Scientific evidence is one of them. I wonder if the opposition is okay with our obtaining scientific evidence. The provincial minister is one of them. Is the opposition okay with the provincial minister weighing in on a safe injection site? Local government, municipal governments and, I am certain, my councillors would want to have a say in what goes on as far as supervised injection sites. The police force is one. I am certain my police chief wants to have a say.

The list goes on. I am reading directly from the bill. What criteria do the opposition members want to remove? Frankly, there was virtually no framework at all for these sites before. If we were to go to average people, certainly my neighbours in the community, and say that there was no framework for this, no legislative criteria to be met, they would be appalled.

Finally, we are getting the job done, as the Supreme Court asked us to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague opposite who said that the NDP does not support this bill as it pertains to regulating drug use.

The NDP finds that Bill C-2 flies in the face of the 2011 Supreme Court ruling. The NDP believes that harm reduction programs, including supervised injection sites, must be based on evidence that they will improve public health and save lives, not on ideology.

We are talking about supervised sites, sites that will prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as hepatitis A, B and C, HIV-AIDS, and others. How can we reach injection drug users in the future without these supervised sites?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people who go to these sites commit an illegal act of purchasing the drug first. Then they go to the site to inject it and they leave the site jacked up on drugs.

In the past I was attacked by a person, who was jacked up on drugs, with a razor knife. It was not a fun proposition. That is what we have to deal with along with all the other issues within communities.

The member says that the bill somehow does not meet the criteria of the Supreme Court. The fact is the Supreme Court specifically said that we had to address things like the impact on crime rates, wherever it was going to be sited; local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support such a site, and I already mentioned that this is finally putting some structure there; resources available to support its maintenance; and expressions of community support or opposition.

If we look at the bill, it does all of that.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my presentation, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from LaSalle—Émard.

I am very proud to rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-2 and to support the very important amendment presented by my colleague from Vancouver East. I would like to thank and congratulate her, first for presenting this amendment, and also for the work she does in representing her constituents in the riding of Vancouver East. We have seen in this chamber that she cares about all her constituents, whether they are the most vulnerable or from different walks of life. My colleague knows very well what is at stake with Bill C-2 because, in her riding, there is a major problem when it comes to people living with addictions. Unlike the health minister of this and former governments, she has visited InSite. She does a good job, and I would like to congratulate her.

To be frank, I am disappointed to have to speak to Bill C-2 today. We should not have to deal with such a bill, particularly given the very clear decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 2011. Supervised injection sites, such as InSite in Vancouver, are an important way to guarantee better public health and safety, and the closure of such sites would be detrimental to those who benefit from these services.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with a new and fairly underhanded attempt by the Conservative government to violate the Supreme Court's 2011 decision. The government is trying to meet its objective of closing InSite in Vancouver, and to make it impossible to open any new sites.

Before I became an MP, I earned a bachelor's degree in psychology from Université Laval. During my studies, I spent some time learning about addictions, including alcohol and drug addictions. Today, the harm reduction approach is scientifically recognized, and many of that approach's techniques are currently being used by the scientific and medical community. They produce proven results.

InSite in Vancouver is a very practical and effective application of the harm reduction approach, which was unfortunately rejected by the Conservatives in 2007 when they reviewed the national drug strategy. They decided to simply do away with the harm reduction approach, despite scientific evidence and conclusive data showing how effective it is. As someone with a degree in psychology and expertise in that area, I am extremely disappointed to see the Conservatives ignoring proven scientific studies that show the importance and the effectiveness of supervised injection sites such as InSite.

If the bill is passed as it exists today, there will be a long and tedious list of criteria that new supervised injection sites will have to meet in order for the minister to grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These criteria will make it extremely difficult to open new supervised injection sites, even though there is a demand for them. Other municipalities in the country are considering setting up such sites to help people with addictions—people who deserve our support and compassion—and to give them access to the resources they need to overcome their addictions. These resources are offered at InSite when people make use of those services.

In fact, more than 30 studies, some of which were reviewed by peers in the scientific community, were published in renowned, highly esteemed journals. I am talking about The New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal. We should not disregard these authoritative sources, which have described at length the benefits of supervised injection sites, more specifically, the benefits of InSite in Vancouver, the only supervised injection site in Canada at this time.

Studies have also looked at the more than 70 similar supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia. Those studies show similar results. They were able to prove that the supervised injections sites are a major breakthrough in terms of public health, that they provide important benefits and must continue to exist in order to provide their services under appropriate supervision.

The most ironic thing I have heard so far in the Conservatives' comments is that to them, closing supervised injection centres, which help people with addictions and give addicts a safe place to use the substances they need, is a way of protecting children and families. The Conservatives are suggesting closing these sites and sending addicts back into the streets instead of giving them an enclosed space that would be out of sight from children and mothers who are going shopping or running errands.

We will end up in the same situation Vancouver was in at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s. At the time, between 1987 and 1993, the number of deaths by heroin overdose went from 16 a year to 200 a year. However, with the arrival of InSite, the overdose death rate was reduced by 35%. That is significant because they also managed to reduce the waste that comes from drug use, including the problem of used needles. In addition to reducing waste, they also managed to reduce the spread of disease among those who inject drugs. Having fewer people share needles means fewer cases of hepatitis A, B and C and of HIV-AIDS.

To put this in economic terms the Conservatives will understand, this is a way to significantly lower our health care costs. However, last week I heard one of the parliamentary secretaries tell us that our emergency rooms offered the best care available to treat these people.

I had the opportunity to attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a few weeks last session. We were looking at how to reduce demand for police and health care services in order to save money on public safety, while still maintaining the most effective public services possible.

One thing we heard from many police chiefs from across the country was that police forces, social services and health care services should work together to avoid revolving door situations, in which people end up on the street, then back in the ER, then back on the street, and so on. That is a huge burden on our health care system and costs taxpayers a lot of money, considering that health care is available in the community and can truly help people living with addictions.

I think it is completely ridiculous that the Conservatives are once again trying to circumvent a Supreme Court decision to guarantee public safety and security for Canadians, not only those living with addictions, but also the Canadian families who may have to deal with problems involving addicts.

One way to improve the quality of life in our communities is to offer appropriate services to people living with addictions, and that is what centres like InSite do.

Mere hours after introducing the bill, the Conservatives launched a fundraising campaign among party members, encouraging them to keep heroin out of their backyards. That is misleading.

Members joined this campaign and perhaps even donated to the Conservatives thinking, somewhat naively, that this bill was intended to enhance public safety. However, the Conservatives failed to tell them that, as a result, people living with addictions would have to go back out on the street to inject themselves rather than using the InSite services. When people use these services, they are often referred to detox centres and manage to finally attain the lifestyle of abstinence that the Conservatives would like them to have. However, the Conservatives are now closing the door in their faces and asking them to fend for themselves and to go back out on the streets in full view of the children, families and mothers doing their grocery shopping.

This bill makes no sense at all. This is indisputable evidence of the backward nature of the Conservatives' anti-drug program. They are willing to completely discard an evidence-based approach that has been proven to reduce harm, for the sole purpose of pleasing their base. I find this really disappointing.

I again thank my colleague for the amendment she proposed. A bill like this should never go to second reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look closely, the real objective of the bill is to give the health minister the basic information he or she needs to make an informed decision on protecting the public.

My colleague also commented in her speech that there are many communities that want to open these sites. The bill allows for those communities to have hearings, to have a say. It allows parents to have input into those communications.

My question to the member is this. Why would she not agree to at least allow parents to have a say into whether or not an injection site opens down the street from them? Why would she deny parents that right?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, no one in the NDP is trying to limit consultation with our communities. I find it particularly ironic to hear this from a Conservative government that routinely abuses in camera meetings and omnibus bills and tries to limit consultation opportunities in the development of new pipelines and natural resource projects. He is telling us that we are trying to restrict consultations with Canadians? How shocking.

Furthermore, what this government is not telling us is that even if the organizations wishing to open new supervised injection sites meet all the criteria, something they already find hard to do, the minister of health may still refuse their application, even if it is supported by the provincial or territorial health ministers. That is the problem.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier gave a very nice speech on what the Conservatives are trying to hide from us. She talked about the Conservatives’ economy. We know the Conservatives’ economy is only on paper. We are not talking about an economy that would bring in any money.

Earlier, a Conservative MP told us that he had been attacked by someone who was on drugs. In all likelihood, if this person had been in a centre, he would not have attacked him. I therefore think that the proposed legislation is contrary to public safety. Could my colleague discuss this in a little more detail?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

What I described in my speech is the probability—because it is in fact rather more than a possibility—that people living with addiction problems, which sometimes entail mental health issues or homelessness, could have access to resources and assistance from health care professionals, social workers and other health practitioners. They even had access to a drug treatment centre, Onsite, which is located right above InSite. All this could go up in smoke. Those people are going to find themselves out on the street again.

On the street, people living with addiction problems can get into difficult situations and perhaps even cause harm to other people or to themselves. It is to prevent such situations, among other things, that supervised injection facilities like InSite are set up. There are some communities in Canada, including Montreal and Quebec City, that were considering opening supervised injection facilities and received no opposition from the provincial health minister. This is a sign that there is a community will to open such a facility, and it could be hindered by the ideological and dogmatic vision of this government, which is prepared to deprive the most vulnerable Canadians of services simply to please its base of support and establish its ideology in the country. I find this utterly deplorable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to surprise you: Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, is not in the interests of public safety.

Despite the assertions of the hon. Minister of Health, if we take a close look at this bill, we can see that it aims to prevent supervised injection facilities from functioning. The health minister wants to tighten the criteria for injection facilities in Canada.

However, according to the new rules, those who wish to open an injection facility must first give consideration to the opinions of local community groups and police services and obtain support from municipal and provincial authorities.

With their so-called democratic consultations, the Conservatives say they are worried about the welfare of their fellow Canadians, without giving any consideration to opinions expressed by the people most directly involved. The people who are addicted to drugs and other substances belong to Canadian society just as much as anyone else. We are not only talking about places where drug addicts are going to inject heroin and use other illegal drugs, but safe and hygienic places where they can do so under medical supervision.

That is what InSite in Vancouver has been trying to do for the past 10 years. It is a safe, health-focused place where people inject drugs and connect to health care services to treat disease and infection. They also have access to addiction counselling and treatment, as well as housing and community supports.

Under the leadership of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, InSite is striving to decrease the adverse health, social and economic consequences of illicit drug use. With Bill C-2, the government is limiting the beneficial actions of such supervised injection sites, which work to integrate people with addictions into society.

Let us recall once again that this debate went as far as the Supreme Court, which decided that InSite was a very important health facility. I would like to quote a key excerpt from the Supreme Court's decision, since the bill that is before us today is supposedly based on that decision. Here is what the Supreme Court of Canada had to say:

Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

The court therefore ruled that InSite should remain open under the exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is important that all new legislation pertaining to these sites take into account the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions. These findings indicate that supervised injection sites reduce the harm associated with the use of illicit drugs. They must therefore be subject to exemptions. Given this solid evidence, why are the Conservatives still refusing to take into account the facts that have been presented? The bill reduces the possibility that such sites will be set up by requiring the submission of a great deal of evidence and many documents related to the financial viability of the site, the need for it in the community and its potential impact on public safety.

Bill C-2 jeopardizes the public safety it claims to defend. Supervised injection sites reduce the presence of used needles in public places and reduce the spread of disease simply because they are medical facilities supervised by trained personnel.

The argument made by the Minister of Health is therefore invalid and once again constitutes a false pretence to hide the real motive: to strengthen a Conservative ideology by ostracizing a certain segment of the population.

I would like to strengthen this argument. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, and Pivot Legal Society criticize the bill's negative impacts. A statement published in June when the government tabled Bill C-65 mentioned that this is “a bill that aims to make it even more difficult for health authorities and community agencies to offer supervised drug consumption services, such as Vancouver’s Insite, to Canadians who are among those most at risk of HIV infection and fatal overdose”.

The official opposition considers the government's initiative a deeply flawed bill based on an anti-drug ideology and false fears for public safety. This is another attempt to rally the Conservative base, as evidenced by the “Keep heroin out of our backyards” fundraising drive that started hours after Bill C-2 was introduced in Parliament, but by endangering supervised sites, this bill will actually put heroin back in our neighbourhoods. This is why this bill has been described by the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition as “...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”.

The evidence has demonstrated that safe injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, and death from overdose. It has also been shown that they do not undermine public safety and in some instances have proven to promote it by reducing public drug-injecting, reducing violence associated to it, and reducing drug-related litter.

Safe injection sites, therefore, strike the balance between public health and public safety. The government and all members of the House have a public responsibility to see Canadians with drug addiction problems as citizens in need of medical treatment, not as criminals. We have the responsibility to offer them assistance, primary health services, and addiction treatment.

There is evidence that allows us to say that supervised injection sites have promoted entry into treatment for drug dependence. One study published in 2006 mentioned that those who use InSite services at least once a week were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visited infrequently, and in 2010, 5,268 people were referred by InSite to other social and health services. The vast majority of them were for detox and drug dependence treatment.

As the Canadian Medical Association stated:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

Lastly, supervised injection sites could cause problems for some people because along with these sites come people with substance abuse problems and drug addictions. However, seeing the issue from only that one angle would be misinformation, pure and simple.

I presented a number of points that the government needs to take into account before amending any legislation dealing with supervised injection sites. For all of the reasons I mentioned, the official opposition opposes Bill C-2, which is designed to put an end to centres that not only help a certain segment of the population both medically and socially, but also protect communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. She mentioned in part that heroin is already in our neighbourhoods. With the InSite program it would go back into the neighbourhoods. May I remind the member that heroin is illegal and is bought on the streets? It is not bought at InSite. Users buy it on the street, bring it to InSite, and inject.

If we are looking at the issue from the perspective of heroin as an illegal drug and InSite as a place where heroin can be injected, and not injected legally but injected in a safe place, would the member agree with me that InSite, from the perspective of heroin use, is a safe haven for users to inject, as opposed to a place where we could try to get treatment for these people and get them off the drug? Some of these people have no intention of leaving the heroin drug trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I would like to clarify one point.

In fact, places like InSite are safe places that also offer other services, such as detox services. I mentioned that, but I wanted to reiterate it. As I said in my conclusion, people who are unfortunately addicted to hard drugs and visit a supervised injection site on a regular basis are more likely to use services that will get them on a path of treatment and rehabilitation, so that they can contribute to society. I would like to reiterate that these places provide a number of services.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a point that I referred to earlier, which is that injection sites can be of great benefit for communities where there are serious issues dealing with crime and safety as a direct result of illegal drugs. Sites of this nature can have a positive impact on many of our communities.

My comment for the member is in regard to that aspect of making our communities safer places. If done right, safe injection sites can actually complement a community, in that fewer needles are found and there are fewer environments where individuals are injecting around kids and so forth. There are many social benefits to having a safe facility, let alone being able to assist individuals to possibly get off drugs in the first place.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I hope the member for Vancouver Centre did not misunderstand. She still has five minutes remaining. However, the time for government orders has expired. Therefore, she will have five minutes remaining and questions and comments, following question period.

The House resumed from November 4 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 amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-2, which was previously introduced as Bill C-65 at the end of the last parliamentary session. However, it was one of the bills that ended up in parliamentary limbo, with the prorogation requested by the Conservative government. It has therefore come back as BillC-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Mr. Speaker, as is my custom as the justice critic for our party—and having been one yourself, I am sure you will understand—I am looking at this bill as a lawyer. I will not claim to be an excellent lawyer, as I have heard the member for Ottawa—Orléans do in the House, but nevertheless I will have nearly 30 years of experience as a lawyer next year.

This very important bill has quite a striking title: An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I looked at what it was amending and what it would be changing, because I like to understand what we are trying to do in the House.

The bill basically amends section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which I will read. That really enlightened me about the problem we have and often go through in the House. Prior to the proposed Bill C-2, section 56 provided the following:

The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems necessary, exempt any person or class of persons or any controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof from the application of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest.

This short provision seemed relatively clear to me. Everyone in the House agrees that we want to regulate certain drugs and other substances, especially really hard drugs. I therefore wanted to know how the government was amending section 56. I encourage hon. members to read this atrocity. It is truly a legal atrocity. The original provision was five lines long. Now I have lost track of how many pages it is. When I say that it is many pages long, I mean that I could probably spend the next 18 minutes of my speech in the House reading out the changes that this government is trying to make.

In Canada v. PHS Community Services Society, the nine Supreme Court justices rendered a unanimous decision that was a major slap in the face to the government. The Supreme Court told the government that its actions were inappropriate.

This bill is the Conservative government's response to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its ruling, in very plain and clear language, the court said that InSite provides essential services and should remain open under the exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court ruled that users were entitled to access InSite's services under the charter and that the delivery of other similar services should also be granted an exemption under that section.

The court therefore provided an unequivocal response to what was happening. There is no denying that this was seen as a victory in Vancouver.

No one wants to provide easy access to drugs. No one wants to tell people to go ahead and shoot up and that we will have a big party and sing Kumbaya. That is not at all the issue. This technique was tested and implemented. It has been shown that supervised injection sites have positive effects and result in fewer overdose-related deaths. These sites have even helped people to overcome their drug addictions.

However, this ideological government decided to simply ignore the lesson given by the Supreme Court in Canada v. PHS Community Services Society—a decision that, I repeat, was rendered by 9 out of 9 judges on September 30, 2011.

I encourage hon. members to read the new version of section 56 that will exist if the House passes this bill. It is an atrocity.

I will spare the House subsections 56(1) and 56(2). Instead, I will focus on subsection 56.1(3). I will not be talking about subsections 56.1(1) and 56.1(2), your honour. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker; I have court on my mind. Perhaps I am psychic, Mr. Speaker, and someday you will be a judge.

Subsection 56.1(3) reads as follows:

56.1(3) The Minister may consider an application for an exemption for a medical purpose under subsection (2) that would allow certain activities to take place at a supervised consumption site [we know what the government is trying to do here] only after the following have been submitted [members will be shocked]:

(a) scientific evidence demonstrating that there is a medical benefit to individual or public health associated with access to activities undertaken at supervised consumption sites [that will be easy enough to demonstrate];

(b) a letter from the provincial minister who is responsible for health in the province in which the site would be located that;

(i) outlines his or her opinion on the proposed activities at the site,

(ii) describes how those activities are integrated within the provincial health care system, and

(iii) provides information about access to drug treatment services, if any, that are available in the province for persons who would use the site;

(c) a letter from the local government of the municipality in which the site would be located that outlines its opinion on the proposed activities at the site, including any concerns with respect to public health or safety;

(d) a description by the applicant of the measures that have been taken or will be taken to address any relevant concerns outlined in the letter referred to in paragraph (c);

Paragraph (e) is about the head of the police force.

I am trying to read quickly because it would take all day to read out what applicants would have to prove in order to be granted an exemption.

56.1(3)(f) a description by the applicant of the proposed measures, if any, to address any relevant concerns outlined in the letter referred to in paragraph (e);

To understand these provisions, anyone seeking to provide a service that the Supreme Court has declared necessary to the health and safety of certain individuals would need legal and addictions experts. Good job.

56.1(3)(i) a description of the potential impacts of the proposed activities at the site on public safety, including the following:

(i) information, if any, on crime and public nuisance in the vicinity of the site and information on crime and public nuisance in the municipalities in which supervised consumption sites are located,

I will skip directly to paragraph (m).

56.1(3)(m) relevant information, including trends, if any, on the number of deaths, if any, due to overdose—in relation to activities that would take place at the site—that have occurred in the vicinity of the site and in the municipality in which the site would be located;

(n) official reports, if any, relevant to the establishment of a supervised consumption site, including any coroner’s reports;

I will not discuss paragraphs (o) and (p). I will skip to paragraph (q).

56.1(3)(q) a financing plan that demonstrates the feasibility and sustainability of operating the site;

Now I will go on to paragraph (t). I am skipping some points because they are all more things that have to be proven to the minister.

56.1(3)(t) information on any public health emergency in the vicinity of the site or in the municipality in which the site would be located...

Previously, section 56 read as follows:

56. The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems necessary, exempt any person or class of persons or any controlled substance or precursor or any class thereof from the application of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest.

I would like to go back to subsection 56.1(3). I will spare you the rest of the bill. I am at paragraph (y).

56.1(3)(y) if any of the persons referred to in paragraph (w) has ordinarily resided in a country other than Canada in the 10 years before the day on which the application is made, a document issued by a police force of that country stating whether in that period that person

(i) was convicted...

Now I will go to paragraph 56.1(4)(a):

56.1(4)(a) evidence, if any, of any variation in crime rates in the vicinity of the site during the period beginning on the day on which the first exemption was granted under subsection (2) in relation to the site and ending on the day on which the application is submitted; and

(b) evidence, if any, of any impacts of the activities at the site on individual or public health during that period.

This goes on for pages and pages. If the government just wanted to say that it does not want any supervised injection sites, it could have simply said so, instead of having us read all this legal gibberish that will not even pass the necessary legal tests, especially considering the Supreme Court's decision in Canada v. PHS Community Services Society. That decision, I repeat, was like a big slap in the face to the Conservative government: nine to zero. The court told the government that what it was doing was wrong and that it was jeopardizing public safety. Yet, this government professes to champion public safety. It engages in all these little schemes that seem to please its militant supporters. It is sending all the wrong messages regarding the benefits this bill will have.

Reading this bill sends the message that as soon as it passes and comes into effect, in some big cities like Vancouver, for instance, which already has a program that works very well, Canadians will be in danger, much more so than before this legislation. Big cities like Ottawa are taking part in this debate. It is a divisive issue. This government really likes to pit people against one another and especially to run fundraising campaigns. That is what really turned me off about this bill, when I saw the government had used this bill to do some fundraising.

Since I am an opposition member, I am sure people will say that I am pro-terrorist and pro-pedophile, and I will probably be pro-drugs in a few minutes. There will probably be a statement by some member based who listened to my speech and who will say that I am encouraging people to inject hard drugs, which is absolutely not true.

I trust the specialists and the scientists who tell us that this approach is effective and that we must not let people use drugs in our neighbourhoods or in the woods where children can find dirty needles on the ground and prick themselves with them. That can cause all kinds of problems. This situation needs to be controlled in some way, so that we can deal with the serious problem of drug addiction and try to refer these people to services that can help them get out of the hell of drug addiction that no one wishes on anyone.

This government is introducing this bill and it will be challenged again. I guess a decision of nine to zero is not enough for this government. We are going to have to say again and again that what the government is doing will cause serious problems for our public safety. What the government is doing is not fair, and it is certainly not a smart move in terms of public health. No matter which way we look at it, it seems incredibly obvious to me that this is a bad decision.

I repeat: the Conservatives need to read. We are always being told by our opponents across the way that we do not read. On the contrary, we read. In fact, this may be the difference between us: we do not read only the notes prepared by the Prime Minister’s Office. We read our own documents and those that are put forward in the House. We read the bills as they are presented, and we cannot believe it.

The Conservatives claim that these sites encourage people to take drugs and that this is something we must not do, but that is not the goal of supervised injection facilities. What they are meant to do is remove drug addicts or people with problems from public areas that might be frequented by children.

Yesterday, I went to speak to young university students about political life. I went along Sparks Street—I am sure everyone here is familiar with it—and there was a young man lying on the ground. Another person came along and I listened to their conversation.

It was a social worker who went to see this young man. Nobody was paying any attention to him and he was lying on the ground. The social worker went to see him and asked if he was all right. He began talking to him.

In our society, there are people dealing with all kinds of problems. We cannot simply ignore them all and act as if they do not exist. They exist, and we must take care of them, and take care of them the right way.

In its ruling on Canada v. PHS Community Services Society, handed down on September 30, 2011, the Supreme Court said that this was a safe approach to dealing with this issue. I repeat that the decision was made by nine judges to zero. This means it was not a majority decision; it was a unanimous decision. No less than public safety and public health are at stake.

Supreme Court rulings cannot be challenged. I appreciate that the government does not seem to be showing much respect when I see the mess that it made with the latest appointment to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, there is a limit to how much disrespect can be shown for another pillar of our democracy.

The government is responding to the unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court in 2011 with Bill C-2. This is absolutely appalling. It is disrespectful of our duties and obligations as legislators in the House.

I will stand proudly and vote against this bill, and I will support my colleague’s amendment. I commend the member for Vancouver East on her remarkable work on this issue, along with all my colleagues from British Columbia.

It is also an issue that is starting to make headlines in Ottawa. When Bill C-2 is passed, I will not be able to guarantee the people in my riding that they will be any safer in the streets.

In conclusion, in addition to the fact that this bill amends section 56, which was very clear, the most appalling thing about this bill is that it is going to be called the Respect for Communities Act. This is Conservative grandstanding at its best. Unbelievable.

I read section 56 and then I read the amendment that goes on forever. No one will be able to meet these criteria. Then I looked at the title and I could not believe my eyes. Then I listened to the speech by my colleague from Vancouver East, who said that they had raised funds on the backs of people with serious problems in our society. You cannot get any cheaper than that.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague listing the requirements the government has put in this legislation. I may have misunderstood. I was getting the impression that she is opposed to all of the requirements. That may not be so.

Which specific requirements the government has put in do you accept, and which do you specifically reject? Do you accept, perhaps, the requirement for—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please.

I draw to the member's attention that comments should be directed to the Chair, not to an individual member of the opposition.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

My mistake, Mr. Speaker.

Which specific criteria are acceptable, and which specific criteria does the hon. member find unacceptable in the legislation?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I do not have 20 or 30 more minutes to answer my colleague's question.

I encourage him to read subsection 56.1(3) of the bill, on page 8. He should also read the Supreme Court decision, which clearly explains what should be produced in evidence.

As I mentioned earlier, Conservatives seem to think that our one and only goal is to open injection sites to encourage drug users to have huge drug parties. That is not the case. This project is based on science. People who use supervised injection sites must first show that they take this seriously.

They need to have credentials. There is no problem with that.

There is a list of everything an organization would need to submit. We also see at the very end, after paragraph 56.1(3)(z.1), that an organization may submit all the required evidence and still not be approved by the minister.

This type of provision makes the bill less credible and creates a logistical problem. The government should not play people for fools. People are not fools. They are not stupid. The Conservatives should just come out and say they will never approve another project and be clear about it. It would make their position clear. I would have more respect for such a clear-cut approach than for making people believe that the government is willing to approve projects that meet 28 conditions, a dozen sub-conditions and a list of requirements that goes on and on, much like this answer I am giving.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Gatineau for her usual clear and precise dissection of Conservative laws, which are designed, really, to deceive the public and the House. In particular, I like the fact that she has pointed out that the current government, which supposedly is against red tape and bureaucracy, is now establishing red tape and bureaucracy specifically to frustrate the establishment of these services that are so needed in communities like mine and, I know, her own.

One of the changes from the last time the bill was before the House is that this time it is being sent to the public safety committee instead of to the health committee. Would the member agree with me that this is an attempt to both divert attention from the Supreme Court decision and to create false public fears about the impact of safe injection sites?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a great question.

Yes, that is precisely the image the government wants to convey. Even though it is supposed to be a public health bill, introduced by the Minister of Health, it is being sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to create that impression. As I have said, you need only read the title. The advice I often give my colleagues in the House—though there are not many MPs who need my advice—is to look at the short title of Conservative legislation. It really says it all.

This one is called the respect for communities act. What the Conservatives are saying here is that the previous law, as well as the Supreme Court decision, do not keep our communities safe. That is outrageous! Not to mention, outrageously crass. How awful is it to make people believe that the position of the opposition or of the Supreme Court of Canada compromises community safety. It is patently false, but it plays on people's innermost fears.

I am not here to scare people. I am here to attempt to make their lives as pleasant as possible and allow them to grow in a safe society, without telling them a bunch of horror stories that simply do not hold up, legally or scientifically speaking.

So yes, the Conservatives are clearly playing a shell game to make people believe they are making our streets safer, even though they are actually doing the opposite.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her brilliant speech. The attention to detail she brings to her work is an inspiration to all members.

We face a rather philosophical question. On the one hand, we see how easily the Conservatives show compassion and understanding towards powerful people who take drugs, act like deviant alcoholics and make death threats. We see them cry and get all worked up for these poor powerful people. On the other hand, when it comes to ordinary citizens in need, they show no compassion at all.

I would like my colleague to expand on that.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great point. I thank my colleague for his excellent question and comment.

We need to keep in mind that philosophy often guides our actions. Our friends opposite should take a little more time, on occasion, instead of using shortcuts which will not lead to the desired outcomes. They use a double standard, indeed.

My own upbringing was modest. I know what it means to be part of the middle class because that is how I grew up, like most of us here. My family had opportunities that others did not, and my parents always taught me to be compassionate. Compassion seems to be lacking in our friends opposite at times, when it comes to ordinary people, people like us.

My colleague talked about powerful people. I do not wish to pass judgment on certain major Canadian cities or certain mayors, but I notice, sadly, that the Conservatives's conscience seems more accommodating towards some people than towards the person who is lying on Sparks street right now.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gatineau for her speech.

She and I worked together on a bill that claimed to crack down on elder abuse. I am certain she remembers it. The bill changed a handful of words in the Criminal Code so that people who abuse the elderly could be punished a bit more harshly.

It is clear more resources are needed on the ground to prevent elder abuse, respond in cases of abuse and assist seniors who suffer abuse. I see a connection here: there is evidence that injection sites work and reduce crime. Since InSite opened its doors in Vancouver, the crime rate, among other things, has dropped.

The Conservatives claim to be tough on crime, but much of what it takes to fight crime seems to elude them. Since my colleague is very active in the area of justice, I was hoping she could explain how there are other, better ways to fight crime than tinkering with the Criminal Code.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard.

I enjoyed working with her on the issue of seniors on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. She and I noticed the same thing, which is that the bill, with its fancy title, claimed to put an end to elder abuse even though it only established an aggravating factor in sentencing. I am looking forward to seeing how that will work out in the field.

The government over there does not understand the meaning of health promotion and protection. It only knows how to punish and seems oblivious to the fact that if we do not address the source of the problem, it may come back to haunt us in a much more brutal fashion. That is not what I would call sound public administration policy.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I am deeply saddened that the Conservative government has seen fit to introduce such a retrograde bill, and, as I will discuss, a bill that flies in the face of the unanimous 2011 Supreme Court decision on InSite. It seems obvious to many lawyers that this bill will also be struck down by the Supreme Court, costing Canadians hundreds of thousands of dollars. How many lives will be lost or wasted until that occurs?

I would first like to salute the remarkable work done by my colleague from Vancouver East, the health critic for the official opposition. Her compassionate leadership on this issue has been truly inspirational. It saddens me greatly that the Conservative government is only appearing to implement the Supreme Court of Canada judgment. In reality, this bill does nothing more than throw hurdle after hurdle in the way of those other communities across Canada that might wish to establish a safe consumption site to assist those who are suffering from the scourge of addiction.

At the outset, let us be clear, the federal government lost in the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court agreed unanimously that Vancouver's InSite clinic should be allowed to stay open and required the government to determine the conditions that would allow it and other facilities to do so. This bill is supposed to be the result of that Supreme Court judgment.

Before turning to Bill C-2, let me begin by describing the judgment of the Supreme Court. Then I want to examine the contents of the bill before turning to its importance to communities such as Victoria, which I have the honour to represent.

The court's unanimous judgment is extremely eloquent. I can do no better than to read certain portions of the judgment into the record today. It goes like this:

In the early 1990s, injection drug use reached crisis levels in Vancouver’s downtown eastside [...]. Epidemics of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C soon followed, and a public health emergency was declared [...] in September 1997. Health authorities recognized that creative solutions would be required to address the needs of the population of the [downtown eastside], a marginalized population with complex mental, physical, and emotional health issues. After years of research, planning, and intergovernmental cooperation, the authorities proposed a scheme of care for drug users that would assist them at all points in the treatment of their disease, not simply when they quit drugs for good. The proposed plan included supervised drug consumption facilities which, though controversial in North America, have been used with success to address health issues associated with injection drug use in Europe and Australia.

Operating a supervised injection site required an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances under s. 56 of the [Controlled Drugs and Substances Act], which provides for exemption at the discretion of the Minister of Health, for medical and scientific purposes. Insite received a conditional exemption in September 2003, and opened its doors days later. North America’s first government-sanctioned safe injection facility, it has operated constantly since then. It is a strictly regulated health facility, and its personnel are guided by strict policies and procedures. It does not provide drugs to its clients, who must check in, sign a waiver, and are closely monitored during and after injection. Its clients are provided with health care information, counselling, and referrals to various service providers or an on-site, on demand detox centre. The experiment has proven successful. Insite has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area. It is supported by the Vancouver police, the city and provincial governments.

In 2008, a formal application for a new exemption was made. Again, I say, the Supreme Court held in favour of InSite. The court stated:

The Minister [of Health's] failure to grant a s. 56 exemption to Insite engaged the claimants’ s. 7 [charter] rights and contravened the principles of fundamental justice.

The minister's decision not to grant an exemption is not in in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It is arbitrary because it is undermines the very purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the protection of health and public safety. The court continued:

It is also grossly disproportionate: during its eight years of operation, Insite has been proven to save lives with no discernable negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada.

It further stated:

The effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.

The court went on to order the minister to grant that exemption to InSite, and here is the key point. It said this:

On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. 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. Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

What does Bill C-2 do in the face of that judgment? It sets out a daunting list of criteria that supervised injection sites would have to meet before the minister would grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Experts agree; these criteria would make it much harder for organizations to open safe injection sites in Canada.

Do not take my word for it. Let us hear what the experts have said. Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition issued this statement on BillC-2 when it was first introduced as Bill C-65. They stated the following:

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 [sites]....

The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association have also criticized the bill. This is what the CMA stated:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

The Canadian Nurses Association stated:

Evidence demonstrates that supervised injection sites and other harm reduction programs bring critical health and social services to vulnerable populations....

The NDP's position is clear. New Democrats believe that decisions about programs that may benefit public health must be based on facts and evidence, not ideology or appeals to the base of a particular political party. InSite users were found to have charter rights to access services and that similar services should also be allowed to operate with the appropriate exemption.

Over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in famous journals, like the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, have all described the beneficial nature of InSite in Vancouver. There has been study after study. There were 70 safe injection sites studied in Europe and Australia. They have all shown the same thing; it is a public health achievement. Canadians should be proud of what was forged in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

Other communities that are seeking to address the scourge of addiction want similar tools to do so, and then the government passes Bill C-2. It is shocking. It is shocking that the Conservative Party's “Keep heroine out of our backyards” fundraising drive started mere hours after it introduced this bill. However, here is the irony. Bill C-2, after setting these virtually unattainable hurdles in the face of safe injection sites, is going to put heroine back in our neighbourhoods. Shame on the government.

We believe in harm reduction programs, including safe injection sites, and we believe that these exemptions should be based on the evidence, not ideology. The bill puts far too much emphasis on communities having to prove the benefits of these sites. No one, for a moment, has suggested that there should not be ample consultation with communities. Of course, there should. However, the number of hurdles in the bill are absolutely daunting.

That brings us back to what the Supreme Court said. It said there cannot be arbitrary decisions by the minister. The NDP believes that any legislation brought forward should respect that ruling imbalance between public health and safety. Bill C-2 does not do that. Therefore, we think the bill is retrograde. We think people in various communities will throw their hands up and not even bother applying, given the hurdles that I will describe. If that is the intent of the bill, which many believe it to be, then the government will have succeeded, at the cost of millions of people around the world who have had similar processes addressed through safe consumption sites, and at the loss of people struggling with addictions in various neighbourhoods in Canada.

If the bill is passed, new applicants in various communities are going to have to include unprecedented amounts of information, such as supporting letters and, ironically, scientific evidence as well. We think that the process will be slowed down. For example, there are no parameters for how long Health Canada is going to have to take to process an application. How long the minister would take to make a decision is wide open and unaddressed. It could be months; it could be years.

In addition, the bill outlines certain principles that the minister must adhere to before approving an application. They are outlined in section 5 of the bill. These principles include a number of things, some of which are entirely appropriate, but when added cumulatively show the government's real objective, which is to thwart the ability to ever have such a facility opened. Therefore, the bill may well achieve its objective, not giving communities the opportunity for a supervised safe injection facility.

What is going on at the ground level? InSite remains the only operational supervised injection facility in our country. Since it opened, what has happened in Vancouver? There has been a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable disease infection rates and relapse rates for drug users. It was part of a public health plan. This statistic is absolutely shocking. Between 1987 and 1993, there was a 12-fold increase in overdose deaths in Vancouver. As the Supreme Court said, there was a public health crisis. That is why the community came together with the police, provinces, health authority and community groups to create this remarkable achievement. Now, of course, it seems like it is going to be for naught.

After the Supreme Court made its decision other public health officials, in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, started to consider opening supervised injection sites. So far, there has not been one such a request made to open a site.

I am indebted to my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, for his research on the implications of Bill C-2 in our community, the lower Vancouver Island. In his earlier speech, he described the crisis in overdose deaths in Victoria and surrounding area.

The B.C. coroner reported last year that there were 44 deaths from illicit drug use on Vancouver Island in 2011, and 16 of those deaths occurred in greater Victoria. He noted that Vancouver Island is the region with the highest rate of deaths related to illicit drug use in British Columbia.

The Centre for Addictions Research at the University of Victoria concluded that Victoria's per capita death rate is almost 30% higher than in the Lower Mainland. That is right, so just a few kilometres away, a ferry ride away from our community, in the Vancouver community where InSite exists, 30% fewer people die from overdoses per capita than on Vancouver Island, where we do not have a safe injection site. All that Bill C-2 would do is make it virtually impossible for us to realize the public health benefits that have been achieved on the mainland.

The Health Officers Council of British Columbia has resolved that “supervised injection services have been studied enough as research projects, and that it is time to move them into the mainstream of health service provision.” The College of Registered Nurses and the Canadian Nurses Association have interpreted their professional standards for nurses and nurse practitioners to encompass and support the supervision of drug consumption by clients.

In September 2010, the City of Victoria presented a resolution to the Union of B.C. Municipalities to lobby the province to “legislate that base levels of harm reduction services, including needle exchange and access to safe substance use equipment”, and detox and treatment beds, “be made available in every [local government]”.

In April 2008, University of Victoria addictions researcher, Dr. Benedikt Fischer, and B.C.'s provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, called on relevant authorities to implement a supervised consumption site trial for high-risk street drug users in Victoria. Their argument would be the basis for an editorial published in the BC Medical Journal on April 1, 2008, which said:

Victoria provides a perfect platform to implement a distinct and scientifically evaluated supervised consumption site program that is uniquely tailored to reflect the local characteristics of street drug use and associated public health needs....

I could go on, but I would like to talk about the recent response to the bill by Katrina Jensen, AIDS Vancouver Island executive director, who said there is a need for such a site in Victoria. In June she said:

“We have had eight overdose deaths in the last six months and those are deaths that could have been prevented if we had a supervised consumption site,” she said.

“I think there’s overwhelming evidence that a site in Victoria would save lives and be beneficial to the community.”

Debra McPherson, head of the BC Nurses' Union, asks:

“How does this respect the Supreme Court of Canada decision that recognized these facilities save lives?”...

She said the legislation is a smokescreen for the government’s real agenda of “pandering to prejudice and misplaced morality over health care, evidence and a coherent strategy on addictions and mental health.”

The bill does not achieve the goals that the Supreme Court of Canada set out. The Supreme Court of Canada suggested a road map for granting exemptions by the Minister of Health to allow supervised safe injection sites, consumption sites, to be established in communities.

The bill would set up all the red tape imaginable in communities that want to do something about this scourge, this public health and safety issue. These communities are only going to be frustrated by the bill. That is essentially why I oppose the bill. I think it is wrong-headed and contrary to public health and safety.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, before I was elected as a member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre, I was a real estate representative serving the GTA and one of the things that I am concerned about with respect to these sites is the value of people's real property.

As a real estate representative, I know too well that it is not just the current condition of a house or the property that it sits on, but it is also factors that are across the street, around the corner or down the road. For example, a gas station is always something to be concerned about. A big factory or even rental properties can decrease the value of real property. With respect that, when we talk about community safety and the concerns of the community, we are also taking into account the safety of investments.

I am wondering if the member would agree with me that an injection site across the street, down the road or around the corner from a family home would actually decrease the value of real property. Or does he actually believe that it would increase the value of that property?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary about the concerns she has about real property. I have concerns about real people's lives. I live in a community where people are dying every day on the streets. I am concerned about that. Residents of Victoria are concerned about that. On this side of the House, that weighs more heavily on us than the impact on property prices and investments, as she put it.

I point out that in Vancouver, 80% of people surveyed living or working in the Downtown Eastside support InSite. That is the community, too. People live there and 80% of them are in favour because they know the impact it has had on their community.

I live in a place where people often do not know that there is the possibility of treatment. We need to create, in partnership with local governments, what they did in Vancouver with InSite, which the Supreme Court celebrated in its decision. It is a coming together of the community. The police are in favour, I remind the House, as well as the community, the City of Vancouver and all of the partners.

They figured out that they could find a way to put this in an appropriate location. We are not talking about putting it in places where the community does not want it. We accept and respect the need for ample consultation with the community. That is what happened in Vancouver and that is what would happen here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthy to note that strong social programming in our communities, such as what we have seen in Vancouver with this particular facility, has a very strong benefit overall for all of the community. In fact, in response to the question that was just posed, the value of the community as a whole actually does improve.

I would ask the member to reaffirm what I believe to be the case, that when we bring in strong social programming, quite often what happens is that we will alleviate the concerns that many of the residents have. By centralizing or providing a service, for example, we can prevent individuals in this situation from using these illegal drugs in our schoolyards or back lanes, spread out throughout the community. The benefits far outweigh any sort of negatives that might be there by allowing facilities of this nature to exist.

As elected officials, what we should be doing is looking at creative ways in which we can start dealing with the social issues that are destroying many of our communities or that are extremely negative. This is just one of those tools, if I can put it that way, that can make a positive overall difference.

Could the member provide comment on that?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague's fundamental point that these strong social programs, as he puts it, do help alleviate community concerns.

Let me give the House some examples of that. In a study by Wood et al in 2004 about the Vancouver situation, there was a significant drop in the number of discarded syringes, injection related litter and people injecting on the streets one year after the InSite location had opened. That means, as the member points out, that people are not shooting up in alleys and dropping syringes by schools, they are going to a supervised site.

Secondly, I would point out that at those sites, there are trained nurses. If people are ready, willing and able to seek treatment and detox and get off drugs, that is what they are there for and they will help the addicted person to achieve that.

There are also all of the benefits that come from that, economically and otherwise. First of all, wasted lives, getting people off of drugs and getting into productive lives is certainly something that we really cannot put a price on. Secondly, the cost of less law enforcement, less hospitalization and so on are some of the benefits that, as the member said, clearly outweigh the costs.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria for his excellent speech.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned a potential decrease in the value of real property. Such a decrease could happen anywhere. The parliamentary secretary's use of the term says a lot about her living standards.

Cities like Toronto, Montreal, Charlesbourg and Limoilou all have back alleys. I used to own an apartment building. People would go to the alley behind the building to shoot up, and we would regularly find used syringes.

Would you agree it would be safer for the general public if people who are addicted to drugs and shoot up in back alleys were instead directed to supervised injection sites?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I should point out, ironically, if there is any issue of real estate, I am from the west coast. We do not need to be told about real estate values. They have gone up in Vancouver. They have gone up in the Downtown Eastside. I think it is a rather specious argument.

I want to repeat that we would be working in partnership, if there were a bill that truly implemented the spirit and the letter of the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment. We would find a community partnership to address some of the concerns there.

Of course there are always benefits and costs in any public policy decision, but I am so persuaded, and all people on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party are persuaded, the benefits will clearly outweigh the cost. We need to move on the basis of public safety and health.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That brings to an end the debate on the bill for the time being. On resumption of debate we will have about two and a half minutes for questions and comments.

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 amendment.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

First, I would like to go back to the legal aspects of this legislation. Bill C-2 creates so many legal complications that it is now virtually impossible for a safe injection site to meet all these obligations. Even if it did, the minister could still approve or reject the application.

I want to show that this really does not make sense. In fact, this is disguised legislation to convey the message that the government does not want such sites. However, instead of just saying so, the government prefers to make the legal obligations so complicated that none of these sites will be able to meet all of them. The hon. member for Gatineau demonstrated it very clearly in her speech.

I will restrict my comments to the legal aspects of this legislation. I am going to talk about what the safe injection sites do and about drug addiction.

First, we must understand that safe injection sites rely on an approach used by a number of health care professionals, namely the harm reduction approach.

Under this approach, we know that certain behaviours will be exhibited, even though we would prefer that they were not. Consequently, we deal with these behaviours as best we can to minimize their negative impact.

For example, in the case of sexually transmitted diseases, we realized that even if we told young people not to have sex, they still did. We then decided that since young people were still having sex, we would make condoms available in schools and ensure that young people had access to them. That is what this approach is based on.

It is the same with alcohol. If we tell people not to drink, it does not work. People will continue to consume alcohol. That approach is not effective. This is why we tell them that if they drink they should not drive, that they should drink moderately, or that they should have three of maybe four beers instead of a case of 24. We try to minimize the negative impact. We provide alcoholism treatment programs and support groups for those who need them. At least, we are not burying our heads in the sand and telling ourselves that since no one is taking action we are not going to do anything.

It is exactly the same with safe injection sites. We try to minimize the negative impact of this addiction. There are all sorts of consequences, including overdoses. People may die if they go too far. There is also the whole issue of blood-borne infections because people use dirty needles.

I should also mention that, unfortunately, some people who use these sites resort to prostitution to buy drugs. That is why we step in and hand out condoms. We try to minimize the harmful behaviour that may result from this lifestyle.

Safe injection sites prevent people from getting infections from dirty needles. For example, they prevent children from falling on needles in a park or a public area.

Safe injection sites also try to prevent other health problems. We are dealing with people whose hygiene is often a problem. If they go to a safe injection site, we can see whether they have an infection or the first symptoms of pneumonia, and we can encourage them to seek treatment. As for the rest, we can at least try to help these people live a healthier lifestyle.

In a safe injection site, we know that people will inject drugs anyway. Even if we try as hard as we can to prevent them from doing so, we know they will do it.

I searched high and low and, in my opinion, there is no strategy that is safer.

If we tell people to inject drugs at home, they might overdose without anyone around to help them. There are also some who will shoot up on the street. The discarded needles then become a problem because children can fall on them. Then there are people who will do it in apartments, in makeshift shooting galleries, where sanitary conditions are inadequate. I believe that a safe injection site is the best option.

Hon. members may not have noticed, but in hospitals, the yellow boxes containing discarded contaminated needles are locked. This may seem strange, but if they are not locked, people will steal them and use the contaminated needles to inject drugs. This happened to nurses whom I know. People just stole the boxes. Therefore, safe injection sites help prevent health problems that could be much more serious.

Moreover, it is not just in the big cities that people inject drugs. Unfortunately, this also happens in my area. I work with street nurses and I know that clean needles are handed out to prevent the spread of infection. Unfortunately, people are injecting drugs even in remote rural areas like Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We should not bury our heads in the sand when it comes to this issue.

I would also like people to understand that when people who inject drugs come into a safe injection site, the workers do not just show them where things are. An assessment can only be done when contact is made. Nurses assess them when they come in. This is what we always do, as nurses. We constantly assess people's health. It is something of an occupational hazard.

When people come in looking somewhat dishevelled, the nurses will ask questions to see whether those people have a place to sleep, for example. If they do not, workers will then be able to intervene. They will observe how their patients are doing and maybe even realize that they have some kind of untreated injury because they do not want to go to a hospital. There will be a health care intervention.

If the nurses observe increased confusion or symptoms of mental illness or depression, they will be able to intervene and advise the person. That only takes a few seconds. Experienced workers are able to notice these health problems rather quickly. They will talk with the person right away. If the patient has a persistent cough and has trouble breathing, then perhaps the nurse will realize that there is another health problem. If that person is getting a skin infection, someone will follow up.

This means that when people go there for injections, they get a regular health check-up, and a familiar nurse will be able to intervene quickly and provide advice. The individual may not listen to that advice, but at least action is being taken and no one is ignoring the problem. They detect risks and intervene socially, because there are risks associated with injecting drugs.

For example, if centre workers notice that overdoses are increasing in number, they will pass the message along to let people know that there could be drugs going around that may be impure or may be cut with dangerous products that are stronger than normal. They will caution people so that this information can get around. If some people who inject are also involved in prostitution and were in contact with violent or aggressive people, staff will be able to let others know to be careful, because other people have been attacked and they may be at risk.

These centres provide practical social intervention that cannot be found elsewhere. No one would truly rather have this happen in the street and to find someone who died from an overdose in the alley next to their home. That makes absolutely no sense. It should be done in a centre at the very least.

What is more, these centres can help in developing a trusting relationship with the individual.

That way, when an individual feels strong enough to quit doing drugs, someone at the centre can counsel them. Drug addicts will be much more likely to succeed in overcoming their addiction.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech and perspective on this issue, but I think, as a nurse, she has probably had many patients over the years who were absolutely desperate to get into detoxification services and rehabilitation services. To be quite frank, those services were not available. People who were ready to make changes in their lives were unable to get the help they needed.

As a nurse, how can the member support putting finances and funding into something when she has told many patients, “I'm sorry. I know you were looking for rehabilitation services and you would really like to have the opportunity to have a life free of drugs”.

How can she support that position without having the money spent where people really need it, on those who are looking for true changes in their lives?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that there are services for people dealing with addiction. Up to this point, it has not been that difficult to access those services. The hard part is convincing people to go, especially by using a heavy-handed approach, saying that what they are doing is unacceptable. It would be better to tell them that what they are doing is dangerous and that we are there to help, to develop a relationship of trust. In the meantime, we do not want them to get sick or get AIDS because of their behaviour. When they are ready, they need to know that someone will be there to send them off to get help. The services are available. The hardest part is convincing people. If we judge them before trying to convince them to get help, it will often be completely ineffective and there will be no opportunity to develop a relationship of trust. The gentle nudge offered at safe injection sites to convince people to get help will not exist.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that there are many communities across Canada that have different challenges. One of these challenges is trying to deal with the infrastructure of many social injustices, such as drug abuse, which leads to all sorts of elements of crime, let alone social factors that are not very positive.

We need to develop good solid programming that would build on making our communities that all of us live in safe. When we look at injection sites, particularly the one site we have in Canada, I believe there are studies that would demonstrate that the community as a whole has benefited, not to mention the individuals themselves who have benefited.

The member might want to provide further comment in terms of how the community as a whole does benefit, obviously knowing that the individual in question benefits as well.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the community does benefit. There will be fewer needles and overdoses in the streets. There are tangible benefits for communities. There are smaller communities that will not necessarily have a supervised injection site. However, they have gradually implemented concrete measures. That was not the case 10 years ago. Today, street nurses carry with them materials needed for a safe injection and condoms. They will use these types of interventions in areas where the number of people struggling with this problem is not sufficient to establish a supervised injection site.

These public health measures are extremely effective. However, they have to be implemented together with different social measures as part of a comprehensive solution. It is not enough to have just supervised injection sites. We must address access to education, poverty and different social measures that will help these people to do better. It is a package. This measure has to be part of a set of measures that a responsible government, one that does not look the other way, should adopt in order to fight these kinds of problems.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to speak for 10 minutes to BIll C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Before prorogation, it also went by the name of C-65, for those who have been following this matter, which has after all been in the public domain for some years.

In 2007, unfortunately, the Conservative government sought to close the only supervised injection site in Canada, InSite in Vancouver. At each stage in the legal process, the government faced defeat. The courts—both the appeal courts of British Columbia and the Supreme Court—stressed that these sites served a purpose in Canada and that they followed the guidelines available to users in this country.

I deplore the ideology behind this. In Canada, after all, we do have an anti-drug strategy, like many other governments, except that an incident occurred in 2007. Before the Conservative government came into power in 2006, we already had an anti-drug strategy with four pillars. It was based on prevention, treatment, enforcement and, fourth, harm reduction.

I say “had” because in 2007, the government updated its national anti-drug strategy, and it mysteriously rested on just three pillars. Harm reduction had disappeared. That is where ideology comes in, because the InSite supervised injection site in Vancouver was intended precisely to reduce harm.

It is therefore understandable that the Conservative government should endeavour to make such a change by all possible means, both legal and legislative. The matter went as far as the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court informed the government that it had lost its case on three occasions. Under the law, people have a right to access a supervised injection site. A little later in my speech, I will explain why such sites can be a good thing for the public.

Obviously, the government has turned around and used the last card it held: changing the law so that it becomes illegal and unacceptable to have such sites in Canada, without even considering the studies done over the years.

InSite has been in operation for many years. It is the first, and the one and only supervised injection site to have been set up in Canada. Its purpose is to research ways of helping addicts who have reached the end of the road and who, unfortunately, use drugs. These are not people who use drugs recreationally, but people who have, for a variety of reasons, reached a point in their lives where they really cannot stop. Such people should not be left to their own devices. They need help.

In the NDP, we are really going to ensure that no Canadian is left behind. I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for sharing our belief that the people of Canada deserve a government that cares about Canadians, and not just about their Conservative Party buddies.

This is a thinly veiled attempt by the Conservative government to put an end to supervised injection sites across Canada. Vancouver is not the only city that wants one; Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa do as well. Other Canadian cities have looked at the same scientific studies as we have and have concluded that it is a part of Canada’s anti-drug strategy to provide assistance for people who—let us face it—may continue to use drugs.

My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was speaking earlier about apartment buildings she owns in upscale suburban neighbourhoods in Quebec City, where people were unfortunately shooting up in the alleyways.

They left their potentially contaminated paraphernalia in the alleys, near places frequented by young and not-so-young members of the public.

It is therefore burying our heads in the sand to believe that the solution is to close injection sites in Canada and that our streets will be safer and our neighbourhoods less dangerous for our children. That is not true. It has actually been demonstrated that if these people are not using drugs in supervised injection sites, they will do so anywhere, even in places that cause concern. I am referring, for example, to playgrounds in this country.

I do not wish to oversimplify either, but I am genuinely convinced that my Conservative colleagues would prefer to have heroin addicts using drugs in a supervised injection site, with nurses and social workers who can help them overcome their difficulties, rather than in neighbourhood parks where children play.

I said that there had been studies on the subject, and it is true. More than 30 peer-reviewed studies have been published in such journals as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. The writers describe the benefits of InSite in Vancouver. Moreover, studies of more than 70 similar supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia report similar outcomes. InSite constitutes one of the most important public health breakthroughs in Canada. We believe that this site and other sites in Canada can generate similar benefits and should be allowed to provide services under appropriate supervision.

The word “supervision” is really important here. I will provide some explanation of how InSite operates. First, it is open seven days a week, from 10 in the morning to 4 in the afternoon. There are 12 injection stations. Users bring their own substances. People at home should not get the idea that the government pays for people’s drugs through InSite. On the other hand, staff members provide injection equipment. It is this that is so important, because we know that there are many health risks if users use the same needles or share them around. People in utter misery are not overly careful.

People can develop and transmit blood-borne infections. I am talking about diseases such as hepatitis and HIV. This is a huge burden on the Canadian health care system. However, the Conservative government decided to cut $31 billion from health care transfers to the provinces. It will be harder and harder for the provinces to balance their health care budgets. Of course, it is even more difficult for the provinces to treat people with HIV or hepatitis A, B or C.

I really wonder whether the government has a heart. Where is its compassion? Does the idea of helping one's neighbour still exist? Helping one’s neighbour should be a universal value, but perhaps the Conservative members prefer helping their neighbours only if their neighbours can help them back or only if they have never in their life made a mistake.

However, people do find themselves on the street, they become prostitutes or they use drugs, if not both. Some of them have had a difficult life. Sometimes, they were abandoned by their family or they experienced violence and sexual abuse in their childhood. It is no secret that adults take drugs, and it is not surprising that children take drugs. People who find themselves on the street join together, and unfortunately sometimes they fall into the hell of drug use. We must do more to help them.

The Conservative government thinks that it will solve the problem by closing supervised injection facilities in Canada. In fact, the reverse is true.

I am going to end on this note. I really think the government’s anti-drug strategy—a strategy I hope it will soon change—should include the fourth pillar I mentioned: harm reduction.

Prevention is important, but I would like to stress the fact that treatment is just as important. It is important to punish drug dealers, but when people are needy and destitute, they need help finding a way out. They need help, and this help can come from supervised injection sites.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and to the debate all this morning.

Twenty-five years ago, I was working on the streets of Toronto with the homeless men coming out of prison and dealing with issues of addiction. Twenty-five years later, my daughter is now doing similar work on the streets of Toronto. When we talk about what has changed, it is really dismal to see how conditions have actually become worse for people on the streets, thanks of course to actions such as the Harris government's cutting of social housing and mental health services.

What my daughter tells me in terms of addiction is that the biggest costs they are facing right now are in the emergency wards, with people getting sick and people dying, as well as the heavy cost of police, who actually have become the front-line social workers in many situations. When we talk to the police on the ground on inner-city Toronto, they are saying that it is a complete waste of their resources.

My Conservative colleagues are always talking about being tough on crime, but the real dangers of crime that we see in the inner cities are desperate addicts. It is the same even in smaller communities, where people who are not on methadone and are not able to have safe injection become dangerous criminals. Then the police and the emergency services are the ones who have to deal with these very sad cases.

I would ask my hon. colleague this question: why would the Conservatives once again choose a dumb-down approach when very straightforward systems that work with health care and police have been proven time and again to be effective?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for his question, and I congratulate him on his understanding of the issue.

Many studies have shown that supervised injection facilities were good for the public, that they improved public safety and that they were less costly for taxpayers, who must pay for hospitals and emergency centres. Taxpayers also pay the salaries of police officers.

To explain how much these facilities help people, I will say that in one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addictions counselling and other support services in order to get off drugs. Those who used InSite at least weekly were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visited only rarely.

These statistics show that this kind of facility can help people get off drugs and become productive members of society.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have been to Vancouver several times over the past few years, and I have looked into this issue. Has the member actually ever been to Vancouver and seen the people on Hastings and seen whether the policy he is espousing in this House matches the reality that is on the ground?

The member has mentioned that we need to look at these holistically. He is accusing the government of not looking into such issues as homelessness. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Working with the Government of British Columbia, we have together supplied more affordable housing in the Lower Mainland than any other government, particularly the NDP government that made cuts to a number of different areas. We have also helped support the provinces with record-high amounts of transfers, both in social transfers and in health transfers.

All of these things this member has opposed. After all of these investments, he continues to accuse us of not being compassionate. That is how we get things done in this country. It is not by saying things that are not true in this House, but by getting real things done.

I would like the member to comment on those matters.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question from my Conservative colleague goes to show how arrogant the government is. He assumes that I have never been to Vancouver, whereas in fact I have been there several times. In Chinatown, there are people are on the street who are clearly living in poverty.

The Conservative government boasts about helping the Canadian provinces and fighting homelessness and poverty, but it is not true. The Conservative government slashed the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS, which benefited Quebec. This is a government that likes to talk the talk but seldom walks the walk on these important issues.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Here comes intelligence.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is a little heckling on the other side. We were having a little discussion across the aisle, but it is a friendly discussion.

I really did not intend to speak on Bill C-2, because it will in fact go to the public safety committee, of which I am a member, and which I very seriously think that it is the wrong committee for the bill to go to. It should be going to the health committee.

However, what encouraged me to speak on the bill before it gets to committee was something I heard while driving in yesterday morning. There was quite an extensive interview on CBC's Ottawa Morning by Robyn Bresnahan with Dr. Gabor Maté, if I am pronouncing that name correctly. At some point in my remarks, I want to quote some of the information that Dr. Maté presented, because he works at InSite and presents some very good evidence that we should be considering as a committee and in the House in our discussion of this bill.

I might say as background, because it came up in earlier discussions and questions when people asked if they have ever been to InSite in Vancouver or to the Downtown Eastside or Hastings, that I have been there a number of times, some of those times as Solicitor General.

I have said a few times that my initial impression was what a loss of humanity, to a great extent. I can remember driving up a back alley one night in a marked police car when we saw a young woman—whose age I could not tell, but I suspect she was around 18 to 25—sitting on a step with a needle in her arm. It was not necessarily a clean needle. That shocked me. We stopped and talked to her. We were not there to arrest her at the time; I was doing an oversight of that particular area.

I will admit that when I first visited the safe injection site, I did have mixed opinions, because on the one hand, there we were, giving and injecting illegal drugs, and maybe that really does not click rightly with our psyche.

However,when we look at the results, we very quickly start to change our opinion. When we talk to some of those people and actually sit down and have a sensible discussion, rather than completely judging them for what they are doing and how they got into these illegal drugs and got addicted, and when we learn something of their backgrounds—whether they got into prostitution, were on the street, were in abusive families, or whatever it might have been—we can restrict our judgment somewhat and look at what InSite is doing for them in giving them their lives back to a great extent and, I think, providing much better public safety for the community.

That is important. There are fewer needles, and they are using safe needles. They are using proper sanitary conditions. It is proven that there is less HIV as a result. There are a whole lot of health benefits as a result of the injection sites, and we have to look at the evidence.

I will admit that when I went to InSite initially—and I was one of the ones involved in the decision to do it—one of my first questions was “Why would we do this?” I mean, it just goes against the grain to see illegal drugs injected. However, when we look right through to the end, we realize there are benefits to the individuals, benefits to the public, and benefits to health and safety as a whole.

That is what we should be looking at. This is more a health issue than a public safety issue, although I will admit it is both, but from both perspectives, whether we are talking about health or public safety, Bill C-2, as introduced by the Minister of Health, is a very bad and very dangerous bill. If passed, it will hurt public safety. It will injure health and will end up increasing crime.

The government has an agenda of being tough on crime, but I maintain that the net result of this particular bill 10 years down the road will show very clearly that it was a bad bill and the wrong direction to go.

As a party, we support evidence-based policies that reduce harm and protect public safety. That is what InSite was proven to do.

To give a little more background, the bill really flows from a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that declared the Minister of Health's 2008 decision not to grant an extension of the exemption of subsection 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which had allowed Vancouver's safe consumption site to operate since September 2003, had violated section 7 of charter rights.

That section says:

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.

Determining whether there has been a breach of section 7 involves a two-part analysis for the courts. In considering potential section 7 violations, they must ask two questions: whether there is deprivation of the right to life, liberty, or security of the person, and if so, whether that deprivation is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The Supreme Court found that both conditions had been met. Therefore, the Supreme Court ordered that the minister grant an exemption to InSite under subsection 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That is partly why we are here today.

The Supreme Court further explained that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Acts has a dual purpose, public health and public safety, and that the minister should strike an appropriate balance between the two. Therefore, here we are with Bill C-2, and I submit that the bill does not strike the appropriate balance. In fact, Bill C-2 goes far beyond what the Supreme Court ruled in terms of factors to be considered when granting an exception. That is why we are somewhat faced with a dilemma.

I will first go to what provoked me to speak on this issue. That was the interview I heard on the radio, which I think is very good documentation that should be on the record in the House.

To back up, the arguments made by Dr. Gabor Maté were as a result of an interview with Robyn Bresnahan yesterday morning on CBC. I will quote from the transcript. Dr. Maté, when asked a question about where we are at as a country on addictions, and our treatment of addictions, said:

It's better than some countries in the world, but in terms of science, in terms of human compassion, in terms of what we know about addiction, it's very backward.

He means our policy. He went on to say:

Because it [meaning Canada] sees addiction either as a matter of choice that needs to be punished, and so we have increasingly draconian laws against people that use substances despite all the international evidence that that approach simply does not work.

Or it sees addiction simply as a primary brain disease, as if there was some genetic reason why people become addicted. The reality is that people are becoming addicted because they were traumatized and hurt in childhood. And that early trauma and that early emotional loss in childhood shapes the personality in such a way as to create low self-esteem and shapes the brain's physiology in such ways as to make that person susceptible to substances.

And so neither our treatment, nor our legal approaches take into account the impact of trauma and emotional loss and their effect on brain physiology.

He makes the argument about why some people are addicted. When asked a question about the work he has done in lower eastside Vancouver, he was asked if he could give an example of what we are talking about here. He answered as follows:

Yes, and I worked for 12 years in Vancouver's downtown east side, including at the supervised injection site which our current government tried to shut down. In 12 years of work, I did not meet a single female patient who had not been sexually abused as a child.

He went on to make the argument of how some people turn to drugs to either overcome trauma or stress, or whatever. I am quoting him because we should be careful, in all instances, not to judge people and say they clearly had a choice. People say yes or no, but there are reasons that these things happen in some people's lives, and that is a sad thing.

Further on in the interview, and this is where he turns to evidence on the value of InSite, he talks to people about drug injection sites. He said:

I get emails, hundreds of them, thanking me for this perspective.

The only sense that I'm yelling into the wind is when it comes to policy. The people higher up seem not to understand these things. They don't want to seem to hear them. And one example of that of course is what's happening currently with the government's withdrawal of Health Canada's decision that would allow Vancouver physicians to prescribe heroin to a small number of patients.

What I'm saying is that there's tremendous appreciation...for this perspective.

He means that InSites are valuable, but not from the people who make the policies. He is saying that people on the ground, people who work with these individuals on a daily basis, know that it helps these individuals and that it is good for public safety. That is evidence. We need to be looking in this discussion at the evidence, not at the ideology. He went on to say:

Well, we do our best to articulate a scientific, evidence based perspective and my only wish is that as a physician, if I'm expected to practice evidence based medicine, so should the politicians be expected to practise evidence based politics.

The evidence internationally does not favour what is currently happening in this country by going against the InSites.

The last point I would make from that interview is what he said about the supervised injection site itself. He said:

But supervised injection sites don't promote addiction. They simply reduce the harm. It makes a lot more sense to use sterile water than puddle water from the back alleys. It makes a lot more sense to use clean needles rather than share them, dirty ones, and transmit HIV. So that the evidence from Vancouver, evidence in dozens of studies now is that there's less disease transmission, better health, more movement into treatment facilities, much less cost to society, every piece of evidence point to benefit and no evidence point to any kind of harm.

Listening to that interview yesterday morning, I thought it was the picture for Bill C-2. That person has spent more than a decade working in that environment and has seen the benefits of injection sites. Bill C-2 turns us away from the potential to give people the opportunity to get their lives back.

These sites protect others in the area, and society in general. They have controlled injections, and there are less dirty needles and less HIV.

My colleague from Vancouver Quadra made the argument the other day about less disease. She pointed out, as we all know in this House, that this site is supported by the province. It is supported by the police authority. Why, then, is the government in this Ottawa bubble, in this town of seeming ideology these days, looking to shut it down and move backward?

I firmly believe that this is an ideological bill, from a government that seems to oppose evidence-based harm reduction measures such as safe injection sites. We certainly believe that safe injection sites should not just be in isolation. They should be part of an evidence-based national drug policy that saves lives, reduces harm and promotes public health.

There is more that needs to be added. When I was in Downtown Eastside Vancouver, there were drug courts, I believe they were called at the time. They have a purpose too. Instead of being sentenced to prison, the addict agrees to certain conditions set down by the court, and if they meet those conditions, they do not end up in prison and they can regain their lives. We need a broader national strategy than just safe injection sites.

I submit that the results of the bill would increase crime, not lessen it. It would damage health care to others in society, take away the opportunity for the people who use those injection sites to be better citizens and contributors to the economy of the country, and lead them to more crime.

I believe the bill would lead to more dangerous streets, greater costs in hospitals, and a tremendous increase in the loss of human dignity. The bill is clearly the wrong way to go.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a few points that the member perhaps did not address very well.

As someone who was formerly involved in local politics, decisions around what goes in neighbourhood zoning is very important to those communities. The ability for a community to have some say in terms of what is located where is a critical measure. I am wondering why, for one, he does not believe that communities should have the ability to have input into these decisions.

I have a second point that I would really like the member to focus in on. One of the rationales is that this is going to allow people to move through into treatment. From my experience, there are many people who want to deal with the difficult demons of their addictions and their rehabilitation. There are not enough services. There is not enough support.

On the opportunity in terms of increased detox, increased rehabilitation, why is the member not really focusing on the people who are desperate, struggling to get off drugs, and do not have programs and services available to them?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, they are not going to get those programs and services from the current government. The government is taking them all away.

This is a government that believes in punishment. That is what is wrong with this particular bill. It is what is wrong with the government's tough on crime approach in Canada. It is going to lead to greater crime 10 years down the road. There is no question about it.

Let me come back to the member's point on communities. Of course communities will make the decision about where these sites go. When it is being done on evidenced-based policies, then the community should see the full information and it would be up to the community to decide.

It should not be for us on this ground to order what the community should do. The community should have the choice and the opinion to make those decisions. What the government is doing with the bill is taking that opportunity to assist people away. It should be giving those opportunities to people and doing it in a way that would have the support of the community.

The municipality in Vancouver, the police services in Vancouver and the province of B.C. support the policy of InSite in Vancouver. The government would take it away.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque gave a very informed speech, with a just emphasis on the real evidence about the impacts of safe injection sites, not the fears the government is trying to create around safe injection sites with the bill.

I wonder if he shares with me the sense of irony that the government, which claims to be against bureaucracy and red tape, is actually using bureaucracy and red tape in the bill to prevent the establishment of any additional safe injection sites in communities around the country; communities like mine where 18 people a year are dying from overdoses, and where we might be able to get them into treatment programs if we had such a facility.

The bill sets out 26 criteria and then at the end it says that even if they have met the criteria, the minister does not have to grant the permit.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question shows that there is no question the government is talking red tape and that it is really a government of absolute contradiction. It says one thing and does another.

First, the very essence of the bill, from a to z, is more about punishment than support. Second, it is a series of restrictions that make it near impossible to implement those strategies in some other areas where they maybe could be implemented. Clearly, the member is correct. The bill sets up a regulatory regime that is pretty near impossible to master, if we want to do the correct human thing in terms of establishing other InSite locations to help other people.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, years ago, an addictions expert told me that being addicted to something means that a person pretty much has no freedom. It is the antithesis of being free, because one is addicted. Right now, in Canadian society, people are watching on television the goings-on and the playing out of a very troubled situation in Toronto, where there is a mayor who is clearly dealing with a very serious challenge with substance abuse.

Canadians know about substance abuse. They know about the difficulties around addiction. However, I want to ask my colleague a question about health care costs.

He talked about the Supreme Court saying that it is a balance between public health and public safety.

In the city of Ottawa several years ago, there was a meaningful debate about an InSite injection site. At that time, the public health officer informed the citizenry that it costs between $600,000 and $1 million in health care costs to treat one HIV patient. That is one HIV patient. That does not count the millions of dollars in costs from hepatitis C infections and beyond.

I would have thought that a fiscally Conservative regime like the one across the floor would be weighing heavily the implications of health care costs, with scarce dollars being allocated to our health care system. I am wondering if my colleague can comment on the fact that the Conservative government is not even mentioning the health care costs that can be held in abeyance and prevented if we actually take a more public health approach to this than simply pounding people on the head saying that this is all about crime and then locking people up.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the numbers are startling. It is $600,000 to $1 million to treat one patient with HIV. Clearly what these InSite injection sites do, which I said in my remarks, is prevent the use of dirty needles and an increased incidence of HIV.

I will quote a member who spoke about HIV the other day, the member for Vancouver Centre, a doctor, who has a lot of knowledge in this particular area. She said:

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.

The point is that the evidence is there if we want to look for it. We have to look for it. The government has a tendency to avoid the evidence. The evidence is there. Look at the economic savings to Canada, to say nothing of the potential for a better human experience. The economic savings alone as a result of reducing HIV and other health costs are tremendous.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to say that there is a system we can use to reduce the number of deaths and communicable diseases in a community, to reduce health care costs and drug use in public places, people would say that is absolutely fantastic and we should do it right away. Tomorrow, even.

Well, there is such a system. There is something that can achieve all of those goals: supervised injection sites like those found around the world, including the well-known InSite in Vancouver.

The bill we are debating today would stop that from happening. It would stop us from reducing the number of deaths, the incidence of communicable disease, health care costs, crime and drug use in public places. That is it in a nutshell. Nobody is asking about the real purpose of the bill, which is to shut down InSite and prevent similar sites from opening.

I am having a very hard time understanding what the Conservatives want. Do they want more sick people, more hepatitis and AIDS cases in our communities? Do they want more crime? Is that really what they want?

People in my riding, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, want fewer sick people, less crime and fewer problems. My riding certainly has drug use issues, but we also have a range of solutions. People working for CACTUS, L'Anonyme, the CSSS network and EMRI have great initiative. However, if we can do more, in consultation with the community, to prevent death, crime and disease, we should do more.

Consider drug use in public places. In Laurier—Sainte-Marie, I have picked up needles lying in the streets, needles that kids could have played with. Do we not want to try to avoid that kind of thing? I do not understand. I am not the only one who thinks that these sites deserve a strictly regulated place in Canada; the Supreme Court thinks so too.

Let us consider the facts. This all started in 2008 when InSite's exemption under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act expired.

The InSite exemption expired, and the Minister of Health denied the organization's renewal request. The case obviously went to court. It first went to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which ruled that InSite should receive a renewed exemption. The Conservative government of course did not agree. It appealed, and the case went to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which ruled that InSite should remain open.

The case then ended up before the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that the minister's decision to shut down InSite violated the rights of its clients as guaranteed under the charter. This is what the court had to say about the decision:

It is arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety.”

I think that is rather clear and no one can claim that it was a partisan decision. The court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and that an individual can only be deprived of those rights in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The court also declared that:

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...

The Supreme Court determined that InSite and other supervised injection sites must be granted the exemption provided for in section 56, since the opening of such sites will:

decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety...

I raise this point because people often express concerns whereby opening such a site will have an impact on public safety. Studies and previous experiences in Canada and elsewhere have shown that there is no negative impact on public safety. In some cases, it even has a positive impact on public safety, by reducing, as I was saying, the injection of drugs in public, the violence sometimes associated with drug use and the discarded drug paraphernalia associated with illegal drug use.

The Supreme Court of Canada was very clear, as were the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal. Obviously, the Conservatives decided they wanted to circumvent the Supreme Court decision with this new bill. The Conservatives claim to like the rule of law, but they are not really willing to respect it when it does not agree with their ideology. This has nothing to do with facts and reality, it really is a matter of ideology. They do not have any justification to refuse to allow other sites to open or InSite to continue operating.

The Supreme Court was clear. If a site can cause harm to a community, it can be banned. That is official. However, this harm must be demonstrated and not just a product of unfounded fears. This is true and I will say it again, people are sometimes afraid. However, we should look at Vancouver and examine what is happening around InSite. Fully 80% of the people who live and work in the area around InSite support the project. This is quite impressive. We see the same numbers when we look at what is being done in Europe. People who live in the neighbourhoods of these projects and who can see the results show overwhelming support for this type of initiative. Obviously there must be a balance between health and public safety, but we can have both at the same time.

I quoted the Supreme Court of Canada quite often. Indeed, I think it very often hands down very carefully reasoned decisions. It is still our Supreme Court. The judges spend considerable time analyzing the issues and thinking them through.

However, the Supreme Court is not the only party defending the usefulness of safe injection sites. The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association have both criticized the government for introducing Bill C-2.

According to the Canadian Medical Association:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

The Canadian Nurses Association had this to say:

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.

As you can see, all this bill does is create obstacles.

At new supervised injection sites, preparing an application will be such a cumbersome process that it may dissuade applicants from even opening a file. Department officials told us that if an applicant mistakenly forgets to include something, the application could be automatically denied. Even if an applicant manages to obtain all of the documents needed for the application, if the application is perfect, iron-clad from start to finish and has the community's full support, the minister always has the option of arbitrarily denying it.

The NDP feels that decisions about programs that could benefit public safety should be based on fact and not ideology. That is why I will be voting against this bill.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the NDP very much for her wonderful speech. I know that she represents a constituency in Montreal. In fact, Montreal is one Canadian city that could be interested in a supervised injection site, along with Toronto and Ottawa.

Could the hon. member tell us how badly communities and people in the field would be hit if the Conservative government succeeds in passing this bill? Indeed, the bill aims not only to destroy any chances of survival for the site in Vancouver, but also to keep other sites from opening across the country, even though research has shown that these sites have a positive impact on communities.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

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

Indeed, I met with many people. Most were from community organizations, but others came from all levels of the public sector. They discussed this issue, talked about the bill and expressed many concerns.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There will be about eight minutes left for questions and comments when we resume debate on Bill C-2.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say on this issue.

We are talking about Bill C-2 today, safe injection sites, and I want to start with what the bill should be about.

I think the bill should be about saving lives. It should be about reducing disease. It should be about reducing harm. It should be about public health and also public safety.

When we talk about what a bill should be about, quite frankly, very often it is up to the government to decide, and we take our cues from it; however, in this case, the bill is actually a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Therefore, we know ahead of time what the bill should be about because we can look at the Supreme Court decision and the language in it and know what the bill should be about. However, in looking at the bill, we see it is all wrong. It is not a proper response to the Supreme Court of Canada case.

As members probably know, this Supreme Court of Canada case is about a situation in Vancouver around InSite, which is a supervised safe injection site. This facility receives an exemption from section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

We had a challenge here, and the Supreme Court of Canada was unequivocal in what it said about InSite, which is a model for other safe injection sites. I will read some of the quotes on this case, because they will tell us what Bill C-2 should be about. It is fascinating what the court said.

The court did rule that the minister's decision to close InSite violated its patrons' charter rights and that the minister's decision was “...arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety.”

It is arbitrary, and I will argue in a few minutes that the proposed legislation is an arbitrary response.

Further in the case, the court said that

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.

The court talks about this threatening the health and lives of the claimants, so we are talking about health here. We are talking about section 7 rights, which are that everybody has the right to “life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof”.

The court actually sets out who has the onus of responsibility here in proving a case. The court said:

...the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. 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.

The court continues a little further on,

Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

I stress “should”. This is not “may”; it is not permissive language. The court has been very forceful here in saying “should generally grant an exemption”.

However, with the bill before us, the onus is actually being reversed.

The courts have said that it will decrease the risk of death and that there is little or no evidence of a negative impact on public safety. However, what do we have before us? We have a bill that would actually force communities to prove the benefits. It would force communities into an extensive application to prove what the benefits would be, what the impacts would be on the community.

It is actually reversing that onus, when the courts have been very clear that there is no evidence to show that safe-injection sites would have a negative impact on public safety. This bill would force communities to come up with scientific evidence demonstrating that there is a medical benefit. Come on; we know there is a medical benefit. There would be a letter of opinion from the ministers responsible, information about infectious diseases and overdoses, a description of the available drug treatment services, a description of the potential impact of a site on public safety, and the list goes on.

This is not an appropriate response, because this bill should be about health. It should be about preventing death. It should be about preventing the spread of disease.

I believe that a bill like this would actually stymie the process. There is one safe injection site in Canada right now, InSite, but if community members believe that their community needs a safe injection site, they should be able to open one, because harm reduction works and the evidence shows that. Therefore, I want to talk about how this bill, in creating these barriers and these obstacles to harm reduction and the obstacles and barriers to saving lives, could potentially impact a community like Halifax.

Halifax does not have a safe injection site, but I would say that the people of Halifax robustly embrace the concept of harm reduction. We have many different harm reduction facilities of different forms in our community, including a needle exchange, housing first principles, a mobile street health outreach bus, and a travelling methadone clinic. Halifax understands harm reduction.

We do not have a safe injection site and there are no plans for one. However, on the heels of this case there was quite a bit of media discussion about whether Halifax would have a safe injection site and about how this court case would allow that to happen. There are no plans for a program in Nova Scotia, but after the Supreme Court of Canada decision, the chief medical officer came forward and said he was happy to hear the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. In The Chronicle Herald at the time, he said:

We're very pleased with this because it leaves the option open down the road. If it's warranted then it's certainly something we may consider in the future.

This is from Dr. Robert Strang. Our chief medical officer has said that the decision was a wise one, and it made him happy to think that we may be able to have a site like this, if needed, in Nova Scotia.

Then what is the problem? Why do we have this reaction in the form of Bill C-2? Why is it that the Conservatives have brought forward this bill that would actually circumscribe or limit communities' abilities to take action and enact this kind of harm reduction in their community?

Well, at the same time that Bill C-2 came out, we saw a really interesting little fundraising campaign by the Conservative Party of Canada called “keep heroin out of our backyards”. I have the website right here, and under “keep heroin out of our backyards”, it says, “Add your name if you demand a say before a supervised drug consumption site is opened close to your family”.

That, on its face, seems as though it might be reasonable, but then we read further into this campaign and we realize it is all about not just raising money for the Conservative Party but also about fearmongering:

Do you want a supervised drug consumption site in your community? These are facilities where drug addicts get to shoot up heroin and other illicit drugs.

I don't want one anywhere near my home.

Parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about putting them beside our homes.

It continues:

Yet, as I write this, special interests are trying to open up these supervised drug consumption sites in cities and towns across Canada—over the objections of local residents and law enforcement.

In parenthesis, I ask, “Really? What objections? Where are they being opened? Where is it that communities are rising up against this? There are no proposals for any of them.

It says, “...as I write this, special interests are trying to open up these [facilities].” Is it a special interest to want to keep Canadians alive? I do not think that is a special interest.

I will keep going:

We've had enough—that's why I'm pleased that the [we know who he is] government is acting to put the safety of our communities first.

If members could see this website, they would see that it shows an empty syringe on the sidewalk, instilling fear in all of us.

I biked up to my community office on Monday last week when we were home for our riding week. What did I find in front of my office on the sidewalk? I found an empty syringe. I got some gloves and picked it up. A few doors down is the North End Community Health Centre. It has a sharps disposal container. I dropped it off there.

It is real. The idea that people are using intravenous drugs on our streets is real.

What I actually think is the threat to public safety here is not safe injection sites but the fact that people who have addictions, who may be homeless, who may be struggling with a myriad of other issues, have nowhere to go that is safe and supervised.

I talked to the people at Metro Non-Profit Housing Association, which is down the street from my office. They talk about finding needles in their bathrooms. Why is that? It is because that is where people can go. It is safe and warm, or the safest they can get, and it is warm and private. They can close the door and do their drugs there. Is that appropriate? I think that is more of a threat to safety than safe injection sites.

Behind my office there is a needle drop, a sharps container, that a local community group put in place for people who are doing drugs. It is kind of a dark alley. Stuff goes on there, and we need to acknowledge what is happening in our communities. What happened is that people actually broke into the box to get the needles. That is not harm reduction. Actually creating a supply of dirty needles for people to break into and share is not harm reduction. However, that is the reality of what is happening in our communities.

There was a local cafe maybe four doors down from my office that closed a couple of years ago. It had to put a sharps container in the bathroom. I think having needles in my local cafe is more of a threat to my safety than a safe injection site where the activity is supervised and the needles are clean and disposed of properly. I would much rather have a safe injection site beside my office than know that there are dirty needles behind my office that people are reusing.

This is about safety. This is about public health, and I want to get back to public health for a second, because nowhere in the bill is there even a mention of public health. I find that shocking.

When we are talking about health and what this bill should be about, which is saving lives and stopping the spread of disease, we have stats; we have real, hard evidence from InSite. The rate of overdose deaths in East Vancouver has dropped by 35% since InSite opened. That is pretty good evidence. Something is working.

Harm reduction works. A study over a one-year period showed there had been no fatalities from those injections. In one year, over 2,100 referrals were made to InSite users to addiction counselling or other support services. There is no referral service behind my office.

People who used InSite services at least once a week were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visited infrequently and probably a heck of a lot more likely to enrol than the folks behind my office.

There was a significant drop in the number of discarded syringes, injection-related litter, and people injecting in the streets one year after InSite opened.

Injection drug users who use InSite are 70% less likely to share needles. That is a staggering number. Reducing needle sharing has been listed as an international best practice to reduce the rate of HIV and AIDS.

InSite users are more likely to seek medical care through the site. This means fewer trips to the emergency room and an improvement of health outcomes.

There was a pretty big sigh there as I was reading the evidence. The evidence should speak for itself, but it is not, because we have Bill C-2 in front of us to actually make it harder for people and communities to have this kind of success story in their community.

It is all about evidence. Evidence shows that harm reduction, like safe injection, works, and I am really proud of the harm reduction initiatives in my community.

We have Mainline Needle Exchange, where folks can actually get clean needles and maybe get referred to some services.

We have Direction 180, which is a methadone clinic. It has recently had huge success buying a mobile bus to get to some of the communities that are not in the north end of Halifax and to ensure people get their methadone. These folks are trying to deal with their addictions. They are trying to better themselves. We need to have these harm reduction programs in place for them so they can succeed. What is the alternative? Death?

We have MOSH, or Mobile Outreach Street Health, which is a van that goes around to where people are, such as under bridges, in fields and at the homeless shelters, to give them the medical treatment they need.

This is what we need, but unfortunately the government is not interested in harm reduction. I have a good quote from Cindy MacIsaac who runs Direction 180, our methadone clinic. She said:

Ottawa’s new approach is to criminalize what should still be seen as a health issue...You can’t even use the term harm reduction anymore when applying for federal funding. The taps have been turned off.

This bill is all about creating fear. It is not about health or about helping people get better. Bill C-2 is a bill about power, power to the minister and disempowerment to the most vulnerable members of our society.

There is a more powerful argument against the bill. That is the voices of members of my community and communities across the country that recognize the value of safe injection sites as a harm reduction program. They want the ability to set up similar sites where needed.

Safe injection sites are one way we can help save lives, treat people who suffer from a disease, help people reorient their lives, improve the quality of life for community members and make our cities safer for everyone. We need less barriers to programs like the ones this bill would create. The government is getting in the way of caring for those people who need the most help.

I want to emphasize that addiction is not a choice. It is a disease, and those who suffer from it should be treated with the dignity and the respect we give to other people suffering from chronic illness. When we speak about safe injection sites or harm reduction programs, there is very often a human element that gets left behind in these debates. I want to ensure that we talk about that human element in the House. People who suffer from addiction are also suffering from the stigma and discrimination that follow the disease. This bill lacks the understanding of this human element. It makes it more difficult for safe injection sites to be established in our communities and for individuals battling addiction to receive compassionate care.

When I was getting ready to speak to the bill, I spoke to people at the Brunswick Street Mission and the Mainline Needle Exchange. They said that the people who needed help in my community were increasingly younger people living in shelters, that they were inadequately housed and suffered from severe health issues, including mental health issues and mental illness. The problems face people who suffer from addictions cannot be isolated from housing, health, poverty, education, or addiction. They are all inseparable problems that can overwhelm anyone.

Safe injection sites are an important part of dealing with these issues holistically. At InSite in Vancouver, it is not just a program about drugs. Safe injection sites are about helping people through providing a safe space, peer support services, and health services. Unfortunately, this bill does not look at the whole picture. It makes safe injection sites harder to establish across the country and makes it harder for our community to want to tackle these and other connected issues.

With no safe injection sites and no safe spaces for people fighting addiction, we are pushing those people to the very margins of society, which exacerbates poverty, homelessness, and health and safety issues for our communities.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Halifax. I am afraid the terminology that was used repeatedly was misleading. These are not safe injection sites. They are called supervised injection sites. To suggest that putting heroin or other illicit drugs into one's body is somehow safe goes against common sense. All family doctors would probably agree.

I am not aware of any community in Canada, other than the Vancouver Downtown Eastside, that is lobbying for a safe injection site or a supervised injection site. I am making the same mistake as the members did. I am so embarrassed. Putting bad stuff into one's body is not safe. The government has homelessness and affordable housing initiatives. It also has a mental health commission. We are implementing initiatives that will work and not perpetuate the problem.

Could the member agree that it is not safe for—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, part of what my hon. colleague has raised I will accept, which is on the exact same page as the Dalhousie Women's Centre. There is a difference between safe and safer. I am talking about harm reduction. The women's centre has always been great about reminding me that it is not talking about safe sex; rather, it is talking about safer sex, because we cannot ensure that it is always safe. It is the same here.

I will acknowledge that if I had the time to go back, I would have changed every “safe” to “safer” injection sites. If the hon. member was listening to my speech, he would have heard that in my community, people were shooting up drugs on the streets and under bridges. They are making our communities less safe, so I am talking about a safer injection site.

If he is not aware of any community that is lobbying for a safer injection site in its community, then why is his government making it harder? If he does not think it is an issue across Canada, then why have this bill as a response to the SCC case, which makes it more difficult? That is very contradictory. The bill proves that this is needed in our communities.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Halifax for her heartfelt remarks on this very important but negative bill.

The previous Conservative member said that he was not aware of any communities that were looking at safe injection sites, so I will repeat what I said in my speech: my community is looking at this because in 2011, the last year we have complete statistics for greater Victoria, 16 people died as a result of not having a safer injection site. On Vancouver Island, there were 44 deaths in 2011 alone. People on Vancouver Island are looking for solutions, one of which is the possibility of having what I will still call a safe injection site. I agree it is safer, but what we are comparing it to is people who end up injecting drugs in extremely unsafe situations.

As the member for Halifax pointed out from, InSite has reduced deaths from overdoses, has reduced HIV infections, has had a positive impact on that neighbourhood, and has 80% support in the Downtown Eastside.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention and the fact that he can bring examples from his community here.

What is interesting is that in Ottawa the proponents of a safe injection site have put together a mock site in Lowertown to show people what that would look like and how it would be set up. The idea is to foster community understanding of what a safe injection site would be to hopefully correct the misguided notions of what it is. These sites can work.

We have more of a problem in Nova Scotia with something like OxyContin versus injectables. Therefore, different communities have different needs. We need to create an environment where communities can respond to their needs. If a safe injection site or a needle exchange program is the best thing, then we should go forward with it. It is all about harm reduction. We are trying to save people's lives.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague from Halifax for her excellent speech.

At present, in the Montreal metropolitan area, people on the Island of Montreal are trying to set up a supervised injection site that would be a little different than InSite, but would work with various partners.

What we should retain here is the phrase “work with different community partners”. The Montreal police force is just one of those partners. In a major study, the police force contacted these partners. The chief of the police station in one of the poorest communities in Montreal, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, said that they have to consider opening safe and supervised injection sites because, among other things, there are very dangerous drug houses in eastern Montreal.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the work being done with various services, such as police services, and also community networks?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing the example of my colleague in Montreal. I know in my community and other communities across Canada that community-based organizations have resorted to setting up unofficial safe injection sites. Again, when I started off by saying we needed to acknowledge what was happening in our communities, that is happening. Providing safer spaces by clearing out bathrooms and allowing people to inject there with clean needles versus in alleyways is happening. They are unofficial, but it is a response to the need that exists and trying to keep people as safe as they can be.

There is the idea of community partnership. My colleague talked about what was happening in Montreal. It is community and health organizations and the police that get this. They understand what the communities need and that is why they are coming together to work for a common cause. The common cause is saving lives and reducing the spread of disease, which is not the common cause shared by the Conservatives, who have been very reluctant to speak on this issue in the House. They introduce the bill and then wash their hands of it, because for them it is all a fundraising exercise. I am sorry to be so cynical.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the official opposition would like to have needles in prisons for harm reduction reasons, but at the end of the day if people are breaking the law, they should face the consequences. The member should consider that obtaining or using illegal drugs is against the law and perhaps the law should step in to deal with the problem.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the member went there because there is so much baloney happening on the national stage when it comes to people breaking the law.

I would like to know whether the law has been broken by the Prime Minister's Office, quite frankly, when it comes to paying off senators and trying to get them to shut up or change their stories. We see a very strange situation in Toronto with the current mayor, who has admitted to doing drugs. Is the member saying that everybody should be locked up and put in prison?

We are talking about trying to save lives. I am not condoning using illegal drugs. If the Conservatives are insistent on locking people up in jail because people need to pay for their crimes and that one day they will be let out and rehabilitated, then let us try to keep people alive so they can come out of prison rehabilitated. This is just the death penalty in another form, and it is unconscionable.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I would like to remind all hon. members that we have reached the five hour point in this debate. Therefore, from this point forward, the speeches will be 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few thoughts to share with members on Bill C-2. We could start by asking about the message of the Conservatives with regard to drug usage, on Bill C-2, and what ultimate impression they are trying to give Canadians.

The Conservatives do not believe in facts and science, and they are more concerned about how they can portray the image of being the party that is tough on all aspects of crime. Whether it is justified or not is completely irrelevant.

Bill C-2 somewhat exemplifies why the government is so focused on things that are not necessarily in the best interests of Canadians but rather on sending a very strong message, which is ultimately, I would argue, to the detriment of all Canadians. First I would emphasize my disappointment with the Minister of Health, who is responsible for the public health and well-being of Canadians, for bringing forward legislation that will not put our individuals or communities in a healthier position going forward.

The Minister of Health disappoints me most because Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned about health care, and she is doing nothing to come up with a provincial agreement for a health care accord that expires in 2014. This is an issue about which people across this land are concerned. We love and care about our health care services, and the Conservatives have completely ignored it. They have not even met with ministers to discuss it. This issue touches each and every one of us in a very real and tangible way, and the Conservatives choose not to deal with it. They want to focus on their message, whether it is in the best interests of Canadians or not.

The Minister of Health should be ashamed of herself for bringing forward a bill such as this, while ignoring an issue that is of critical importance to each and every Canadian across this land. We challenge the Minister of Health to reflect upon the damage she is proposing by introducing Bill C-2. She should get to work on the health care accord, which is a very important issue.

Therein lies the difference between a Liberal government and a Conservative-Reform government. We believe in working with the different stakeholders. When the injection site was put in place in British Columbia, the Liberal administration in Ottawa worked closely with the different stakeholders. The Liberals expressed interest in helping communities in which discarded needles, pipes, and other paraphernalia were left lying on our streets. We expressed interest in how we could help to deal with the lives that were being destroyed, the suicides that were being committed, and the heroin overdoses and so forth.

It was not the Liberal administration alone doing that. The police force, the British Columbia government, and many other stakeholders expressed concern. They all came to the table and came to an agreement that having InSite would help; it would make the community a healthier place.

The national Liberal government did not make that determination alone. We recognized and worked with the other stakeholders, and the key is that we did work with the other stakeholders. Through that work we were able to support InSite, which has been very successful. We only have to look at it.

The Minister of Health has not even visited the site in question, from what I understand. Why? If she visits the place and starts talking to the staff, she might actually find that it is working. She could talk to the local Vancouver police, whom I understand are in support of it. The minister does not want to talk about the evidence.

The Minister of Health does not want to understand the true value of having this safe injection site because it does not fit the ideological agenda that the Conservatives want to espouse. They do not let the facts or science deter them from doing the wrong thing. This is most unfortunate. One would think that the Minister of Health would have gone to the site and worked with, or at least talked to, people to find out what they actually had to say about it. From what I understand, that is not the case.

When we look at the local leadership, the province supports it and the police support it, and many different health care professionals recognize the benefits and support it. We can look at the users who need the site and support it.

We can talk about the facts, about how individuals' lives have been saved. We could go to the community to see different facilities, community centres, schools, or back lanes, and we would find that those areas are healthier environments as a direct result of it.

These are the types of things that are important for us to recognize. However, the Conservative Reform government does not recognize that because it does not fit its political agenda.

We know how much it relies on that political agenda. Within hours of the minister introducing the bill, the Conservatives started a fundraising campaign. They said that the Liberals and New Democrats want to have injection houses throughout Canada, implying that they would go into all these different communities and that the only way to prevent that was to donate money to the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives are using Bill C-2 as a fundraising tool. Here we have a newly minted Minister of Health being manipulated and used as a fundraising tool, when in fact she should be dealing with the issues that Canadians truly want her to deal with.

[An hon. member]

Get a life over there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member said, in a very light and friendly fashion, I suspect, to “get a life”.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reality of it. That is what the government has chosen to do. It did send out the fundraising letter. The member can nod his head and say “no”, but it is true. The member should check his speaking notes and he will find that is in fact what it is. I can appreciate that the members would have a difficult time with it.

I recognize that we need to be more proactive in supporting our communities that need to address some of the negative social elements out there. Drug addiction, whether it is to heroin or cocaine or other drugs, is very real. We do need to address that.

We need to work with different stakeholders, something that former Liberal governments have done. We need to work with different stakeholders to come up with ideas that would make our communities a better and safer place to be. That is the reason we find it so difficult to even support Bill C-2.

I am thankful to have had the opportunity to say a few words.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and first I have to say that the federal health minister is one of the most skilled, intelligent, and personable politicians that we have in Canada. She is doing an outstanding job on a difficult file.

The member brought up our record. This comes from the Liberal Party that cut $25 billion from the transfer payments for health. This is the party that denied the forgotten victims of hepatitis C. It was not until our government came in that we corrected those great injustices.

The member talks about supervised injection sites. We both come from the same city. I would like to ask the member where in Winnipeg North, his riding, he would want a safe injection site.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first let me straighten out one of the facts that I would dispute. If we take a look at health care expenditures today, we are spending more on national health care now than we have ever spent on health care. The reason is because of a health care accord agreement that obligates the government, by law, to continue to increase the financing of health care. It was the Jean Chrétien government that took away the tax point shift in favour of having cash up front, which ultimately saved the long-term health care cash contributions.

The Liberal Party of Canada has led the way in ensuring there would be cash in the purse when it came to distributing money so that we could guarantee to Canadians that they would have a first-class health care system. That is something of which I am very proud.

With regard to a safe site in Winnipeg, I am very much open to ideas that would enable taking drugs and the paraphernalia that comes with it off our community streets and out of our schools. If it could be concentrated through a safe site of some form, I would be open to it. More important, I believe many stakeholders in Winnipeg would also be open to it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Winnipeg North for his comments and for seeing this effort for what it is.

This is not a health minister who is conducting an effort to make Canada a more healthy place or Canadians healthier people. This is a government that is rolling from one scandal to the next, looking to shore up the base and to fundraise off legislation that comes before Parliament, as if that is all Parliament was good for: some activity for the fundraisers across the way and for a government that has lost its way.

My question is quite specific. If the government is interested in having less crime and improving the health of Canadians, with regard to the one injection site we do have in the country, the current government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, of taxpayer money to sue all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court ruled against the government and its efforts to shut down a health initiative. The one site we have is supported by the police, the local municipalities, and the local voices who live there, knowing that it actually reduces harm. Why then would the Government of Canada, regardless of its political orientation, not be supportive of more of those projects, where they are deemed to fit, and where there is a problem, and where Canadians are asking for them?

When it comes to pipelines and other projects that it wants to push through, the government does not care about local voices. However, when it comes to safe injection sites, suddenly the public has a veto.

I wonder why the double standard exists. We all know why that is; it is ideology coming from the Conservatives.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once it is all said and done, we need to look at ways we can enrich our communities through solid social programming. Whether it is in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Halifax, or even smaller municipalities, there are social needs.

I am not suggesting for a moment that each of these communities needs to have a safe injection site. I am not suggesting that at all. We are saying that, as a national government, there is an obligation to work with different stakeholders in trying to make all of our communities safer and to have a cleaner environment, for our children and for everyone else.

When we are talking about strong social issues, such as heroin, cocaine, and whatever else it might be, a more proactive approach would be a positive thing.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill, but I think this is a sorry debate. This debate is clearly demonstrating that ideology conflicts with the facts.

Bill C-2 before us would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which would prevent groups from setting up supervised injection sites and offering those services across the country.

I would like to talk about this issue in relation to what is currently going on in Quebec. I have here with me a report by the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal. Quebec began addressing this issue over 13 years ago. For more than 13 years, health and social services professionals have been working on this, studying the issue, conducting pilot projects and consulting agencies to see how Quebec may or may not want to integrate services such as supervised injection sites. Quebec has been working hard on this and I am sure other parts of the country have as well.

In 2000, at the request of the department of health and social services, Quebec formed a cocaine addicts intervention committee. The committee's mandate was to come up with strategies to improve the quality of life of cocaine addicts. One year later, the committee recommended setting up a pilot project. As you can see, these consultations started quite some time ago.

In 2003, the same department mandated the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal to conduct a feasibility study for setting up injection sites. The advisory committee made two proposals: first, a pilot project to create a drop-in centre and social integration services for injection drug users; and, second, consider adding a supervised injection site to existing services.

Experiments and consultations followed. It would be a shame if all this work of the past 13 years became increasingly difficult or was even tossed aside because of a bill that came out of nowhere and is based on Conservative ideology.

Institutions such as the Institut national de santé publique du Québec or the Coalition réduction des méfaits, which is made up of 32 community organizations, are involved in the process. The process takes into account expert opinions and what is happening in Quebec and the City of Montreal.

This is not a situation where you can barge in and do something on an impulse or because it is what a voter base is suggesting. This is serious. Here is how it works: there is a consultation and pilot projects are set up. That is a very important step. I think the Conservatives' approach should be modelled on this sort of process, which takes facts and expert opinions into account, shows compassion and reflects the differences in the communities affected.

This very important step could become obsolete, meaning that it could end up being pointless. The Conservatives' bill is undermining 13 years of consultations and meaningful work. It is unfortunate, and it is not something we should accept.

Le Devoir recently published an article about the reaction of stakeholders in Quebec to Bill C-2. I would like to share a quote from the article:

Cactus Montréal and public health director Dr. Richard Massé are concerned that their jobs will become more difficult. [Dr. Massé wondered] how much of a say minority groups will have in this bill. These services save lives. It is too early to say what will happen, but this appears to create some significant barriers, even though the Supreme Court clearly said that not providing these services was a violation of human rights.

Those involved in the process are concerned and are wondering whether this will make their jobs harder, and understandably so.

I am only naming those ones. However, all the experts who appeared before the committee spoke against this bill. There is no reason to believe that this bill would be beneficial for people's health. It is completely ironic that the Minister of Health would defend such a bill. Indeed, the Minister of Justice should be rising to defend his tough on crime agenda.

Frankly, the connection between Bill C-2 and health is not trivial; it is actually significant. For that reason we should vote against Bill C-2. If we really care about the health of Canadians, then, well, this bill is just plain wrong.

There is a supervised injection site in Vancouver and it is obviously effective. The evidence is there. There has been a 35% decrease in overdose deaths in Vancouver since this site opened. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable disease infection rates and relapse rates for drug users.

This is what I am talking about. If we truly care about the health of Canadians, we must understand that this bill does not make any sense in terms of improving people's health. If the government really wants to help people stay healthy, it will make resources available to respond to their needs and to prevent crime, death and disease. It is high time we trusted the experts working on the ground when they speak in favour of or against such a bill.

I would like to draw the members' attention to a very concrete example involving another bill that I considered. This bill had a nice title and promised to fight elder abuse. In fact, it made only a small amendment to the Criminal Code, which might result in harsher sentences for crimes of elder abuse, although that is not a given. The NDP voted in favour of this bill and supported it.

However, we have to really look at the facts here. Temporary committees were created as part of the federal parliamentary process, and an all-party committee proposed some possible solutions, saying that intervention and prevention programs were needed to combat elder abuse. That is what we need to focus on if we really want to combat elder abuse. The bill was supposed to address elder abuse, and yet it made only one small amendment that would not really change anything in order to address this issue.

The same thing is happening here. An issue has been put on the table. However, if we really want to improve people's health, that is not the right direction to take.

I would like to talk about AJOI, an organization created on the West Island in Montreal to help at-risk street youth. First of all, people did not think that problem existed on the West Island. It took a long time for street youth at risk of becoming involved in crime to have access to this service. The project was created thanks to exceptional stakeholders, like Mr. Langevin, who believed in such projects. A number of stakeholders are now involved in the centre, which is well known in the community. This is the kind of project that really helps people.

Furthermore, the Centre Bienvenue provides supervised apartments for people with intellectual disabilities. That centre had to fight to exist. The neighbours did not want it in their community because they said it would increase crime and reduce property values. Ultimately, after speaking with and consulting their neighbours, the Centre Bienvenue officials convinced them and informed them of the reality of the situation. Thanks to that work in the community, people now have such a centre to turn to.

Here is what the Conservatives should do: instead of responding to people's fears and spreading false information, they should educate people about the benefits of supervised injection sites and forge ahead by reassuring Canadians. That would be the right thing to do for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many arguments, including those of my colleague. What strikes me is the extremely narrow-minded view that the Conservative members and their government have on this issue. No one in the House wants to encourage drug use, but we cannot ignore reality. People with drug addiction issues are better off when they are surrounded by the centre's staff rather than being forced into back alleys. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the huge gap between the Conservative government's position and that of both the opposition members and medical experts, who are concerned about the bill and who are saying that these types of centres need to exist if we want to truly tackle the problem.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

When the Conservatives ask us to support Bill C-2 in order to keep heroin out of our back yards, it shows just how out of touch with reality they really are. Safe injection sites do not bring heroin into your neighbourhood. This is not a question of wanting to keep heroin out of our neighbourhoods, but of how it can be controlled. Do we want people on the street, unsupervised, without access to help or services? Or do we want them supervised, with access to services?

They are there anyway. They are not going to disappear. The problems are not going to disappear. We need to ask ourselves how we can offer services in order to address the problem. Minimum sentences are not always the answer. They do not reduce crime. We know that. There is proof from around the world. Intervention and prevention are what truly fight crime and improve quality of life.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that these supervised injection sites make the people involved almost complicit in the drug addiction. Why not have these people pursue other methods of rehab? There are other ways to get off the drug addiction. We need to be aggressive with those methods.

Saying that it is okay to inject oneself at any time is sending the wrong message. They would have to do it 100% of the time for it to reduce the harm. I would be very surprised if drug users actually use the facility 100% of the time.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for sharing his opinions and concerns with us. We can indeed share our opinions in the House of Commons.

However, I wonder how the hon. member's opinion stacks up against that of all the doctors, all the associations and all the community groups, the people involved in the everyday aspects of this issue. I am not claiming to be better than him. My opinion is probably as good as any other, but we are not debating opinions here. We have facts. The fact is that these sites reduce drug use, crime and the spread of disease. Let us stop fearmongering, as the hon. member does when he says he fears this or gets the impression that. Let us listen to our experts. I would like to ask my colleague what he is saying to Quebec, which has made serious efforts together with health experts and stakeholders to deal with this for the past 13 years. Can his opinion or fears throw away 13 years of work or sabotage those efforts?

I think we need to ask questions in the right order and start looking at the facts and respecting the work that has been done by the communities, the provinces and health services agencies.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret: the Conservatives' Bill C-2 is the product of this government's opposition to the decision by the Supreme Court, which found that the government should uphold the exemption that allows Vancouver's supervised injection site, InSite, to remain open.

InSite is North America's first and only legal supervised injection site. It seems obvious that despite the many people speaking in favour of opening at least three more sites elsewhere in Canada—in Toronto and Ottawa in particular—Bill C-2 is simply meant to create obstacles for anyone wishing to undertake such initiatives.

Even the Canadian Medical Association said in its press release that it “is deeply concerned that the proposed legislation may be creating unnecessary obstacles and burdens that could ultimately deter creation of more injection sites”.

The Supreme Court, medical community experts and street workers all agree that this type of approach “is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion”.

In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence indicated that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and where there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the minister should generally grant an exemption.

The Conservatives have managed to inflate statistics on crime, repeat offenders and abortion, and are simply continuing to impose their political and moral agenda and ignoring all the evidence and trends before them.

These situations show the problems associated with cuts to statistical and psychosocial studies, the collection and analysis of information and the social sciences in general. This results in decisions being made solely on the basis of beliefs and prejudices, not facts.

A number of groups believe that this bill is irresponsible. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition issued a joint news release, and had this to say about Bill C-2:

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. In essence, the bill seeks to create multiple additional hurdles that providers of health services must overcome.

The bill imposes about twenty conditions that must be met in order to obtain an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, especially with respect to the consultation of experts and groups. Proponents of the project would be solely responsible for fulfilling the requirements for consultations with government and community stakeholders.

The irony is that when InSite was being established in 2003, the Mayor of Vancouver claimed the following:

[It] was launched after extensive dialogue in the local area, and with thorough city-wide debate, and its programming continues to be shaped with ongoing input from nearby residents, businesses, and service organizations.

This bill is based entirely on bad faith and stereotypes and has been promoted through a fearmongering campaign. The very day the previous bill, Bill C-65, was introduced, the government began a shock advertising campaign entitled “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. The campaign speaks out against supervised injection sites in utter disregard for all the scientific arguments, statistics and research that managed to convince every judge who sits on the highest court in the country.

On the campaign site, it reads:

Yet, as I write this, special interests are trying to open up these supervised drug consumption sites in cities and towns across Canada—over the objections of local residents and law enforcement....Add your name if you demand a say before a supervised drug consumption site is opened close to your family.

The government did a good job of scaring people.

This campaign was strongly criticized by organizations including the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, which felt that the Conservatives' initiative was clearly:

...an attempt to stir up opposition to these life-saving services and to the people who use these services.

The coalition also criticized the language used in the campaign, which directly targets families by calling into question the safety of their loved ones.

That is irresponsible and dishonest. InSite is not located in a residential neighbourhood right next door to an elementary school. It is located in one of the poorest and most violent neighbourhoods in Canada, Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

Many experts testified in committee about the benefits this centre has brought into the lives of those who use it and the positive impact it has had on their environment. I would like to quote Ahmed Bayoumi, a doctor and researcher who continues to fight for the establishment of other supervised injection sites. He had this to say about InSite:

[InSite] has been associated with a reduction in public injecting, no increase in drug-related loitering or drug dealing, no changes in crime rates, no evidence of increased relapse among people who had stopped injecting drugs, and decreased fatal overdose in neighbourhoods near Insite. Among people who used the facility, there was an observed increased rate of referrals for drug treatment and a decreased rate of sharing of injection equipment.

Needless to say, there was no shortage of reactions when this bill was introduced, and those reactions were not really complimentary to the government.

Let us begin with the Supreme Court, which in its September 29, 2011 ruling basically accused the government of acting in an arbitrary manner and overestimating the risk associated with these types of facilities as compared to the positive effects they can have. According to the Supreme Court:

According to the Supreme Court, applying the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to InSite was:

...arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety. It is also grossly disproportionate: the potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition on possession of illegal drugs on Insite’s premises.

Along the same lines, Dr. Bayoumi had this to say about Bill C-2:

...sets up barriers and puts in place opaque mechanisms that could lead to narrow perspectives dominating the decision. It is a step backwards for informed health policy decision making.

In a press release issued in response to Bill C-2, which was Bill C-65 at the time, the Canadian Medical Association stated that this bill:

...is founded upon ideology that seeks to hinder initiatives to mitigate the very real challenges and great personal harm caused by drug abuse.

In fact, even Vancouver's Mayor Robertson defended the centre, saying he considers it a key resource and part of any good public health policy. He concluded his press release by saying:

Especially in light of the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the program’s proven ability to prevent overdose deaths and the spread of disease, I am strongly opposed to any legislative or regulatory changes which would impede Insite’s successful operations.

In the way it has managed this issue, the Conservative government has demonstrated its utter contempt for the Supreme Court, which had to act as a counterbalance to the government's ideological policies.

The Conservatives never hesitate to lower the standard of debate around real arguments in order to spew rhetoric or propose strategies simply to achieve their own ends.

This is not only appalling, but unworthy of someone who is supposed to carry the responsibilities of the Minister of Health.

This government is ignoring the Supreme Court's clear, unanimous decision by introducing a bill that distorts the nature of the rationale given by the judges.

Using our role as legislators in this way is unacceptable and proves only one thing: the Conservatives will do anything to achieve their own ends.

In his book on the Prime Minister and his model of governance, author Christian Nadeau said something that rang very true and still holds true today: the Prime Minister is giving himself four years to:

...overhaul the country's institutions so that the Conservatives have the maximum possible room to manoeuvre in terms of citizens’ rights and security, freedom of conscience and social justice...

When we are dealing with supervised injection sites, we should be listening to and supporting the experts and the people on the front lines, the people who work with drug addicts every day. We should take their advice.

The government has no scientific studies to back its claims. Sites like these are not there to encourage drug use. Far from it. It has been proven that these kinds of sites can help decrease drug use and addiction. If we keep these people underground, how will street outreach workers and health care experts be able to help the addicts who want help?

These kinds of sites bring addicts out of hiding so that we can make contact with them, provide support and eventually help them rebuild their lives.

I urge the government to rethink its approach. I urge them to withdraw Bill C-2 because the official opposition will clearly be voting against this bill at all stages.

In my opinion, this bill will do some very serious damage to the fight against drug addiction.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his well-informed speech. He must have named more than 10 stakeholders, individuals, associations and groups in this area that are opposed to this bill. That shows just how outraged experts are about Bill C-2 and the government's plan.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about property values, which a parliamentary secretary mentioned during this debate. She is concerned that opening a supervised injection site will lower property values in the surrounding neighbourhood. I understand that. However, I think that that reasoning would lead us to close all prisons, all assisted living facilities, and so on. Do we want to stop providing all services that could bother the neighbours? Should we not try to combat these kinds of prejudices to reach some kind of social consensus so that we can provide these services?

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

Mr. Speaker, that quote from the parliamentary secretary in question was quite unfortunate. This issue should not be political or even economic, as she presented it—it is a public health issue. The mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Robertson, is well aware of this problem in his city, in his community. He is smart enough to see that sites like InSite, for example, are there to reduce risks not just for users, but also for the community. Driving drug users into hiding does not make communities safer.

I do not necessarily want to talk about property values, because that has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. What is needed right now is to reduce the harm caused by drug use, to reach people where they are, to give them a place where they can feel safe, and to perhaps help those who are desperately trying to turn their lives around and who need this type of assistance. That is the approach we should take to studying this problem, rather than considering it from an economic perspective focused on property values or making it into a political issue, as the Conservative government is doing with its advertising campaign.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the previous member's comments about property values. I am sure she did not mean to say that people with disabilities living in neighbourhoods would reduce property values. It may have been the translation. I am sure it was. I know she would not say something like that.

With regard to harm reduction, we have seen that there is a strong demand from people across the country who do not want this to happen, particularly in their neighbourhoods. The opposition complains about Conservatives fundraising on the issue. If people did not care, they would not send their money to support the government bringing in the legislation to stop these kinds of heroin dens being created. People do not want this type of help for addicts. They want different kinds of help for addicts.

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

I find that unfortunate. The language used by the Conservative Party in its advertising is not intended to calm fears, but rather to exacerbate them. It is obvious that drug issue is still taboo in our society. People are instinctively afraid of the issue and afraid to address it. The government should be in a position to understand the actual risks to the community and use the facts and statistics pertinent to this issue. These sites in no way jeopardize the communities where they operate. Rather, they are set up in the communities and neighbourhoods that need them the most.

Clearly, the firearms registry was not enough for the Conservative government. It lost that fundraising tool, and therefore needs to find others. The government now wants to turn this very serious problem into a political issue to make it easier to find funding.

The findings are clear, especially those of doctors and street workers: supervised injection sites, as they are known, reduce risks not only for drug users, but also for the communities and areas where they are located.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill, which was formerly Bill C-65 and is now Bill C-2.

The bill is on something about respect for communities, but that is not really what is going on here. It is an attempt to undermine a Supreme Court decision by putting in rules and regulations, which the Supreme Court has asked the government to do, that would make it virtually impossible to actually abide by the Supreme Court decision, which says that these places should be permitted to exist.

Once again, we have a government that ignores facts, statistics, and evidence. This is a government, do not forget, that wanted to eliminate evidence by closing down such things as the long form census and the Experimental Lakes Area. The Conservatives do want there to be evidence. They do not want Canadians to know what they are up to by there being evidence of what might happen.

We have a government that acts, time and again, in opposition to evidence-based decision-making. It acts in opposition to science-based decision-making. It acts in opposition to decision-making that is for the public good. Instead, its actions seem to be knee-jerk reactions that give the Conservatives opportunities to raise money to get elected and to continue this practice of doing things that are not in the interest of the public.

This is yet another example of an action by a government that is attempting to raise alarm bells for citizens about what might or might not happen in their neighbourhoods.

So far, only three communities I am aware of have actually asked for the authority the bill would grant, albeit without going through some pretty steep hoops. They are Toronto, Vancouver, and Ottawa.

My riding is in Toronto, in one of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Ontario. It is against that context that I want to talk about why it is the NDP believes that the bill is completely wrong-headed. In fact, the bill would be defying the Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court ruling directed the government to come up with mechanisms to allow these things to happen. Instead, we are getting a bill that would make it well-nigh impossible for a community, a public health agency, doctors, and respected members of a community to actually put in place a safe injection site where public harm and harm to individuals would be reduced.

If the Conservatives are opposed to reducing harm, why are they in government? The whole point of us being here is to try to reduce harm. However, the bill would actually increase it in places where we should be trying to reduce it.

The government has taken its cue, based on the questions I have been hearing so far today, from the notion that people do not want one of those things in their neighbourhood. Well, I walk in the park in my neighbourhood. It is a big, beautiful park on the banks of the Humber River, and there are needles in that park from drug users who have not had a safe place to inject, and therefore they litter the ground. One cannot walk safely in my little park, because there is no place for harm reduction in my neighbourhood. There is no harm reduction place where people can go to inject the drugs safely.

An addiction is recognized by medical authorities, the public, insurance companies, and even the reputable sources of disability recognition as, in fact, a disability, not a crime. It is not something to be looked down upon. We need to find ways to help individuals who have addictions.

One way to help these individuals, which has been successfully promoted in Vancouver, is a safe injection site. It is a place where it has been found that harm is reduced for the public, both the individuals who are addicted and the public at large, by providing them with a place they can go to safely inject themselves with what we otherwise understand are dangerous drugs.

We would all love it if these things did not exist, but they do exist. They exist in a manner in which the outcome of the use of these drugs in unsupervised ways, in unsafe ways, has led to significant increases in other diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C. Who is going to look after those individuals when those diseases get the better of them? Those diseases will eventually get the better of those individuals, and it is the public, not the individuals themselves, that will pay for their health care.

We are dealing with a government that is preaching about the government having to watch every penny. Here is a situation in which the taxpayer, which Conservatives claim to be on the side of, will end up paying more because of this shortsighted bill. The taxpayer will have to look after the individuals who eventually come to hospitals and medical facilities as a result of diseases we could have prevented and limited had we been dealing with them in a more proactive way early on, when these individuals started to inject themselves unsafely.

We should be doing more to try to deal with the addictions themselves. As we have seen in the press very recently, in a big and public way, addictions are a real problem for individuals in my city. One of the first things that happens to addicts is that they deny it. They do not have a problem.

I was a union representative for many years, and many were the individuals who claimed they had no problem. Some we were able to help. Some got treatment. Others did not, and unfortunately, they became a burden to the health system first, and then, in some cases, they passed away. Those individuals were a burden on society, not because they were not able to get the help they needed but because they denied that they had that problem in the first place.

The same is going to be true of individuals who are seeking help at the safe injection sites. Some of them do not believe they have a problem. How are we going to convince them to get help unless we lead them to the help? That is part of what the safe injection sites do. They provide a safe place where addicts can get counselling and where they can get attention from nurses and doctors. They can therefore be exposed to the help to get them free from their addictions.

That kind of thing is being asked for by the City of Toronto as part of its request to the federal government. In fact, the City of Toronto will be speaking on this matter when the bill goes to committee, because it has recommended that the Board of Health make a submission to the federal government to register its opposition to Bill C-65. This is a recommendation from the medical officer of health of Toronto, by the way. It will also recommend the development of a more feasible CDSA exemption application process for supervised injection services, in consultation with relevant provincial public health, public safety, and community stakeholders, including people who use drugs.

The Board of Health urges the provincial government to fund the integration of supervised injection services on a pilot basis, but they cannot do that if the federal government will not give its permission. That is what we are up against. We are up against a government that, as evidenced by the questions I have been hearing so far, is fundamentally opposed to the existence of these things anywhere. It has put into the bill such blockades or walls to get over that it will be virtually impossible for any of the cities in our country to create a supervised injection site with permission from the government.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which was well thought out and not blinded by ideological arguments, like those made by the people across the way. Once again, this is a public health issue.

There is one aspect that I can relate to. I used to have the pleasure of doing business in neighbourhoods such as Mile End in Montreal and in very densely populated neighbourhoods on the Island of Montreal. I remember that there were some parks that were designed for young children. The parks had slides and teeter-totters. However, on days when I was in the neighbourhood, I could not leave my son, who may have been five at the time, alone and unsupervised barely three feet away from me because far too often there were needles near the bushes or play structures. That is the real problem. That is what is prompting community groups and entire neighbourhoods, including doctors and police officers, to come together and say that it would be better if they geared their approach to the people who are struggling with the misfortune of being hard drug users.

It is rather hypocritical of this government to not want see this reality. I would like my colleague to say a few words about this completely hypocritical aspect of refusing to see the truth and listen to the facts.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question. That is precisely why community leaders, medical officers of health, and the medical community have rallied around the notion of finding a safe place for people who cannot control their addictions, whom we understand to be disabled Canadians, to inject their injectables.

Public health would be increased. We would have a better place to live. We would not have needles in parks. We would not have an increase in HIV and hepatitis C. We would not have individuals who are finding public places to inject themselves, leading to a lack of safety in communities. This is about public safety, not ideology.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his presentation and, in the same breath, say that it saddens me that since the beginning of our debate on this topic, not a single government member has risen to present the government's position on this bill.

I would like know whether my colleague has noticed the same thing. In the bill on environmental assessments, for example, the government did everything it could to reduce the deadlines in order to allow party cronies to move forward with their projects as quickly as possible. However, when it comes to Bill C-2, the government puts up as many obstacles as possible in order to prevent projects from moving forward in communities that are prepared to welcome sites such as InSite. Has the hon. member noticed the same thing?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too have noticed the lack of government members speaking on this bill, which leads us to wonder just how important it is to the government members.

It is very important to the people of Canada. It is very important to the people who live in the cities of Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver that they have the ability to have a safe injection place to reduce public harm, not just to the individuals who are injecting themselves but to the community at large. This bill would get in the way of that. It would defy the Supreme Court decision by putting in place huge obstacles to the creation of safe injection sites.

One would think that in a parliamentary democracy, we would have a robust debate, back and forth, between both the government and opposition members. However, to this point, there has been very little from the government members.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to set the record straight. Are the Conservatives aware that, in September 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of InSite? The court noted the effectiveness of the site and the very need for it in Vancouver's east side. I do not understand why we are still debating a law that will ensure that these kinds of organizations will not be able to exist in Canada.

Let us put this in context. We should begin by talking about what is happening in that Vancouver neighbourhood—and many other Canadian cities, I might add—and then try to understand why a place such as InSite is critical to the safety of the neighbourhood and why it is beneficial.

Vancouver's downtown east side is home to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our country. There are nearly 4,600 intravenous drug users there, which represents approximately half of the entire city's intravenous drug users. That is significant. That proportion is not at all reflective of the actual size of the neighbourhood, which is very small and has few houses. There are various factors that contribute to the high concentration of drug users in that area of the city. We could talk about the numerous rooming houses, the deinstitutionalization of people with mental health issues, the effects of drug policies throughout the years and, of course, the availability of illicit drugs on the street.

Before InSite came about, the things you could see on the streets were mind-blowing: people sitting on the ground or sitting on steps, putting on a tourniquet and shooting up. That was a common occurrence in this neighbourhood. Drug addicts come from all kinds of backgrounds, but the one thing they have in common is that they all had difficult childhoods or experiences that led them to drugs. Anyone walking through that neighbourhood, including children, would come across dirty needles.

The researchers who came up with the idea of InSite thought long and hard about how to create a site that would address all of these problems. InSite was developed as part of a public health project by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and its community partners, in response to a twelve-fold increase in overdose-related deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. At the time, the Vancouver area was seeing huge increases in the rates of communicable diseases, such as hepatitis A, B and C, and HIV, among injection drug users.

InSite first received an exemption in 2003 for conducting activities for a medical and scientific purpose, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, so it could provide services and conduct research on the effectiveness of supervised injection sites. Section 56 of this act gives the minister the authority to approve facilities that use drugs for a medical and scientific purpose or for a law enforcement purpose. In 2007, the drug treatment centre OnSite was added to the facility.

In 2008, InSite's exemption under section 56 expired, and the Minister of Health rejected InSite's renewal request. This decision sparked a string of legal challenges leading to the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling that InSite should be granted a new exemption. The federal government brought the matter to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which also ruled that InSite should remain open. Finally, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated the charter rights of its clients and was “arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety”.

The court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which states: “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 court stated:

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.

The Supreme Court ruled that InSite and other supervised injection sites must be granted a section 56 exemption when the opening of such sites “will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety”. After this decision was handed down, public health authorities and agencies in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal began planning to open supervised injection sites.

Why are we here debating this issue when we clearly did not need to come back to it? We are doing so because once again the Conservatives decided to change a law so that it reflects their ideology. They came up with a deeply flawed bill that is based on an anti-drug ideology and false fears for public safety. This is another attempt to rally the Conservative base, as evidenced by their “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign that started mere hours after Bill C-2 was introduced in Parliament. This bill will make it almost impossible to open safe injection sites and will put heroin back in our neighbourhoods.

The NDP feels that decisions about programs that could benefit public safety should be based on fact and not ideology. Evidence has shown that supervised injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, and reduce deaths from overdoses. Evidence has also shown that these sites do not negatively affect public safety and that, in certain cases, they promote it by reducing the injection of drugs in public, the violence associated with such behaviour, and drug-related waste. Safe injection sites make it possible to strike the appropriate balance between public health and public safety. They also connect people in urgent need of health care with the services they need, such as primary health care and drug treatment services.

This bill imposes a far too heavy burden on communities, which would have to prove what the benefits of such a site would be and could then still be denied an exemption. As the Supreme Court pointed out, this bill brings us back to the arbitrary decision made by the minister against InSite in 2008.

The NDP believes that any legislation introduced by the Conservative government must respect the Supreme Court ruling and strike a balance between health and public safety.

This bill flies in the face of the 2011 decision, which ordered the minister to consider granting exemptions for supervised injection sites in order to strike a balance between public health and public safety. That decision ordered the minister to examine all the evidence in light of the advantages of supervised injection sites, rather than coming up with a long list of principles on which to base decisions.

In closing, I would like to add that the NDP believes that any new legislation regarding supervised injection sites must respect the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling, which this bill does not do. We believe that harm reduction programs, including supervised injection sites, should be granted exemptions based on evidence that they will improve public health and save lives, not on ideology.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

I wonder if she could provide some figures that support our position on Bill C-2. Can she talk about the fact that such sites reduce harm as well as the risk of people injuring themselves? Can she tell us about people who agree with our position?

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous associations that I could name. For example, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association both criticized the fact that the government introduced this bill. They believe, as do we, that these types of organizations should be encouraged.

Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition issued this statement on the bill:

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.

I will provide some numbers that demonstrate how effective these sites are, just as my colleague asked. With regard to public safety, 80% of people questioned who work in Vancouver or who live in that part of Vancouver support InSite. They have come to realize that it is very effective.

I can also say that the rate of overdose-related deaths in east Vancouver has dropped by 35% since InSite opened. That is not an insignificant number. In addition, during a year-long study, there were 273 injections at InSite and none of them were lethal, thanks to the on-site nurses and doctors.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her presentation.

In this debate, people have mentioned InSite frequently for the past while, and that is understandable. Can my colleague can provide more information about how people in her own riding perceive these facilities that help people who are addicted to drugs? This bill seems to be the epitome of “not in my backyard” syndrome. I think there may well be many ridings where people are in favour of providing assistance to people who have these problems.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

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

Yes, for the last little while, the members on the other side have been saying that the NDP wants to encourage people to take drugs. In fact, the only thing we want to do is keep people affected by this problem safer.

People who use drugs have a problem. We have to help them; we have to be proactive and set up agencies that will help them and allow them to use drugs safely, precisely in order to stop the spread of diseases transmitted by dirty needles. I am absolutely certain that the people in my riding would rather have a facility like InSite than see dirty needles when they are taking a walk in the park.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly pick up on the one point the member referenced. There are many communities. I represent Winnipeg North, where there are many social needs. When we walk around our communities, we see there are back lanes around some of the community schools with drug-related issues and paraphernalia surrounding our facilities.

There is a need for the federal government to work with the different levels of government to ensure that we can make our communities healthier places to live by establishing and having proactive, solid social programs.

Would the member comment on that and how it would apply to all areas?

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comment.

What I can say, in conclusion, is that the government is still using the same old strategies to cut back services to citizens. It is not concerned with health or with public safety. These are important issues. When dealing with these issues, we have to put partisanship aside and make sure our citizens, Canadians, have a safe place to live.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to talk about Bill C-2, formerly known as Bill C-65.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to denounce this bill, which is intended to terminate the operation of supervised injection sites: nothing more, nothing less. It is in direct opposition to a decision the Supreme Court handed down in 2011.

This is a bill that betrays the irrational ideology of the Conservatives, who believe that repression is the only way to deal with this scourge.

We are not the only people in the world to have considered this issue. There are more than 70 cities worldwide that have supervised injection sites. They are found mainly in Europe and Australia. In Canada, there is but one supervised injection site: InSite, which opened in 2003.

In order to use the services of InSite in Vancouver, users must be at least 16, sign a user agreement, comply with a code of conduct and not be accompanied by children. Users bring their own substances, and the staff provide clean injection equipment. Emergency medical aid is available if required, and expert staff are on site to provide health and social service support.

In addition to providing services to drug users in order to minimize the impact on their health and on public health, InSite conducts research on the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities.

This injection site has already demonstrated its effectiveness by significantly reducing deaths by overdose. It is estimated that overdose deaths in Vancouver have decreased by 35% since the site opened. In addition to reducing overdoses, the facility helps to reduce the rates of communicable diseases among injection drug users. I am referring to hepatitis A, B and C and HIV/AIDS, for example.

Ever since it was established by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and its community partners, this public health project has generated controversy. Those who believe only in repression saw it as an encouragement to use drugs.

At first, the site was able to open because it was given an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to operate for medical and scientific purposes. In 2008, the exemption for InSite expired and the health minister denied InSite's application to renew it. This decision triggered a series of court cases, which led to the B.C. Supreme Court decision that InSite should be granted a new exemption. The federal government then appealed this decision. One after the other, the B.C. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the closure of InSite violated the rights of its patrons under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides 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.

I would like to quote from the 2011 Supreme Court decision effectively demonstrating the Conservatives' bad faith in this case, as follows:

[The minister's decision to close InSite] is arbitrary...because it undermines the very purposes of the CDSA—the protection of health and public safety.

I would also like to quote another excerpt from that decision:

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.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court decision does not just concern InSite. It opens the door to new similar sites, and I quote:

On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. 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. Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

This ruling by Canada’s highest court has led public health agencies throughout the country, including the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal, to consider opening supervised injection facilities.

After being turned down twice by the courts, the Conservatives are now trying to get around the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the Supreme Court judges, by using Bill C-2 to amend the act.

The Conservatives are acting in a way that is just as reprehensible as the bill itself. Some people go so far as to say that this is hypocritical.

As we saw in this House during the previous session of Parliament, the Conservatives’ strategy is plain: to increase the number of requirements that supervised injection sites will have to meet before the department will grant an exemption. These many requirements will make it much more difficult for agencies to open supervised injection facilities in Canada. The Conservatives are so ideologically pigheaded that it is pathetic.

In this House, my colleagues have often heard me say how important it is to base political decisions on fact. Unlike the Conservatives, I have looked at the facts. I have found that 80% of the people questioned, who live or work in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, support InSite, primarily because there has been a significant drop in the number of needles discarded and the number of people injecting drugs on the street.

I can cite other figures and percentages. The rate of overdose deaths in East Vancouver has fallen by 35% since InSite opened. It has also been noted that injection drug users who go to lnSite are 70% less likely to share needles. In one year, 2,171 Insite users were referred to addiction counselling or other support services. Unlike repression, lnSite does not marginalize drug users and does not force them into isolation. These are figures that I think are pretty convincing.

There are more than 30 peer-reviewed studies, published in major scientific journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, that describe the benefits of InSite. Furthermore, there are other studies that show the positive impacts of more than 70 supervised injection sites that are similar to Insite.

In summary, I think that the science and the evidence are quite clear: supervised injection sites promote public health because they reach vulnerable groups and are accepted by the community. They make it possible to improve the health of their users and reduce high-risk behaviour, in addition to lowering the number of overdose deaths and reducing drug use in public places.

Above all, I believe that safe injection sites make it possible to strike the appropriate balance between public health and public safety. Furthermore, the sites give people who need help access to the necessary health services, such as primary health care and drug treatment services.

Front line workers have been clear: supervised injection sites are necessary. Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition issued a joint statement about the bill, which reads:

This 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...

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her excellent speech on a bill I would describe as fairly controversial.

On the other side of the House, the Conservatives often talk about law and order, saying that we have to keep our streets and communities safe. It is all very well to talk that talk, but they should also walk the walk.

The fact is that supervised injection sites, such as InSite in Vancouver, exist in over 80 countries worldwide, including Australia, the Netherlands, Canada and Germany. Such sites exist all over the world.

In Montreal, not far from my colleague’s constituency, the Montreal police, the SPVM, is looking to work with community organizations to set up a supervised injection site on the Island of Montreal.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the SPVM wants to set up a supervised injection site and work with the communities involved on the Island of Montreal, and the fact that the Conservatives have a completely different take on the issue and are refusing to allow such sites to be set up in Montreal?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

In my opinion, this shows that the NDP does not have the same approach as the Conservatives. On the NDP side, we look to facts and scientific studies, whereas the Conservatives rely on ideology.

Moreover, the Conservatives launched a campaign entitled “Keep heroin out of our backyards”, and used it to raise funds and fill their campaign coffers.

I believe that the Conservatives are creating an issue to help build up their campaign funds without really basing their ideas on facts and without adopting a science-based approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of comments by the government because it is not expressing its view on the question, of course. There has been neither debate nor comment, except for a few questions asked by members from time to time.

Moreover, most of the questions asked by the government focus on the dangers and the popular perception of supervised injection sites. Yet physicians, experts and street workers have shown that such perceptions were incorrect and that on the contrary, supervised injection sites helped improve neighbourhood safety and tackle substance and drug abuse directly.

What does the member think of the fact that the government is totally silent in this debate? Why is the government in no position to defend a public bill that is in fact going to be detrimental to public health?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this government has always governed with blinkers on and consults neither the public nor the appropriate experts.

We also know that Bill C-2 flies in the face of the Supreme Court's 2011 decision, which called upon the minister to consider exemptions for supervised injection sites as a way to reconcile public safety and health issues.

As we can see, the Conservatives have no respect even for the Supreme Court. We therefore hope that they will come to their senses, look at the facts and change their position on Bill C-2.

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 amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to debate Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The bill before us today brings into sharper focus what is happening under this Conservative government. This bill is driven solely by ideology and completely ignores the facts. That is nothing new for the Conservatives. Bill C-2 is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites.

As we have seen routinely for some time, this government has no qualms about introducing bills that disregard recent rulings by the highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that InSite provided essential services and had to remain open under the exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Court also ruled that the charter authorized users to access InSite services and that the provision of similar services should also be authorized under the same exemption.

In addition, a number of studies published in major scientific journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal, describe the benefits of the InSite supervised injection facility.

We have noticed over the past few years that the Conservatives are not fond of scientists who express their opinions, particularly when those opinions are critical of the Conservatives or when they go against the Conservatives’ ideology.

A government’s mission is not to muzzle scientists or to gag members of the House of Commons a record number of times. The government’s role is to take note of the facts and, on the basis of those facts, make the best decisions for Canadians. With Bill C-2, the government is again falling into the embarrassing trap of grandstanding and ignoring facts that clearly prove that supervised injection facilities like InSite have a wide range of benefits for the general public.

Just a few hours after introducing Bill C-2, the Conservatives launched a campaign called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”, designed to rally grassroots support and, once again, to fuel the public’s unfounded fears about safety. I am really looking forward to hearing the arguments they make to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Let us just take a few moments to think about this seriously. Are the Conservatives really so keen on magical thinking that they believe that, if InSite were closed, heroin use would automatically disappear? I hope their cognitive reasoning is a little more advanced than that. The reality is that, after the closure of supervised injection facilities, heroin use would not disappear but would once again be widespread in neighbourhoods and could at that point become a real danger for the general public. This is the exact opposite of what the Conservatives are claiming.

This is a fact. Let us forget the Conservatives’ ideological inflexibility that results in the exact opposite of what they claim, and talk about the facts, the real facts, about InSite and the positive benefits of supervised injection facilities.

The InSite project was set up as part of a public health initiative by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and a number of other community partners following a 12-fold increase in the number of overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. Over that seven-year period, the Vancouver area also saw a disturbing increase in the rate of blood-borne diseases, such as hepatitis A, B and C and HIV/AIDS, among injection drug users.

In 2003, InSite secured an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with medical and scientific applications, in order to provide services and conduct research into the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities.

In 2007, the Onsite Detox Centre was added at the same location.

In 2008, InSite's exemption expired. The Minister of Health denied its application for renewal, in a portent of the bill now before this House.

The Minister of Health's decision triggered a series of court cases, following which the British Columbia Supreme Court found that InSite had to be given a further exemption. The Conservative government appealed that decision, but lost its appeal in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which also found that InSite should remain open.

Finally, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Minister’s decision to close InSite violated its clients’ charter rights, was arbitrary, and was contrary to the very purpose of the Public Health and Safety Act. In the NDP, we believe that government decisions should be made in the best interests of the public, and not in accordance with an ideological stance.

Evidence has shown that supervised injection sites are effective in reducing the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases and overdose-related deaths. It has also shown that such sites are not bad for public safety and that in many cases, on the contrary, they promote it by reducing drug injection in public places, the associated violence, and the waste materials that result from drug use. They also make it possible to strike a fair balance between public safety and public health and to connect users with the health care and drug treatment services they need in order to escape the hell of drug use.

In this case, the facts are clear and unequivocal. Between 1987 and 1993, before InSite opened, the number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver rose from 16 to 200 a year. Since it opened, the number of overdose-related deaths in east Vancouver has fallen 35%.

For our Conservative friends who believe that InSite is a dangerous place that poses a threat to the public, here are some more facts. Over a one-year period, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addiction counselling and other support services. People using InSite's services at least once a week are almost twice as likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visit only occasionally.

There was a very significant drop in the number of discarded needles, injection-related waste materials and people injecting themselves with drugs, just in the year following the opening of InSite. It was found that 80% of respondents living or working in Vancouver's downtown east side support InSite. A number of studies have looked at the possible negative impact of InSite. Not one produced any evidence of harm to the community.

The facts are clear. An initiative like InSite is a step in the right direction in terms of public health and public safety. In contrast to what the Conservatives claim, it gets drugs off our streets and moves them to supervised sites where people are attended to and strongly encouraged to explore the possibilities for drug treatment and social reintegration.

That is why we will be voting against Bill C-2, which is based—as is all too often the case on the other side of the House—on magical thinking, rather than facts.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Laval—Les Îles for his excellent speech. He explained very clearly why we should all vote against this bill.

The bill is based on nothing but ideology. Its only goal is to get money from the Conservative base by using scare tactics, even though scientific research and health studies have shown the benefits of InSite, as my colleague explained. I would like to ask him a question, so that he can offer more details and examples.

Does he think the Conservatives should step back from this bill, given the positive impact programs like InSite can have on health? For example, users are referred to addiction treatment options, at some point, so that they can control their drug use and improve their health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his excellent question.

I come from an area where there are a lot of drug addicts and there is no facility like InSite. I see people from day to day, and it is clear just from looking at them that they have a lot of problems. I even know some people who died from an overdose. If there had been a place like InSite, they would probably still be alive today.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I find particularly appalling in this whole thing is that the Conservatives are using this InSite situation to raise campaign money. They launched a “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign.

It is disgusting that they would try to profit from this and that they are sensationalizing the issue. That is petty politics.

Could my colleague talk about the evidence that supports our position? Could he give us some figures, such as the number of people InSite has helped, to illustrate why we have taken this position?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her question. I would have to look at my notes, because I do not have the exact figures. However, I agree that it is disgusting that the Conservatives are using this issue to raise money and that they launched a campaign with a title like “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. That is the exact opposite of what will happen.

I live across from a park and I sometimes see people there at two in the morning. I do not need to go over there to know what teens and other people are doing at that hour. Contrary to what the Conservatives claim, I think that having a place like InSite in my neighbourhood would keep heroin out of my backyard.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member is finding the same thing that I am finding. Many people in my community who are very concerned about harm reduction would like to get the message through to the House of Commons. There are many people who have expressed interest in appearing at committee when the bill gets to committee. With a Conservative majority I am expecting it will. I am committed to making sure that as many of those people as possible are heard because the evidence in favour of safe injection sites is so overwhelming. I am wondering if the member is finding the same kind of interest in Montreal that we are finding on the west coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I will not say the name of his riding, since it is even more complicated than mine.

As I was saying, that is a concern in my community. We would really like to have a place like InSite. Many people would be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which I have been a member of for a few months.

Indeed, I know many people who would be willing to come and tell the committee how beneficial it would be to have a place like InSite in their community.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making it clear that the NDP and I oppose Bill C-2. The bill is a thinly veiled attempt to arbitrarily shut down InSite. Beyond Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, Bill C-2 would make it next to impossible to open a safe injection site anywhere, no matter how desperately a community may need one, no matter how much suffering exists.

It is not pleasant to think about intravenous drug use. However, it exists, and it is happening on a scale that makes it a public problem in need of a public solution. Bill C-2 is a move in the wrong direction and will only exacerbate the problem further.

There are approximately 100,000 Canadians who say they have injected themselves with drugs like cocaine, heroin, OxyContin, and crystal meth. Bill C-2 does nothing to help Canadian drug addicts. It does nothing to address this as a public health issue.

Though the short title of the bill is “respect for communities act”, we must make no mistake that this legislation will hurt our communities. The title is the usual Conservative Orwellian newspeak, meant to pretend that the government is acting positively. If Bill C-2 is passed and communities that need supervised injection sites cannot build them, where does the government want drug users to go? There certainly has not been any real answer articulated on that question.

Let me tell members about the impact that Bill C-2 will have. It will push drug users into our communities, into the alleyways, on to our town streets, and into our neighbourhood parks. There will be nowhere else for addicts to go but to the public spaces in our communities.

One year after InSite opened, there was a significant drop in the number of people injecting on the streets and much less injection-related litter, such as discarded syringes. If for no other reason than to keep intravenous drug users off the streets of our communities, we need supervised injection sites like InSite. The element of protection that these sites provide is not just for the drug users but for the community at large.

We must also remember that supervised injection sites facilitate contact between drug users and those specialists who can help them to get off drugs or become sober. InSite has proven that its frequent patrons are one and a half times more likely to eventually enrol in detox programs.

Standing in the way of supervised drug injection sites means standing in the way of helping people to get sober and kick dangerous habits. Therefore, I wonder why the government is so hostile to supervised drug injection sites. Does it want an increase of unsupervised drug users? Perversely, could it be that the government wants to fill its prisons with drug addicts? For those who mindlessly support the prospect of more prisons, the prospect of more full prisons must be quite satisfying.

Bill C-2 does nothing to stop drug use or encourage sobriety. It does not deter Canadians from injecting themselves with drugs. Denying Canadian drug addicts access to supervised injection sites unfortunately denies the people who use drugs a safe and clean way of doing so. We do not have to condone drug use to see the benefit of supervised injection sites. We must face reality. Drug addicts use drugs. The least we can do is to reduce the harm around this activity and try to steer addicts toward help. They deserve this offer of help. There is no such thing as a throwaway human being.

It is not an exaggeration to say that access to facilities such as InSite is a matter of health and safety, life and death. Let me remind members that in 2011 the Supreme Court ruled in support of InSite. The Supreme Court told the federal government that it could not inhibit safe injection sites from operating. The ruling was based on section 7 of the charter. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, legislation such as Bill C-2 is against the fundamental right to life, liberty, and security. The people in this chamber demand those rights for themselves. Why on earth would they deny these rights to others?

Elsewhere in the world, safe injection sites operate in 70 cities in six different European countries and Australia. Safe injection sites reduce harm. They improve a community's public health, reduce disease and have absolutely no negative impact on public safety. In fact, they enhance public safety, all the while preserving human lives. These are the lives of people who are someone's brother or sister. They are people who were once beloved children, cherished family members. They were not always drug addicts. These are the lives of people who deserve to be saved and respected and who deserve to be healthy and safe.

Vancouver's Downtown Eastside has been described as home to as many as 5,000 injection drug users. Despite being drug users, these 5,000 people remain Canadians, much to the chagrin of the current government. Even if we do not agree with their life choices and drug use, the government must not abandon them. They are Canadians. They are human lives, and they are vulnerable. If their government is able to help, it is morally obligated to do so. However, Bill C-2 does not help; in fact, it hinders.

In Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, InSite has made a positive difference. Human lives have been saved since InSite first opened. The number of accidental drug overdose deaths has been reduced by 35. Those who use InSite once a week have been shown to be 1.7 times more likely to enrol in detox programs than those who visit infrequently. Injection drug users who use InSite are 70% less likely to share needles. Reduced needle sharing is an internationally recognized best practice to reduce the rate of HIV-AIDS and various other diseases. Finally, InSite patrons are more likely to seek medical care through the program, which results in fewer emergency room visits and improved health outcomes. It might also be of interest to the Conservative government that fewer emergency room visits equal cost savings to our health care system.

This is just a smattering of InSite's positive impact. This impact has been proven in over 30 peer-reviewed studies, published in journals like the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. Further, the experts at the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association are also against Bill C-2.

I implore the government to listen to the science, to Canadian doctors and nurses, and abandon Bill C-2.

InSite does good work. It must be allowed to continue to operate. More than 80% of people surveyed in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside want it to continue to operate. Will the Conservative government listen to the only community in Canada that currently has a supervised injection site? Will it listen to the people of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and respect what they want because they support InSite?

We can only ask why the government refuses to respect the scientific and medical communities that support safe injection sites. Why does the government want to abandon those who have been so vulnerable and unfortunate as to become drug addicts? Why does the government not understand that safe injections sites are part of a community harm reduction strategy? Such sites improve the community for everyone who lives alongside drug users.

Bill C-2 goes against all scientific evidence and experts who show that supervised injection sites reduce harm. The bill goes against the charter and the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Conservative government goes against the moral obligation to reduce harm to drug users.

We must not give up on people, even if they seem to have given up on themselves. Without solutions to address substance abuse, we must at least try to implement harm reduction strategies.

We must not abandon people, particularly when they are in despair. Without a solution to drug addiction, we must, at the very least, try to implement harm reduction.

For these reasons, the New Democratic Party and I oppose Bill C-2.

As a sideline, the Heinz company just announced the closure of its plant in Leamington. U.S. Steel is shutting down in Hamilton. In my town of London, Ontario, we have lost far too many good-paying jobs. Despite all that, the Conservative government chooses to assault the vulnerable instead of focusing on the economy and the good jobs that we need to support families and communities.

I rest my case.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the wonderful speech she gave and for laying out the facts. I know the Conservatives do not believe in facts, but she laid them out very nicely.

We have talked about Conservatives, but let us talk about Liberals. Liberals claim to respect Parliament and to stand up for the democratic process, and this is a quote from their platform in 2011. It stated, “Canadians expect their leaders to respect our democracy between elections, not just when we vote”. I do not hear Liberals speaking up on this issue. They claim they are against this bill, yet Liberal members are not coming forward to speak on this very deep issue.

I want to ask a question of my hon. colleague. Does the hon. member find it strange that during elections Liberals say one thing and yet practise something completely different when they get into the House?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. As members may tell from my vintage, I am a veteran of Liberal campaigns. I remember all the red books. There was a red book in 1993, and then again in 1997 and 2000. There was one red book after another. In each and every one of those red books, there were promises for child care, pharmacare, and improving the lives of Canadians. I ran in a couple of those elections when the Liberals won, and strangely enough none of those promises were kept. They talk a good game and are very persuasive. They have the name recognition and the coiffure to influence. However, when it comes to substance and to standing up and effecting change when they have power, it is not there.

I thank my colleague for the question. I can only say that we should judge them by what they do, because they do not do much.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy is unparliamentary, so I will not use that word in describing what I just witnessed. Not only has the Liberal Party been putting members forward, the very site she referenced was the creation of the Liberal government working hand in hand with the many different stakeholders to make it come into being. Not only have I spoken on the issue, but others from within the Liberal caucus have spoken on the issue.

When we talk about commitment, in Manitoba there is the big lie. The NDP premier of Manitoba said he was not going to increase the PST when he was on TV, but in government he increased the PST. The Liberal Party does not have to take any lessons on the issue of hypocrisy from the New Democrats.

My question to the member is this. Will she at the very least acknowledge with some honesty that it was the Liberal Party working in co-operation with stakeholders in Vancouver that ultimately put in place the one that is in Canada today?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we touched a nerve.

I am very happy to reply. It is very important for a community to have safe injection sites like InSite. Given all of the promises of all of the Liberal governments, if it came through once, that is not such a bad thing.

However, I also remember no child care. I also remember their promises to help first nations. I also remember that when it came to the most vulnerable of Canadians, those who had lost their jobs, it was the Liberal government and then the subsequent Conservative government that took—and I use the word “took”—$57 billion out of the employment insurance account and then said it was so sad that they could not support the families and people who were unemployed.

I do think there is perhaps hypocrisy in the air, but I will not name it.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the bill, I just want to comment on a couple of activities in my community that took place over the last week.

I had an opportunity to visit the Surrey Traditional School's grade 5 and 6 students. They were about 12 years old. It was part of a UN program, where their MP is brought to the school. I am glad to have had the opportunity to visit this school. I want to assure the House that we have a bright future because of these young people. They are very bright and asked very thoughtful questions. These students were very engaged in Canadian politics. Not only that, we discussed lowering the age limit for voting to 12 years old. We had a lively discussion about that.

They are wonderful young people, and I think Canada has a bright future with young people like those in the Surrey Traditional School.

I also want to give a shout out to a fundraiser that went on in my community. I am so happy to say to the House that I am from Surrey. The entire community came together to raise funds for the Philippines typhoon. It was standing room only in the banquet hall.

I want to give a special shout out to the organizers who brought this function together in a very short period of time. Sukhi Bath, along with Kultar Thiara of the Grand Taj, and also Narima Dela Cruz, were the main organizers for this. They raised over $100,000 for the Philippines disaster that happened last week. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of those who were caught in this terrible tragedy. Also RED FM, another radio station, held a radiothon to raise money for the victims of the Philippines typhoon.

I want to thank everyone in my community who came together and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to help out folks in the Philippines. I thank all of those people. I made a small donation, and I encourage all Canadians to make a small donation to the Canadian Red Cross. I encourage all members of the House to make a contribution directly to the Red Cross, which is helping the people who are affected by this typhoon.

I have heard a number of speeches today. I have not heard many from the Liberals, as the member claims. They seem to be missing. I have not heard anything from the Conservatives. The government is bringing forward a bill, yet it is not telling us why it is bringing it forward.

The rumour is, as always, that ideology triumphs over facts and figures. I believe the Conservatives are not standing up because we are going to be asking them questions, and it is pretty difficult to defend ideology over facts and figures. The facts and figures show that InSite has been operational in the Vancouver area for many years. It started operating in 2003. In 2008, the five-year certificate expired, and they reapplied to get the exemption under the Health Act.

However, the Conservatives fought this. They did not want to renew the licence for this particular facility, which actually helps people. It has been shown to reduce crime in the area. It has brought down the number of people dying because of drug overdoses. It has helped to clean up downtown neighbourhoods where people were shooting up and doing drugs in the streets. They can now get this service in a secure place.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada directed the Conservative government not to interfere. It ruled in favour of having InSite in Vancouver. Research and medical professionals had input in putting this site together. They have shown facts and figures on why it is working. Yet the Conservatives want to put in obstacles in the way so scientifically and medically proven techniques for harm reduction are not realized in our communities.

We have a role to play as parliamentarians and that role is to make sure that we take into consideration all the facts and figures to come up with policies that reduce harm in our communities. That is our role, yet the Conservatives are trying to put roadblocks in place so that people cannot have this. Whether it is public safety or harm reduction or public health, that is the case with the legislation.

We often hear about a policy coming down from Ottawa that does not take into consideration the local interests. I believe the bill does that. Basically Ottawa is telling communities what they need to do. I believe it is better left for communities at the local level, with their law enforcement agencies, police, health care professionals, to decide. The community decided to have this facility available in Vancouver. Yet now Ottawa is telling communities across this country what they need to do and what they need not do. I think that is wrong.

Communities will make better decisions, localized decisions. They can do this on their own. They do not need Ottawa coming up with obstacles, rules, regulations or laws to have this implemented at the ground level. Basically, the Conservatives are telling our communities what they can or cannot do in their backyards. I believe that is fundamentally flawed.

When we talk about ideology and evidence, we should be making decisions based on evidence, research and input from professionals, yet this is not the case. There have been over 30 peer reviewed studies that have shown the benefits of these kinds of sites in preventing harm to people. Conservatives are ignoring all of those facts, figures and research in coming up with this legislation.

Facts from InSite are that it has reduced crime in the area. It helps people who come to the site. There is another facility located above it where the users have access to rehabilitation services. One year there were over 2,000 referrals made to this on-site facility, which provided counselling and rehab services to people who were using drugs. It is another way to capture an audience and maybe help them get off drugs.

In my community in the Fraser health region we had over 100 deaths in 2001 due to overdose. When people overdose they also put a burden on our medical emergency services. It is fair to say that this sort of policy, this sort of law, will not reduce that burden on our health care. In fact, it will make it worse, because of the ideological approach that the government is taking. We need to take a practical approach that leaves these decisions to local bodies and let the professionals and facts decide how we want to deal with these situations.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone is ideological on this issue, it is the NDP. In listening to the debate today, New Democrats have not talked about the safety of society as a whole. They are focused solely on the drug user, and they are advocating something that is bad for a drug user, which is drugs, obviously.

The bill is for the protection of public health and the protection of public safety. It prohibits certain activities associated with harmful substances and allows access to those substances. These substances are frequently used in the production of illicit drugs. It is a worldwide problem that has a significant impact on Canada.

I wish I could read the whole bill. Anyone who has read the bill would say, yes, let us pass it for the sake of the children.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Conservatives come up with their facts. On this side of the House we rely on research, on medical professionals, on community workers, on health authorities, and on law enforcement agencies. All of them have said that having a site similar to InSite actually reduces crime. It takes drug users off our streets.

How can the hon. member justify that this somehow pushes drugs on to our children? It is beyond me. This is clearly an ideological position of the Conservatives. There are no facts at all behind the legislation.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise spontaneously after hearing the arguments from our friends across the floor. I feel as though I am listening to a sixth-grader who has not done his homework before speaking to the class. This is incredible. Their argument is black and white and borders on the absurd. It makes no sense. This is Conservative magical thinking, pure and simple. According to them, we just have to say to people who are unfortunately addicted to hard, intravenous drugs that that is bad. Then they will stop using drugs immediately. If we do not agree with the Conservatives, it means we support drug use. It is ridiculous. I cannot believe this. We are not in the sixth grade, and the committee is not made up of twelve-year-olds. In fact, my twelve-and-a-half-year-old son is capable of taking a longer-term view.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about how ridiculous this is.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, prior to my speech, I talked about 12-year-olds in grade 6 at the Surrey Traditional School I visited. I can assure my colleague that they certainly came prepared to ask the right questions.

I can see what the hon. member is trying to say in regard to the Conservatives. The Canadian Medical Association approved having InSite facilities available that reduce harm. It is good for public safety and it is good for public health. The Canadian nurses' union endorses the position of having these facilities open for people to use.

If we are to be making laws in this place, they should be based on facts, research, and science, not on ideology. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not respect the decision that was made by the Supreme Court, and they need to rethink that.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues and apologize first off: I am really going to try my very best to freshen up the debate by presenting the same facts in a new light.

It is now clear that we have been discussing Bill C-2 for three or four hours, and I am the 12th or the 13th speaker for the NDP. Obviously, we have a shared vision of the whole thing, because that is what we have been talking about.

In the House of Commons, the place where all debates to enhance draft legislation should be held, the Conservatives are using one of two strategies: they either systematically gag the opposition, to reduce members’ speaking time in the House, or else they give us what we are getting today, nothing but silence from the Conservative members, who are probably now well aware that they have introduced a bill that is completely indefensible.

This government has lost the basic quality that allows any ruling class to claim that it is working on behalf of the people it represents. That quality is the ability to listen. I would even go so far as to say that it is especially the ability to listen.

Encased in its guiding ideology, the Conservative government is showing once again, with Bill C-2, that the Conservative way of thinking overrides reflection, analysis, any empirical findings, the desire of the majority of Canadians to do things differently, and even rulings handed down by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.

By way of introduction, I would like to remind members that in 2008, when InSite’s exemption was about to expire, the minister refused to renew it. The incident prompted a series of court cases that revealed how, even then, the Conservative government was on the sidelines of a society that was looking for solutions and ways to provide assistance to people who were dealing with many different issues.

To use a baseball metaphor, everyone would understand quite quickly that, after three strikes, the batter is out. However, in the Conservative ideology, that is not the case: either you believe or you die. After a defeat in the British Columbia Supreme Court, a second defeat in the B.C. Court of Appeal, and finally, a rejection of its case in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Conservatives are still ignoring the consensus among the majority of Canadians, to try to satisfy its voter base so that it will line the Conservative coffers again, I guess.

Do not forget that in 2011, this same government—elected with just 39% of the vote from the 60% of the population that voted—claimed to have been given a strong mandate. We can see that the government does not really understand what it means to consult a majority.

However, I feel it is crucial to remind the House that in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated the rights guaranteed by the charter and that it was arbitrary, going against the very objectives of the act, particularly with regard to health and public safety.

The court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which states that:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person...

That means that even if someone uses drugs, they have the right to life, liberty and security of their person.

Continuing with the quotation:

...and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

No matter, if the law does not allow the Conservatives to do as they see fit, they will change the law. That is basically what Bill C-2 is doing. This is not the first example of this style of governance, which has practically become a trademark of this government. It seems to think that democracy and democratic institutions are a hindrance and a burden to be contended with.

While the NDP recognizes the sensitive nature of the permits granted to organizations such as InSite, we firmly believe that these decisions need to be based on proven facts and expertise.

How can the Conservatives scrap the results of no fewer than 30 studies published in journals with recognized credibility, including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal?

How can they ignore the studies of sites similar to InSite in European countries and in Australia, which are not exactly developing countries? How can they push under the carpet the very telling results obtained by InSite? There is only one answer to all these questions: you have to see things in absolute terms and reduce complex problems to a simplistic black and white. For the Conservatives—I have said this about numerous bills, and it remains applicable today—everything is black and white. The good guys are on one side and the bad guys on the other; white on one side and black on the other; drug users on one side and sober people on the other; better still, the Conservatives on one side and the rest of the world on the other.

The campaign launched a few hours after Bill C-2 was introduced is a wonderful illustration of this narrowness of mind. When a slogan like “Keep heroin out of our backyards” is used, you quickly understand that for those opposite, the ability to offer a measured response to a many-sided problem is completely non-existent. It is the not-in-my-backyard argument to the power of 10.

If my remarks were designed to convert my friends opposite, it would be rather like a voice crying in the wilderness. However, through the media, I know that some people are trying to gain a clearer idea about this bill and the pros and cons associated with a facility like InSite. The silence of the Conservatives with regard to their own bill readily demonstrates the paucity of facts underlying their position.

I will take the liberty of quoting a few statistics to show the benefits of an approach like InSite's to public and individual health and the impact on public safety, which is often the blockbuster argument.

Between 1987 and 1993, the number of deaths by overdose in Vancouver rose from 16 to 200 a year. If that is not enough to indicate a problem requiring a solution, I have to wonder what it would take. In Vancouver East, however, since InSite opened, the rate of deaths from drug overdose has fallen by 35%. A reduction of 35% from 200 deaths means some 70 deaths avoided in a few short years.

Over a one-year period, moreover, 2,171 users of InSite’s services were referred to addiction counselling. That means a similar number of people who may get off the streets and resolve their problems, because they have been taken in hand by community resources.

While we cannot quantify it, there has been a significant drop in the number of discarded needles on the streets or in parks. This contributes to the safety of all citizens, particularly children who often play in parks.

A number of studies have focused on the negative impact of injection sites such as InSite, but none was able to show evidence of harmful effects on neighbouring communities.

Moreover, studies conducted by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction show that supervised injection sites have significant benefits. For example, they reach out to vulnerable groups and they are accepted by communities. That is indeed the case. Of course, some educational efforts are necessary, but it is possible.These sites also help improve the health of people who use them and they reduce drug use in public places. If that is not a major component of public safety, I wonder what we are talking about. As I mentioned, these sites also reduce overdose deaths.

However, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the Conservative logic puts in place procedures aimed at deterring the individual or the organization from fulfilling the stated mission or objective, if they want to open such a centre.

In this regard, Bill C-2 is no exception to the methodology developed by the Conservatives, as in the case of employment insurance for example. Accessibility is cut back, controls border on the inquisition, and it is increasingly difficult to have individual rights recognized. The result is that people get discouraged by all these obstacles and they simply get out of the system. This may improve statistics, but it does not address the situation of workers or, in the case of this legislation, of people struggling with substance abuse.

Since I am running out of time, I will move on to the conclusion right away.

Obviously, I am adding my voice to those of my NDP colleagues to strongly oppose this government's approach and this foolish binary vision of the world.

While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that all people are born equal, we know that we cannot hide behind such a declaration to avoid seeing our reality.

Our society is made up of individuals with very diverse life experiences, and our ability to live together harmoniously rests on being able to extend our hand to those who suffer, without passing judgment on the events that led them to this situation.

I will be voting against Bill C-2.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, the NDP shows no regard for public safety or the greater community. I am going to read three clauses in the bill. They state:

Whereas the money that is used to purchase controlled substances that are obtained from illicit sources often originates from criminal activity such as theft, and that money, in turn, often funds organized crime in our communities;

Whereas the substances that are subject to the Act may pose serious risks to the health of individuals and those risks are exacerbated when those substances are unregulated, untested and obtained from illicit sources;

Whereas the negative consequences associated with the use of illicit substances can have significant impacts on vulnerable subsets of the Canadian population;...

Why would the member possibly have anything against such a well-written bill?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I probably spoke too quickly for the translation to keep up with me. It seems that my esteemed colleague missed out on several pages of my presentation, because I indeed talked about public safety. However, instead of speaking theoretically, I spoke to concrete facts.

When a place like InSite reduces the number of drug users because they get support from organizations that work to meet addiction needs, it is serving the interests of public safety. When I say that a place like InSite makes it possible for parks and streets to be clear of dirty needles that could infect others who do not use drugs, I am also talking about public safety. I have done so many times.

My colleague brings up completely theoretical points. He does make some sense. I would like to see him rise to defend his party's bill, rather than trying to impose his views with questions that are just too far-fetched.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech and impressive presentation.

Indeed, as he mentioned, New Democrats have risen in the House all day to explain their position and provide facts. Unfortunately, throughout the day, the Conservatives have not even had the decency to rise to present and defend their own bill and to make their arguments.

This really bothers me and leads me to believe, as my colleague does, that perhaps they do not believe in it that much, and they realize that, as all the courts have previously mentioned, this bill does not hold water. In this regard, I would like to ask my colleague the following question.

Places like InSite are there to help people. They work to protect public health and to promote prevention and detox. This therefore helps ensure public safety. It does not compromise public safety. On the contrary, a place like InSite promotes public safety, and it is a place that can even help prevent crime.

I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that a place like InSite does not work against people's safety or crime prevention and that, on the contrary, it works precisely to help prevent crime.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question and preamble.

In response to the preamble, I will engage in some political science fiction and imagine that I am a Conservative for a few seconds. I believe that I would also find it hard to rise today in the House to defend a bill that is quite simply indefensible.

With respect to InSite or any such facility, what I find to be most perverse about the bill before us is that it completely ignores the humanity of addicts. Only by visiting an addiction centre or a shelter for homeless people, who often have multiple problems, do we come to realize that they are people who need help. Drug addicts are not second-class citizens.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Fisheries and Oceans.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise to speak to Bill C-2, which I believe bears the short name of safer communities act, or something along those lines.

Once we get to committee, we will likely be wanting to move an amendment at the clause-by-clause stage. I think a more appropriate new name for the bill might be “an act to make it look like communities will be made safer by spreading drug users to the alleys, parks, and backyards of our cities while simultaneously undermining public health and individuals' rights to security of the person and life itself”. To me, that would be a much better title for this bill.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

It is a charter rights issue.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

What I would like to speak to is exactly what my hon. member is shouting about from across the way, a little bit about constitutional law and the constitutional values that are impacted by this bill.

Let me begin by mentioning that in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the PHS Community Services case, did make clear that section 7 of the charter, 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, did apply.

Health and life itself are at stake when the federal government decides to treat as criminal, under federal jurisdiction over criminal law, a health initiative by a province. This decision to treat it as criminal, and in that way not permit the provincially approved activity, occurs by way of the Minister of Health declining to grant an exemption from the ordinary application of, in this case, the CDSA, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government had indeed violated the charter in the following terms. Let me please read the key paragraph, which is paragraph 136 of that judgment:

The Minister made a decision not to extend the exemption from the application of the federal drug laws to Insite. The effect of that decision...would have been to prevent injection drug users from accessing the health services offered by Insite, threatening the health and indeed the lives of the potential clients. The Minister's decision thus engages the claimants's s.7 interests and constitutes a limit on their s.7 rights. Based on the information available to the Minister, this limit is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

It is arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety. It is also grossly disproportionate. The potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease for injection drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition on the possession of illegal drugs on InSite's premises.

I would remind everybody in this House today that this was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. I would also note two key shorter passages, which I will turn to briefly, that make clear that the combination of the legal effect of section 7 of the charter and the guidance for the exercise of discretion in the CDSA itself means that ministerial discretion is not unfettered. It must be undertaken in accordance with the rule of law, which refers, of course, to both the Constitution and the statute itself.

Let me draw everybody's attention to the last sentence in paragraph 151, which says:

As always, the minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter.

The court then goes on, in paragraph 152, to say:

The dual purposes of the CDSA—public health and public safety—provide some guidance for the Minister. Where the Minister is considering an application for an exemption for a supervised injection facility, he or she will aim to strike the appropriate balance between achieving the public health and public safety goals. Where, as here, the evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

The court went on to order the minister to grant such an exemption in this case, which leads us, of course, to the present bill, which is, in effect, an attempt to do either an end run around the Supreme Court judgment or to perhaps even overturn and resist that judgment.

Now, it may be that the government is hoping that it can do an end run around, or even circumvent, the Supreme Court judgment by downplaying, in the new amendments to the CDSA, references to the positive health effects of a system like the injection site system and to public health, despite the fact that public health remains one of the two purposes of the CDSA. They cannot get away from that.

Also, the Conservatives have written into the act that in the final analysis, when the minister ultimately decides whether she is going to accord an exemption, this is to be done only in exceptional circumstances.

The government may think that by writing the law in this way, it would escape the scope of the Supreme Court ruling. However, the government would really be throwing the question back to an inquiry that will eventually end up in the courts over whether the amended act itself violates section 7 of the charter for totally failing to give the health of users the kind of priority that section 7 of the charter would suggest is necessary.

Here I would like to believe that the Minister of Justice has had thorough advice from his officials on the constitutionality of the bill so as to exercise the duty he has under section 4.1(1) of the Department of Justice Act.

Regrettably, we have all come to learn in the last year that the standard of review that goes on in the Department of Justice these days, and perhaps for longer than we realize, borders on the farcical. A whistleblower has come forward to tell us that instructions have been sent to lawyers to say that if there is a 5% chance that a provision or law would pass muster in the courts under the charter, then it is fine to recommend that it go ahead as being constitutional from the perspective of introducing the law.

I have no confidence at all that the mere fact that this is before the House means that some kind of analysis has been undertaken that suggests that it is presumptively constitutional. Under the current government, that is not the case.

Apart from the fact that on the face of the text it might be unconstitutional, there are two other ways in which the bill would almost certainly be found constitutionally suspect.

The first is that the very intention of a statute under our constitutional law, of course, cannot be to infringe upon a constitutionally protected right. Here, and very unusually, there is every sign that the very intent of the government is, in fact, to block approval of any safe injection site anywhere in this country.

Now, it is very rare for courts to find such direct intent to actually infringe a right, but in the situation at hand, judges will find a good deal of evidence, including in speeches made prior to this House rising for a break and in speeches made by Conservative members of Parliament. It can also be found, I would say, by inference from two things. In clause 5 of the bill, there is a listing of no fewer than 26 criteria the Minister of Health would need to consider by way of information sources if he or she was going to grant an exemption. It is not just 26; a number of these have subsections. Well over 30 separate kinds of detailed information would have to accompany an application for such a safe injection site before the minister even decided whether she was going to look at the issue.

There is also the excision of all public health references and individual health benefits from the guiding principles listed in proposed subsection 56.1(5) of the amended act.

The second thing that might cause this to be looked at suspiciously, from a constitutional point of view, is that there is a constitutional principle of fundamental justice under section 7 according to which it is unconstitutional to hold out a defence or an exemption from a criminal law prohibition if that defence or exemption is arbitrary or illusory. Such a defence or exemption is arbitrary if it is available to some but not to others. This was essentially part of the basis for the Morgentaler ruling. A defence or an exemption is illusory if nobody will be able to access the defence or exemption or where access is so uncertain or unlikely that the defence or the exemption is essentially unavailable.

On that basis alone, given the structure of Bill C-2, I would go so far as to predict that there will be courts finding that it is unconstitutional under section 7 of the charter.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the member presuming what the Supreme Court will or will not say. If we follow his logic to its logical conclusion, we should not even have the debate and just go straight to the Supreme Court, but the fact is that Parliament will vote on this legislation.

As we are all representatives of the people of Canada, the people of Canada would agree that the preamble of the bill, which I have read in part already, is sound and important for public safety and communities. We are putting communities and families first and we do have additional programs, other than being complicit in the illicit drug trade.

Why does the member want to be complicit in the illegal drug trade?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at least he did not call me a child pornographer.

The fact of defending the rights of individuals under the charter does not make me want to be complicit in the organized drug trade. The fact is that this bill stacks everything along the lines of public safety. That is all that the purpose would suggest, and the five principles in proposed subsection 5(5) that the minister must look to when she finally makes her decision make no reference at all to either life-saving or individual health effects for users or to public health. This act hits the balance entirely wrong in a way that does not even come close to the spirit of the Supreme Court's judgment.

To go back to the premise of the question from the hon. member, the fact is that we have a duty under our Constitution to do what we can to ensure that the laws that pass the House are not in violation of the Constitution. We do not wait for the courts to rule. I am simply saying what some courts will likely do.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain something to me. When a person is judged differently depending on whether he is the mayor of a major city, a very powerful person, or a person who is very marginalized by a health problem such as addiction, it is impossible to apply the concept of law and order. At that point it becomes the concept of law and order for all the others.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comment, which I find to be quite accurate. The law and order argument does not really apply to the situation currently before us. The issue of public safety is important and relevant. However, the general idea of law and order is more of a distraction than something concrete in the circumstances.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a number of my NDP colleagues have done throughout the day, I will be speaking on Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

At the outset, I would like to say it is quite astonishing that this bill was introduced by a private member. It is unbelievable that a bill that has such great importance for public health was introduced by a private member and not by the government. It is also clear that this government, having introduced the bill, has no members here to defend it today. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières said so clearly, it is as though the Conservatives were a little bit embarrassed by the bill, because they are not even standing up to defend it today. That is a shame.

We are going to vote against this bill for number of reasons. I listened to the statements by my colleagues who know a great deal about the issue, much more than I do. The primary reason for our opposition is that the bill failed to pass the test of the courts three times. It is also regrettable that taxpayers’ money, including money from the people in Drummond, was used to challenge an initiative like InSite, while the money could have been put to good use in public health prevention activities, for instance.

Once again, it is a case of mismanagement of public money by the Conservatives. Their work is always short-term. They do not have a long-term goal.

It is important to understand that a project like InSite aims at prevention and action intended to lower the crime rate. There should be fewer addicts, and these addicts could perhaps be directed to drug treatment programs, as my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles said so well in his speech, which I listened to carefully. He has done excellent work on this issue.

I am also shocked to see that the Conservatives are targeting the initiatives of a group of people who are doing their best to solve current problems in their area. InSite came from a community endeavour, from actions by citizens, by community groups and the health care sector, to respond to a real need. The problem had two components, the first was blood-borne and sexually transmitted diseases, and the second was crime and the waste products from drug use found in parks.

This problem has to be addressed because, as other members have already pointed out, it is also a health problem. It should not be seen primarily as a crime issue, but as a public health issue. From that point of view, using resources like InSite to make connections between health care and drug users does not work against efforts to control crime—far from it. Facilities like InSite are indeed combating crime. They are promoting prevention and providing supervision so that people can take the drugs on which they are dependent in a safe environment. This reduces the costs generated by hospitalization, which can be very substantial in many cases. These facilities also provide supervision so that people do not end up high in the streets. They thus reduce the crime rate. They may also refer them to detox facilities or programs.

As I said, what shocks me about this bill is that it attacks a community initiative. In Drummond, fortunately, there is no need for supervised injection sites. On the other hand, a number of organizations provide resources for people in the Drummondville area affected by public health issues, substance abuse, homelessness and so on. I would be shocked to see the Conservatives attacking community initiatives in my constituency designed to reduce crime, prevent problems, and promote public health and safety in our streets. That is, unfortunately, what I heard from the Conservatives when they deigned to speak. On the rare occasions when they did speak, it was to say that the NDP is opposed to public safety. On the contrary, community initiatives like InSite promote public safety.

I will take this opportunity to emphasize the excellent work done by community workers, volunteers and prevention caseworkers in Drummond. I have met with them on several occasions in my constituency office, and I am genuinely proud of them. They do an outstanding job preventing crime and ensuring that our young people have access to sports and recreational activities, and can go to youth centres and participate in activities. Communities that want to be strong and stable have to take charge. That is why I urge the Conservatives to withdraw the bill, which is harmful and at odds with the charter, has been contested in the courts, and does not promote public health. I therefore encourage the Conservatives to withdraw this bill, and show respect for communities and workers who are doing excellent work in the field to reduce problems such as substance abuse.

Something else that bothers me is that when the Conservatives introduced the bill, they launched a simultaneous campaign. I liked how my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup explained earlier that the campaign was childish and simplistic. The Conservative Party launched the “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign. The campaign would have the public believe that if we shut down places like InSite, heroin will magically disappear from their streets. That is simplistic to the point of being demagogic. It is sad to see them resorting to such arguments.

The exact opposite will happen, as many of my colleagues and I have pointed out today. People will be left to their own devices, which will lead to public health, crime and safety problems. We will also see more concerns about our young people. If we want to look after our young people and our community, we need to encourage initiatives like InSite.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my colleague.

First, does he support the provisions that require community input before a safe injection site is put into a neighbourhood? I sent out 5,000 direct mail letters to my constituents, asking them what they thought about that idea, and 87% of them wrote back saying that they liked that idea.

Second, if he is not in favour of that aspect of the legislation, has he polled his constituents to find out if he is representing them in this matter?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He neglected to mention that this bill has been the subject of three court disputes and that it violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That said, I have not polled the public. I probably do not have the kind of money my colleague has to spend on that kind of poll. I believe we need to be very careful about how we use taxpayer money.

I think my colleague should listen. When I am in my riding I meet with my constituents every day. They always tell me that it is very important to support community initiatives. When communities take charge to tackle challenges, for example, what Vancouver did with InSite, we need to respect that.

It is easy to make people afraid and to send them letters, but we also have to explain to them that issues are not always black and white.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that when we talk about safe injection sites in particular the one and only one we currently have in Canada, we need to acknowledge that the community was involved in the establishment of that site. It has been exceptionally successful on many different fronts, such as providing our communities that much more safety and an environment in which we see lives being saved, and so forth.

Would the member not acknowledge that one would expect in any sort of establishment of a site of this nature, or something of a similar nature, that there would be consultation with our community members?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He very eloquently stated the factors that have contributed to InSite's success.

This was an exercise in consultation where all of the community groups involved in public health and safety were brought together to achieve this success. There has been a reduction in crime and the spread of disease. Far more of the people using InSite are being directed to detox programs.

That is why I mentioned that we need to respect communities that take charge, as Vancouver has done with InSite, and as my community of Drummond has done. My community has taken charge with different programs, programs that address greater Drummond's needs. That is what is important.

We cannot just come at this from one angle and say that it is good or bad. We need to define the community's needs and respect the people who are taking charge, especially with regard to public health and safety. We cannot start scaring people and asking if they are for or against a centre like InSite setting up in their community. Obviously no one will say yes.

However, people need to take charge in their community and they should address a need. If they feel it is a need and if the community supports it, we cannot go before the courts and spend the money of Drummond's taxpayers, for example, when it makes no sense and does not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the community's needs.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could you let me know when I have five minutes left rather than one minute? I fear that the 10 minutes I am allotted today will not leave me enough time to express how aggravating I find the government's approach to this issue.

That being said, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I want to state clearly that the NDP will be voting against this bill at second reading. During the previous session, last June, Bill C-2 was known as Bill C-65. We are now coming back to the debate after a prorogation that was very costly for Canadian voters, as the government used it not to start on a new path, but to hide from its responsibilities during the Senate scandal.

I would like to clarify a few things for those who are honouring us by watching us on CPAC at home. Bill C-2 is a government bill. As it is now past 5 p.m., the House has already spent more than five hours debating this bill today alone, and not a single Conservative has spoken for 10 minutes in favour of the bill. Not a single Conservative has done so in five hours of debate on a bill introduced by their own government.

Like my colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, they just keep saying that supporting supervised injection sites makes the NDP an accomplice of drug pushers and who knows what. Their reasoning reflects their bad faith. According to their logic, social workers are also complicit in crime, as are the Supreme Court judges, who rejected the government's interference in supervised injection sites. Their childish, black and white thinking means that everyone in our society, except the Conservatives with their incredible ethics, is complicit in organized crime in Canada.

What is happening today is another example of the worst failure of the Conservative government: its unwillingness to fulfill its duties as the government, which include consulting. As shown by the lack of speakers and the lack of answers during question period, the Conservatives are breaking with the principle of responsible government. They are showing complete disregard for their duty to protect a vulnerable minority, in this case people who are addicted to hard, intravenous drugs. The government is disregarding the consensus among leading experts and even the decisions by the judges of our country's highest courts.

The contents of Bill C-2 and this government's attitude fit in with the Conservatives' appalling tendency to scorn what should be defended as state responsibilities, especially by a government leading a lawful society. This government will go down in the history books as being increasingly dogmatic and really, completely narrow-minded.

Bill C-2 addresses a truly sad reality. In fact, it tries to deny this reality. Politics is the art of the possible in a world that is never perfect. How can we know in an imperfect world if the decisions we make in this House as elected representatives are the best possible decisions? Well, we have to base our decisions on the real situation and implement changes that are likely to bring the least amount of harm to the largest number of citizens. That is what we are reduced to doing. It is our duty to ask ourselves if our actions and our decisions are likely to make fewer people suffer or make more people suffer.

Bill C-2 is a perfect example of a bill from a government that chooses to ignore its duty to make fewer people suffer, in spite of all the facts, in order to please the ideological perceptions of its supporters. This is evidenced by the debates and extremely negative press this government received when it launched its “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign. Coincidentally, this was in line with the court challenges brought against InSite.

It is important to get back to the facts, which are serious, striking, sharp and clear on this issue.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that InSite, which is in Vancouver and is currently the only such site in Canada, provides an essential service. It was not the NDP or the nasty leftists who said so; it was the Supreme Court.

Over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have described InSite as a very good thing.

As was previously mentioned, the InSite supervised injection site is located in Vancouver. Since this site opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% reduction in overdose deaths. The Conservatives have to remove their narrow little ideological glasses; they have to take them off at some point and see the world as it really is. The idea is to ensure that, beyond our ideologies, there will be fewer people who suffer as a result of our decisions. That is an idea.

Is it good news that we have to consider opening supervised injection sites in several major urban centres? No. Will not doing this cause exactly the opposite effect of what we should do, in other words, cause more human suffering? Yes. The proof is that there was a 35% decrease in Vancouver after the city started taking care of people struggling with serious addictions to intravenous hard drugs.

Vancouver has seen a decrease in crime, as well as the rate of infection of sexually transmitted diseases. This also means that the costs for a site like InSite may turn out to be zero. We need smart studies to look into this, not ideological perspectives. Indeed, if we leave these people in some back alley to inject drugs and catch all kinds of diseases, where will they eventually end up? In the health care system, that is where. These people end up costing a fortune to treat.

The Conservatives like to brag about their great economic skills, saying that they are the best in the G8, but they should take a good look and start calculating the costs of public services under their approach, which is bad.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister of health's decision not to renew the exemption and close InSite violated the rights of its patrons under the charter and that the minister's decision was arbitrary and undermined the very objectives of the Act, namely, public health and safety.

Once again, we heard the same two arguments that come back time and time again, that are completely childish and simplistic. I know my colleague is an intelligent man. I am quite sure that he is having trouble with his party’s talking notes, as we call them. He must have trouble believing the lines himself when he reads them. He must say to himself, “That cannot be right, that cannot be possible, we are not in grade 7”.

The other idea is that it would be detrimental to public safety, while even the Supreme Court concluded that such facilities were beneficial. That was clear with what happened around the only supervised facility currently in operation in Canada.

I heard another of my Conservative colleagues say that he had sent out a letter to his constituents and that most of the people who answered were against it. Among the people who worked to set up the InSite facility, the people of Vancouver, 80% of those asked who lived or worked in Vancouver’s downtown eastside supported InSite. They saw the benefit of not leaving people outside in the back lanes with all sorts of consequences—used needles on the ground and people who become ill—but having a safe area where there is a chance that some of them might recover from their addiction, or at least suffer a little less from it.

Injection drug users who go to InSite are 70% less likely to share needles. Again, it is about health and public safety. Of course, this is not a perfect solution. In an ideal world, I would like to live in a country where, for all sorts of reasons, because of the social systems, everyone has a perfect childhood and no one is addicted to hard drugs. But this is not the case. As a government, we must deal with the real situation.

The Conservatives’ hypocrisy on this issue, especially over the past few weeks, has been remarkable and incredible. The current health minister said that she did not judge Rob Ford and that she hoped he would receive some help. One week earlier, she said she wanted to ban prescriptions for heroin, which are supported by the doctors who help people who want to recover from their addiction.

Are we to understand that supervised crack houses would be acceptable to the minister, but that supervised drug injection facilities would not? Do you see how utterly nonsensical this reasoning is? Perhaps the Conservatives would agree to a supervised drug site reserved strictly for Conservatives. This is nonsense, and it must stop.

Let us make decisions based on facts and let us make sure that in Canada there are fewer, not more, of our fellow citizens who are suffering.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments with disappointment. In fact, the NDP is the ideological party when it comes to this issue. I appeal to the common sense of Canadians when they are watching this debate and ask if helping people inject illicit drugs over long periods of time is good public policy. New Democrats seem to say yes.

I would suggest that this bill would protect the public from criminal elements that are often found in and around injection sites. It is obviously more healthy to have a treatment program. This government invests billions of dollars in housing strategies, we work with the provinces on drug addiction, and the NDP votes against all of it. Who are the hypocrites? It is the New Democrats.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I feel like I am hearing: “It is not me, it is you”. This is incredible. I said it looked like a grade six classroom, but I was wrong: it is more like a grade four and, perhaps, even a grade three class. It is incredible.

People at home must understand that InSite is a serious initiative. In order to receive services provided by InSite, users must be at least 16 years old, sign an agreement and comply with a code of conduct. For example, they cannot be accompanied by a minor when they show up at that site. Users bring their own substances and they are monitored. On the top floor of the InSite facility, sick people are monitored to alleviate their distress and they get help to move away from their addiction. It is certainly not in a dark alley, with used needles, when they are sick or half dead that these people will have the opportunity to turn their lives around.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, because he always delivers passionate speeches. He does not do things by halves, and I commend him for his work in the House.

My question is simple. As my colleague knows, a Conservative fundraising activity was held through emails using the message “no heroin in my backyard”. That activity was based on Bill C-2, which is now before us. I wonder if the hon. member could give us his thoughts on this initiative.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. This will give me a chance to talk about something I did not have time to mention during my speech.

I used to co-own studios in two Montreal neighbourhoods, the Mile End and Little Italy. These neighbourhoods have since been gentrified and they are now beautiful. However, at the time, they were fairly rough. Next to these studios, there was a park with swings and slides, but I could not even go there with one of my children who was four or five at the time—he is now 15—because there were so many needles barely hidden in the shrubs next to the swings. We could not use the children's park. In two years, three murders related to the smuggling of hard drugs took place at night, less than 200 metres from my studios. At the time, if I had been asked whether I was prepared to contribute to the opening of a site to monitor all this activity and thus reduce the number of needles in shrubs, traffic on the street and murders, if I could have spared all that to my children through a well thought initiative such as InSite, I would have signed up to put the first brick myself and I would even have given a portion of my salary for two years.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this bill is another example of how completely out of touch the Conservatives are with the real world.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that InSite was providing essential services and that it must remain open in accordance with an exemption under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Court ruled that the charter authorized users to access InSite's services and that an exemption should be granted to authorize similar sites to open.

The Conservatives are disregarding this ruling. At the end of the day, this shows that they have no respect for the separation of powers or for legal authority. They have no respect for any authority other than their own and this is made clear in Bill C-2, which goes completely against the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling.

The ruling called on the minister to consider exemptions for supervised injection sites, in order to address public health and safety issues. This ruling invited the minister to consider all the aspects in light of the benefits of having supervised injections sites, rather than provide him with a list of principles upon which to base his decisions.

As usual, the Conservatives are showing no respect for a legal process that has demonstrated how important a place like InSite can be. Apparently, as I said, they do not understand the importance of the principle of separation of powers. Worse yet, they are deliberately disregarding the Supreme Court's ruling.

To add insult to injury, in addition to their lack of respect for court rulings, the Conservatives are implementing measures that illustrate their lack of empathy, and I would go so far as to say their lack of humanity. They are tough on crime when it comes to Canadians, but soft on crime when it comes to their friends. It does not make sense. The benefits in terms of harm reduction are known and proven. Ignoring these facts is nothing more than ideology.

Since this morning, the Conservatives have been focusing on their personal opinion, but, unfortunately, they have not stood up to defend their bill.

Perhaps we need to go over the facts again. I know that many of my NDP colleagues have done so, but I will go over the facts again because it is important to show how disconnected Bill C-2 is from fact.

More than 30 peer-reviewed studies published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have described the benefits of InSite. Studies of more than 70 supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia have reported similar benefits. InSite is one of the biggest public health success stories in Canada.

The number of overdose deaths has dropped by 35% in Vancouver since InSite opened. That is a very significant statistic. It has also been proven that InSite has reduced crime, the rate of communicable disease infection and relapse rates for drug users. Once again, these are very significant statistics.

The Supreme Court established that InSite and other supervised injection sites must be granted a section 56 exemption because opening such sites:

...will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety...

I am not the only one to talk about these statistics. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada said that it was well established that a facility like InSite reduces overdose deaths and crime.

The evidence showed that supervised injection sites effectively reduced the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. Once again, there are fewer fatal overdoses. It was also shown that InSite does not jeopardize public safety. On the contrary, it improves public safety by reducing injections in public, related refuse and violence associated with drug use.

As my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup mentioned, where he lived before, there was refuse and he really did not want his children to see it. A place like InSite prevents that type of situation.

A 2004 study by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction indicated that supervised injection sites reach out to vulnerable groups and are accepted by communities. In addition, they also improve the health of their users and reduce high-risk behaviour. Furthermore, they reduce fatal overdoses and the consumption of drugs in public places.

That is some compelling evidence in support of supervised injection sites like InSite. However, the Conservatives have opposed this and have launched a campaign based on fearmongering and misinformation. This is nothing new. They deny the facts, disregard any opinions that contradict their own and resort to fearmongering to obscure the debate. A bill like this makes it clear that the Conservatives would rather abandon people instead of trying to rehabilitate them.

Their many justice bills—or should I call them injustice bills—all follow the same model: they ostracize, isolate and divide people. Instead of trying to address the root issue, the Conservatives tackle symptoms without ever looking for the source of the problem. Throwing people in jail without helping them reintegrate into society does not solve the problem. It simply makes things worse, since these people do not have access to what they need to reintegrate.

The Conservatives show the same lack of understanding with every problem they tackle, whether it is poverty, illness, crime or addiction. They revel in state violence instead of trying to address it. It sure makes for some good fundraising campaigns.

That is the driving force behind this bill. Instead of trying to fix a very important problem, the Conservatives are promoting a cold and violent ideology with their fearmongering, their concrete action against prevention and their disdain for justice.

In the winter of 2012, I had the opportunity to visit the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood and the surrounding area. I met with people from organizations that support people from the neighbourhood, such as women's groups like the WISH Drop-In Centre Society or the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre. These people are on the front lines and understand the reality, unlike the Conservatives, who refuse to face the facts, whether we are talking about the legal system, statistics, their own department or even the consensus of the scientific community. They ignore it all.

A number of my colleagues mentioned that earlier in this debate. The Conservatives are entitled to their own opinion. However, they need to look at facts and statistics—at reality—when they are introducing bills and governing a country. The Conservatives are showing their inability to manage the most basic government duties and their inability to govern. There is no shortage of evidence of that.

Before I finish, I would like to share some more statistics. In one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addictions counselling and other support services. Thanks to InSite, those people were able to get back on track. Individuals who used InSite at least weekly were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who rarely visited the centre.

There has been a dramatic drop in the number of discarded needles, the amount of discarded injection paraphernalia and the number of people injecting drugs in the street.

All of those things are extremely important to remember. They prove that InSite is successful.

The NDP feels that any new legislation concerning safe injection sites must respect the spirit of the Supreme Court decision. That is not the case with this bill. I will be opposing it. The NDP believes that harm reduction programs, including safe injection sites, should be granted exemptions based on their proven ability to improve the health of a community and preserve human life. This should not be based on ideology.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention, trying to understand how a slam on the Conservatives has anything to do with the reality of how the whole network of illicit drugs connects back to international organized crime and even some terrorist groups.

I would like to ask the member opposite if she has any clue whatsoever about the origin of illicit drugs that she so willingly wishes to be used in these injection sites, as opposed to working on programs and initiatives to support our law enforcement people in dealing with drug use, criminality, and organized crime? Does she have any clue whatsoever about the reality?

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

Mr. Speaker, no, I have no desire to do that. Throughout my speech, I laid out the facts and said how distressing it was to hear only about the Conservatives' ideology. The Supreme Court said that this should be protected. The court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, according to which everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of their person.

I do not understand how someone can object to this Supreme Court of Canada decision. My colleague says that we are encouraging drug-related problems. However, if a person cannot do this at a supervised site, how will the problem be addressed? The Conservatives say they want to keep heroin out of our backyards. How will they do that without something that is properly regulated, such as InSite?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague after her excellent speech on this subject. It relates to the question from the minister.

This is not a bill about international terrorism. This is not a bill about controlling illegal drugs. This is a bill that comes directly from a Supreme Court of Canada case that is about health and health outcomes. It is about saving lives, it is about harm reduction, and it is about preventing the spread of disease—in theory. This is what the Supreme Court of Canada has told us. However, the bill actually does not match the Supreme Court of Canada case, and if we look at the bill, we see that it does not even talk about health.

Therefore, would my colleague not agree that this bill is the worst possible interpretation of that Supreme Court case? It is because we are not talking about saving lives here. We are not talking about health outcomes. It does not even say the word “health” in the bill. Would she agree that this is a morally bankrupt version of what the Supreme Court of Canada intended?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely. This is about both health and public safety. It does not address the health issue, because the facts show that their bill is not consistent with reality. I repeat: there has been a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. In addition, there has been a decrease in the rates of infection and communicable diseases, the relapse rate for drug addicts, and crime.

In 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated its patrons' charter rights and that the minister's decision was arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, including public health and safety.

Not addressing the health issue, ignoring the facts and going against the Supreme Court decision clearly shows just how incapable the government is of governing for all Canadians.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to represent the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto.

I have listened to this debate all day with great interest. It must pain the Minister of Veterans Affairs to get up and hector the opposition around an issue that he very much knows, based on his past work experience, is an incredibly complicated, complex issue that interweaves both public safety and public health. This is why we are here today, to debate this issue, but it must pain him to have to get up and try to present the ultrasimplistic description of the bill in the talking notes that the Conservatives foist upon their members, including their cabinet ministers.

What we are dealing with today from the Conservatives vis-à-vis this bill is a document that they use for fundraising. Of course, we see this time and time again with the Conservative government. They isolate refugees, limit their access to health care, and then send a fundraising letter out to see what kind of manna falls from heaven.

This reminds me of several issues that are at play in my own community. People everywhere in Canada, I think it is fair to say, want safe streets. Everybody wants to be able to walk their kids down the street and not have syringes lying around. I think it is fair to say that we like to see our streets safe. That is why it is important to have safe injection sites in Canada.

I find it amazing that we have a government that cannot brook any kind of large-scale public engagement plan when it talks about, for example, line 9 reversal in Toronto or when it talks about, for example, a nuclear fuel processing facility in the riding of Davenport, which, by the way, exists and has existed there for 50 years. Section 2.5 of its operating licence says that it must engage in a comprehensive public information program with the residents. For 50 years, very few people knew that the plant existed. Even the folks that I have spoken to, who have lived there for at least 40 years, were never once informed of what was going on in that factory.

Some folks on the other side of the aisle might start wondering why I am exposing their lack of interest in public information and public engagement. It is because they are not interested so much in that. In fact, with the line 9 reversal, they made it so difficult for people in my city to depute during those hearings that the hearings became a sham, yet the principles around public consultation for the setting up of a safe injection site are exhaustive.

Let us go through some of that. It requires a letter from the provincial minister who is responsible for health. It requires a letter from the local municipal government. It requires a letter from the head of the police force outlining any issue that it has. It requires a letter from a leading health professional organization. It requires a letter from the provincial minister responsible for public safety. It requires a statistical analysis. It requires police checks for people. It requires extensive public consultation.

All of this has to be gathered, in addition to a 90-day public notification period that the minister herself can also conduct. There are two streams of information coming in, and even then, as we can see from the bill, the minister does not have to even consider the application. In other words, once all that rigorous public engagement happens, the minister can decide whether he or she wants to even entertain the application.

I read that and I think that is very rigorous public engagement. I can tell the House that in my community, we are looking for rigorous public engagement when we are debating and considering very serious development projects in our community.

That public engagement is lacking. What is also lacking is a willingness on the part of the government to hold the relevant agencies to account to ensure safety in our communities. The reason is that it does not play well politically for the government members in their base, whereas this is a whole different story.

I want to go back to an issue that is very important in my community, and that is refugee health. We have people in our community, people living here in Canada, who cannot access health care and have to rely on volunteer doctors and nurses and donated medicine in order to deal with their illnesses. What is happening with these decisions to cut the federal interim health program for some refugees is that it is creating a public health issue as people delay care for illnesses until those illnesses get worse. Some of them are communicable illnesses. We have pregnant women who are not getting the kind of care they need because they are not able to access health care.

However, that is okay for these guys over here, because for them it is all about fundraising, as we saw very shortly after decisions were made with respect to safe injection sites, with a letter going out to the Conservative base and a website set up to scare Canadians.

That is national leadership. That is the kind of leadership that we are getting from the current Conservative government. Instead of a government that understands the complexity of issues like drug addiction, we are seeing it writ large and played out in public today. I am sure that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and members of cabinet and certainly the Prime Minister are good friends with a well-known public figure who is struggling with drug addiction right now, yet what they are trying to do is vilify people who are often poor and powerless, people who cannot access the kind of care they need. Sometimes it is folks struggling with mental health issues as well.

The debate we are having today is about safe injection sites, and it is about something bigger than that. It is about who we are as a country. It is about who we look after. It is about what the role of government is if we are not attempting to solve complex issues with rigorous consultation, with scientific fact-based arguments, with a view on public health and public safety. That is what this debate is about, that is why this is so important, and that is why Canadians who are watching it are not buying the simplistic argument that people are going to have heroin in their backyards.

I represent a downtown Toronto riding. I get people calling my office constantly, asking me what kind of programs we have to serve addicts and help them get off the street and have the streets safer. They want to see real solutions. They do not want to see another attempt by the Conservatives to divide Canadians in order to fill their party's coffers for the next election.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I am surprised that he would have a problem with public consultation and studies of the science of having a supervised injection site and getting other stakeholders in the community to provide their input. Is his fear perhaps that if people found out that there was going to be an injection site, they would disallow it, or is he just not confident in his own argument on the healthiness of these injection sites?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been at least 30 scientific studies on the one safe injection site we have right now. There is a boatload of data that speaks to improved markers around public safety, the transmission of HIV-AIDS. The data is in on this, so the member might want to take a look at the data. I think he would be convinced of the rightness of this.

I would also encourage the member to speak to his colleagues about developing more rigorous public participation around some of the significant infrastructure projects that we have in Canada right now. That would be a solution.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in talking about this issue it is important for us to recognize that we do have stakeholders, whether they be the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver police or the Government of British Columbia. There are many ground-game stakeholders that are directly involved. There are outside organizations that are very supportive. They look at the facts. The facts do matter. Science does matter. It all boils down to the fact that this site in Vancouver has been a huge success.

I wonder if the member might want to provide some comments on that fact.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not like science or science-based facts much. However, let us talk about Dr. Evan Wood, a renowned scientist, who works for the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He points out that one of the important aspects of a safe injection site is that, given that each HIV infection costs an average of approximately $500,000 in medical costs, InSite has contributed to a 90% reduction in new HIV cases caused by intravenous drug use in British Columbia. That is why the B.C. government has been such a strong supporter of the program.

That underlines some of the very important reasons we need to take this seriously. We need a complex and comprehensive conversation. It has already happened. Those debates and those studies have already taken place. We have the stats that show the great success of this facility.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate my colleague on his intervention. It was a balanced and thoughtful presentation.

I want to pick up on this point. He talked about the fact that there are members of our society who are not being served by programs that now exist to provide services to Canadians. He talked about people in health care receiving services from nurses who are volunteering their services and receiving donated drugs and so on in order to keep them alive. He speaks very much to the generosity of spirit of many Canadians.

Would the member agree that some of the suggestions made by members opposite as they relate to this particular group of Canadians, who the Supreme Court says have rights, and the way the government is responding to this very much show a lack of generosity toward these Canadians?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in many different ways we see this kind of narrowing of focus, expanse, and breadth by the government of the definition of who we are as Canadians. Are we a compassionate country? Do we care for one another? Do we try to find the most balanced way to move forward on complex issues? Time and time again the government has shown that it is not interested in that definition of Canada and who we are as Canadians. It is trying to narrowcast that. In truth, there are times when the government is trying to appeal to some of the worst in us, to the fear in us, as opposed to showing Canadians where we can go as a country and a community.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-2, which was introduced by the Conservative government. I would like to start by saying that, like all my NDP colleagues in the House, I will vote against Bill C-2.

My speech will primarily rely on a very informative document that includes many scientific studies. It was authored by Richard Lessard and Carole Morissette in 2011 and concerns a request from the Montreal metropolitan area to establish a supervised injection site. The document is entitled “Toward supervised injection services - Report of a feasibility study on the implementation of regional supervised injection services in Montréal.” This document is very interesting. It discusses, among other things, what is happening in the world. More than 80 countries around the world have supervised injection sites. They are funded sometimes by the proceeds of crime that have been seized by the government and sometimes directly by the government itself. This document is therefore very interesting.

I would like to quote from this paper, as follows:

Supervised injection services (SIS) are medical and nursing services provided in response to addiction, which is a disease

Indeed the dual objective of a supervised injection site is:

...to help prevent diseases and deaths among people who inject drugs and reduce social inequalities in health that affect one of society's most vulnerable groups.

This really sums up why issues related to supervised injection sites used to be addressed by the Standing Committee on Health and why they are still presented by the Minister of Health. However, for some reason that is completely unknown to me, this bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The Conservatives need to give us a little more information in that regard, because all the answers they give us have more to do with health, and that is the minister in charge of this file.

I would like to point out the documented benefits of a service such as a supervised injection site. In addition to InSite, whose results formed the basis of the Supreme Court ruling, there are over 90 supervised injections sites around the world, including in several European countries as well as Australia.

Although there is a wide range of models, it is generally recognized that the service offers the following benefits: it reaches the most marginalized, high-risk people; it helps prevent overdoses and related deaths; it acts as a protective factor by providing sterile injection equipment and a safe place to inject and teaching safer injection practices, thereby helping to reduce the HIV and hepatitis C epidemics; it does not promote initiation into injection, as some members opposite claim; it helps stabilize the health status of users by providing other services such as HIV and hepatitis C screening, vaccination, primary care and referral to detox, addiction treatment and substitution programs; it relieves pressure on emergency services including ambulance transportation and hospitals by promoting on-site overdose management; lastly, it alleviates the negative impacts on public order by reducing drug use in public places as well as associated nuisances such as discarded syringes; it does not increase drug-related crime.

That has been the case at more than 90 supervised injection sites around the world. Members opposite should not try to make us feel afraid and believe certain things.

I represent a rather unique area, the Island of Laval in the Montreal Urban Community. There is a lot of urban sprawl. Montreal is very urban; Laval, which is right next door, is becoming quite urban. In the past few years, the subway from the Island of Montreal has reached our area. There are several poor neighbourhoods along the Rivière-des-Prairies and they are very close to the Island of Montreal.

One can just as easily travel from Laval to Montreal. According to Laval's public health agency, approximately 4,000 people inject drugs on Île Jésus in Laval. That is a lot of people.

At the time, it was thought that people were shooting up in the privacy of their homes. Over the years, this has changed mainly because of urban sprawl. People shoot up in public places on the Island of Laval.

I decided to consult various community organizations in Laval that have experience with supervised injections, among other things. I contacted outreach groups including TRIL, Travail de rue de l'île de Laval, and Sida-Vie Laval, which have done a lot of work in this area.

I would like to quote one of these two organizations in my speech. I recently spoke to Sida-Vie Laval. This organization agrees with the New Democrats and is strongly opposed to Bill C-2. I would like to read from an email the organization sent me yesterday:

...the impact on the health of the people who visit these centres reduces the risk of transmitting HIV and/or [hepatitis C], having another person there lowers the risk of overdose and/or cotton fever.... [W]e know that over the medium and long terms, people improve their quality of life and decrease or stop drug use. Furthermore, injection sites provide a safe and healthy place for people to inject, in the presence of doctors, nurses and qualified professionals. Drug users often become isolated and surround themselves with people who have a negative influence on them. The supervised injection site helps users take the first step towards reintegrating into society by learning to trust the professionals supporting them and to trust the health care network.

I think the organization touched on a very important aspect of supervised injection sites. The people who visit these facilities do not simply go for injections. There are nurses, doctors and other community workers there. They may go the first time for an injection and then leave, but they will return. Each time they have to see a nurse and a social worker. They will start to build relationships with these people. As they slowly build trust with these community workers, they will be able to find a way out. This is an extremely important resource for getting people off the street, getting them back on the job market and helping them reintegrate into society.

People may be aware that I am the NDP deputy critic for public safety. Public safety on our streets is extremely important to me.

I would like to point out that the Montreal police force has been quite involved in the study to set up a supervised injection site in Montreal. It is prepared to work hand in hand with all medical and community stakeholders to ensure that these locations are safe. The police force stands behind the stakeholders, the NDP, and medical services when it comes to the need for a supervised injection site and agrees that the government must not put up any obstacles for cities that want to have such a site.

It is very important to provide a location for using drugs and disposing of syringes away from the public eye. Supervised injection sites have had positive or neutral effects in terms of reducing the nuisances associated with public injection drug use.

Cites with supervised injection sites do not seem to have experienced an increase in crime or crime displacement.

There are many points I wanted to address, including the positive impact on violence against women, comments by correctional services officers, and the fact that the bill is before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security instead of the Standing Committee on Health.

Most of all, I would like to mention that the closure of sites like Canada's InSite makes our communities less safe. Ever since I was little, whenever I go to Montreal I look at the ground when I walk in the parks and on city lawns because I have found used needles on the ground.

Now that I am the mother of a little girl, I can assure my colleagues that as long as the Conservatives' policy does not change I will not be taking my daughter to play in Montreal's parks and if I have to walk on the grass in Montreal's parks, I will be looking at the ground and holding my daughter in my arms.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here this afternoon to listen to this discussion. I have become more concerned as the day has gone on that it is the willingness of the opposition to allow people to continue to live in the misery of addiction.

We heard talk about abandoning people, about public health safety, and about freedom of expression. It seems to me it is a justification for what we hear coming from the other side, which is putting people in a situation where the best they can expect is to be given a room where they can inject street drugs polluted with who knows what contaminants and then leaving them alone until they overdose in some situations and then finally getting them medical help.

It seems to me the opposition could come up with something better than that. Certainly we think it is more important that we do not condemn people to a miserable twilight existence of addiction and that there are other solutions that can be brought in. A couple of our people have already brought those forward.

Instead of giving people the opportunity to live the rest of their lives as free people, why do members opposite seem to be willing to condemn them to lives of the misery of addiction?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I had 10 minutes, I would read my whole speech again, since it looks like the parliamentary secretary was not paying attention to most of it, I am sad to say.

We do agree on one thing: we cannot leave people in distress. It will not help them, however, if we shut down safe injection sites staffed by trained community field workers and health professionals who can help those in need. The city police, community organizations and health services are working together to help people in need. There is a solution already, a solution that is getting people off the streets. Everyone but the Conservatives sees how well that system works.

I could lend the parliamentary secretary a whole pile of scientific documents and data, if he were inclined to read them. The fact remains, however, that our friends across the way do not care at all for scientific facts in this debate, and that does not come as a great surprise.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that 4% of Quebeckers have an addiction problem, whether it involves drugs, alcohol or gambling. With all due respect to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, this is a public health issue. I have a hard time understanding how enforcement will solve a problem that affects 4% of the population. Billy clubs and prison sentences will not make these problems go away. People use drugs in prison.

I would like to know how we can develop a solution to help that 4% of the population through a public health program.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It is always a pleasure to work with him. We represent the same populations in Laval. He knows full well the issues that we are facing with urban sprawl and with the drug abuse we witness in our area and in public spaces.

He touched on an important issue. We are using this debate to try and find a solution. It is a broad debate. Addiction is a very serious problem. My colleagues from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and Drummond, along with all of my NDP colleagues who spoke before me and gave passionate speeches about Bill C-2, are trying, as I am, to prove that we need to trust science and the stakeholders involved. We need to listen to experts who have tried to drive home the point that forcing sites such as InSite to close, keeping other cities from having safe injection sites, keeping those sites from functioning, keeping experts from doing their work is really—and I do not know what word to use that would be parliamentary—a serious mistake.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for a few moments to Bill C-2. I have listened to my colleagues most of the day, and they have presented some very personal explanations and descriptions of why the government needs to rethink Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 deals with a public health issue. We believe that decisions about programs that may benefit public health must be based on fact. That is at the heart of this issue. All Canadians, regardless, must have the opportunity to gain the benefit of those programs.

This all stems from a program called InSite. It was opened as part of a public health plan by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and its community partners following a 12-fold increase in overdose death in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. As a result of the efforts of this site, there was a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable diseases, infection rates, and relapse rates for drug users.

In 2008, the government began to take action to close InSite. It took action in British Columbia. The minister of health at that time denied InSite's application to renew an exemption that existed under section 56. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that InSite should be granted a new extension. The federal government then took it to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which ruled again that InSite should remain open. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated its patrons' charter rights and that the minister's decision was “arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act”, which includes public health and safety.

The decision by the Supreme Court hinges 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 court found that section 56 exemptions must be granted where they decreased the risk of death and disease and there was little or no evidence that it would have a negative impact on public safety.

I have heard members opposite say that if we poll our community and our community decides that it does not want to have that facility, then why should it have to have it there? The Supreme Court of Canada actually dealt with that question by saying that the government was not able to show that it undermined public safety and, in some instances, had proven to promote it.

We have heard members talk about the problems that result in the injection of drugs in areas that are not safe, with contaminated needles on the ground in parks and with people being exposed to those kinds of health risks. It reduces those health and safety hazards, reduces public drug injections, reduces violence associated with drugs, and reduces drug-related litter.

This is key. Safe injection sites, therefore, strike the balance between public health and public safety. They connect people in dire need of assistance to needed health services such as primary care and addiction treatment.

The point here is this. How do we deliver the services that Canadians need to make them safe? How do we ensure that our communities are safe and healthy? We need to base that not only on facts but on the understanding that every Canadian, every human being in this country, has the right to live life and to liberty and to have access to life-saving drugs and programs.

In relation to further exemptions for additional programs, this is what the Supreme Court said. It directed the following:

...the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. 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. Where, as here, [referring to InSite] a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

What we have in Bill C-2 is something completely different. It ignores the direction that was provided by the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been cited by my colleague, who knows much of the constitutional law in this country. Bill C-2 will probably be deemed unconstitutional, which does not seem to bother members opposite. The point is that it not only flies in the face of the recommendations of the direction provided by the Supreme Court decision but goes against the spirit, I would suggest, of what makes us Canadian, what makes us special in the world in our ability to be generous and humane and to show compassion to our sisters and brothers regardless of their circumstances.

If we determine, as has been determined in the case of InSite, that in fact this program saves lives, reduces crime and ensures that the public is safer, then these are the types of programs that we need to make available to people. Some have suggested that New Democrats do not care about addictions, that we just want to make sure people get the opportunity to shoot up. We want to make sure that Canadians are made safe and healthy. This is the safe part and the healthy part is the supervision. Now we have to make sure that the government opposite backs up its words about commitment to addiction to ensure there is follow-up, that there are beds in detox programs and other addiction-related programs, and that there is the support to allow people, when they are ready and able, to kick whatever their addiction is, to turn their lives around and to be more healthy for themselves, their families and communities.

This is fundamental. It is a fundamental principle that has been outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the government is ignoring it. Bill C-2 flies in the face of this principle. The government is going to be told again, as it was in 2008 by the Supreme Court, the B.C. Supreme Court, and the B.C. appeal court, and again in 2011 by the Supreme Court of Canada, that it is on the wrong track, pitting one type of Canadian against another type of Canadian.

We are all Canadians. The Supreme Court will protect that to ensure that this kind of discrimination is not allowed to happen.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is very clear.

I am not sure why the member is opposed to the minister gathering the scientific evidence. The bill would provide the Minister of Health with the information needed to make informed decisions. Why does the member opposite not support organizations providing basic information on science, public safety and community views?

Obviously community views are going to be important in any decision. The opposition seems to brush that away, as if that is not important. Well, it is important, and this bill is important to protect Canadians. Why is the member opposed to community views?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the least opposed to community views. In fact, what we have seen as a result of the 30-plus peer-reviewed studies of communities like Vancouver East, and other communities around the world, is that these programs work at making communities safer.

The point, though, is that the bill would turn the onus of responsibility on its head. Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has said that when the evidence presents the fact that this is of value and that the values of safety and health are balanced, then it is up to the community to prove that it would not provide that balance of safety and health.

My concern with the authority that would be given to the minister in the bill is that it would make it that much more difficult for the applicants to achieve the bar that she would set.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that in terms of history in Canada in the last decade, there is one safe injection site.

What I liked about the approach to its coming into being is that it was one of co-operation. We had the federal government working with the provincial government, which in turn worked with the community leadership that had a wide spectrum of consultation. Professionals were engaged, and ultimately it came into being. This was done because of the need to meet the safety and health concerns of a community.

The question I have for the member is this: would he not agree that it has been a huge success? It has been clearly defined, facts and science have been brought to the table, and that particular community is better off today as a result of the InSite location.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The establishment of this or any site needs to be done in consultation with the community and the individuals involved.

The bottom line is that the facts will speak for themselves, on this and any other matter. It cannot be that the biases and prejudices of people within a community are allowed to prevent any other Canadian from exercising his or her right to life and liberty. That is what the Supreme Court has said.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present my views on Bill C-2. I believe this bill should be rejected.

This bill is bad for human rights. It will put the lives of many Canadians at risk. Furthermore, it flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling that stipulates, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that people have a right to medical services and to the security of the person. This bill seems to take us in the complete opposite direction.

Many members will recall when InSite first opened in Vancouver over 10 years ago. It was granted an exemption from the law in order to be able to offer addicts access to a service that they could not have otherwise received. This service means that people do not have to put their lives at risk, as it allows them to inject their drugs in a clean, safe place where medical services are available. It also provides the possibility of more involved medical services. Basically, it can open the door to detox services for some addicts.

The spirit of this bill does not seem to promote injection sites in Canada. On the contrary, it creates 26 conditions that must be met or they will be rejected. Canada currently has one site, InSite in Vancouver. There is talk of opening a site in Montreal, perhaps one in Toronto and one in Victoria. Other municipalities would like to do the same. I can say that in my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, officials are seriously considering the possibility of having open sites available to addicts. In my riding, people could benefit from having a site that is closer to home, in Montreal for example, instead of having to go all the way to Vancouver to obtain the services that are available to the people of that region.

InSite helps addicts not to risk their lives. I want to mention some facts that the government may have forgotten when it drafted the bill. In one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to substance abuse counselling. That is a significant number. All these people will have access to a service they otherwise would probably not benefit from. This is about eliminating or reducing the number of people shooting up on the streets. The Conservatives would have us believe that initiatives such as InSite and other supervised injection sites could make our communities less safe, but we are saying just the opposite. These sites make communities even safer. In Vancouver, the benefits of InSite are clear: fewer people are on the streets and more are benefiting from medical services to treat their addictions. This is really the best and most effective way to make our communities safer.

In Bill C-2, the government proposes 26 conditions. The process is very cumbersome and onerous. Those interested in opening a supervised injection site are asked to meet 26 conditions in a relatively short time. However, even if these 26 conditions are met, the minister is still under no obligation to issue a licence for a supervised injection site. He or she may do so, but there is no obligation.

So, people must meet 26 conditions in a relatively short time. It is very difficult for them to meet all these requirements. However, even if they manage to fulfill these 26 conditions, the minister is under no obligation to issue a licence.

Moreover, the minister has no deadline to meet. She can take all the time in the world to issue a licence if she decides to extend the deadline.

These are very onerous conditions. If I were cynical, I would say that this is to avoid having to deliver a licence and authorize the opening of a supervised injection site. The police chief must also agree, as well as city council and the provincial minister of health. These authorities will not simply give their approval because they are asked to do so. They have responsibilities and requirements. They must respect their own process and they only have 90 days to do so.

If someone manages to meet the 26 conditions, the minister may deliver a licence. This is no way to respect those who work in this area. Moreover, it certainly does not promote the establishment of a new injection site in Canada. I think it ignores the will of the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that InSite in Vancouver should remain open. It cannot be closed.

Let us take a look back and remember that in Attorney General of Canada, et al. v. PHS Community Services Society, et al. the Supreme Court did not rule that public safety was the priority, but that the right to health and life was the basis for its decision.

Bill C-2 seems to express the opposite. The bill is immensely concerned with public safety, but makes no mention of the right to life. That is the aspect of the bill I find most surprising. It totally ignores the fact that the root of the debates on the bill is that the Supreme Court ruled that a person has the right to life and must have access to medical services. The bill would have Canadians believe that detoxification centres, such as the InSite supervised injection site, are a public safety issue.

According to the government, if the bill passes at second reading, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and not to the Standing Committee on Health. I do not understand what motivates a government that does not believe in a basic principle like the right to life that everyone has.

Public safety is important, but the facts have shown that a supervised injection site ensures public safety, since people are not in the streets and public parks, where our children play, are needle free. We want safety for everyone. The InSite location in Vancouver is proof that we can do it, that we have the capacity for it and that we must do it. It is a way of respecting people and respect is a Canadian value that is important to all of us. What is more, this is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling and does not ignore it or instill fear in the public. Some might think that a place like InSite increases risk, but the opposite is true.

I want to point out that we have seen the benefits of InSite time and again. For example, injection drug users who use InSite are 78% less likely to share needles. That is a public health issue. A centre such as InSite has tremendous benefits. It helps prevent emergency room visits, which are very expensive. We want to avoid situations in which people have to use costly emergency medical services. We want these people to have the use of a very inexpensive service that also benefits public safety and public health.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the Conservatives talking about going to the community and getting their views and that this is what this bill reflects.

Let me give members a little history. We had a site in Vancouver that was established in 2003. In 2008, the community wanted to renew their licence, but the Conservatives chose to take that to the courts. They wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers' money trying to oppress the views of the community.

Now the Conservatives are saying that they want to go to the community and consult them. Basically, they are putting roadblocks in place so that the community does not get its wishes.

Would the member agree that the Conservatives are basing this bill on ideology rather than on facts and figures?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and I congratulate him for all the work he is doing in his riding. I very much appreciate his great support for InSite, which is located in Vancouver, in the Surrey region, not far from his community.

It is obvious that this approach is rooted in ideology. The government is not looking at the facts and making a decision based on science. In fact, the Prime Minister's government seems to be incapable of examining the facts and moving forward on the basis of the studies done.

More than 300 studies have been published in journals such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, and in other very respected publications. They all report that supervised injection sites are very beneficial.

We have to get past the ideology and look at the facts. Decisions made in Canada must be based on the facts and public health, and not on Conservative ideology.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would simply provide a road map on how one would proceed in the future when it comes to supervised injection sites. I do not know why the member opposite does not support requiring organizations to provide basic information on signs and public safety or to consult the community. The community's views are very important.

Why does the member want to disregard all that? These are all good provisions in the bill. That is why he should support it, so support the bill.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his encouragement that I should support the bill. Unfortunately, I will not.

The problem with the bill is not that we are lacking in consultation. In fact, we could use InSite as a prime example of the public being consulted. Whether it be the local community, the business community, or the municipal councils, all those people were consulted. I never said in my discourse, and I do not know where he got that from, that I do not want the community to be consulted.

What I am saying is that after all 26 conditions are met, and many are new conditions that were never done in the past, they still do not have any guarantee that they are going to get their injection sites.

I would like the member to press his minister and ask the minister to actually make it binding. If we could actually get through those 26 conditions, I would like to see the member push for the idea that it be binding on the minister to supply the licence to open an injection site.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will be resuming debate. I would just let the member for Vancouver Kingsway know that we will not have the full 10 minutes. It will be approximately seven minutes , and I will give him the usual signal before the end of that time.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today to speak to this issue. It is a very important one, not only for the people of our country but in particular for the community that I represent in Vancouver Kingsway, and in Vancouver.

In many ways, the bill before us causes us to think about two things. The first is about the proper and appropriate way to make public policy in this chamber for the people of this country. Second, of course, is the specific issue of the proper policy approach to supervised injection sites. In summary, there has been a lot of talk on this, but in its essence Bill C-2 represents an attempt by the government members to make it very difficult to open up a supervised injection site in this country. We presently have one supervised injection site in Canada, and that operates in my hometown of Vancouver.

I want to start by sharing with the members in this House, and Canadians, some of the realities of what we are dealing with.

Again, I come from Vancouver. It is a port city, and it has one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in the country.

Let me tell members what Vancouver looked like before InSite was opened. I had people coming to my office asking me as a member of Parliament to do something about needles that were found in the alleys behind their houses where their children were playing. I have had parents and teachers come to me to tell me that they had to do a walkabout of their schools in the morning to pick up used needles in their schoolyards.

We had an epidemic of heroin overdose deaths in Vancouver, where for a period of time there were deaths from overdoses almost weekly. I have had business people, particularly in Chinatown where a lot of the drug market is in Vancouver, who complained to me that their customers were being chased away by the prospect of seeing heroin addicts openly shooting heroin outside the doors of their stores and in the alleys, never mind the ambulances and police sirens that inevitably come when people have had overdoses.

That is what Vancouver looked like before InSite opened.

I want to talk about facts, because we will put facts before this debate. Between 1987 and 1993, the rate of overdose deaths in Vancouver increased from 16 deaths per year to 200 deaths per year. The rate of overdose deaths in east Vancouver dropped by 35% after InSite opened in 2003.

Over one year, more than 2,171 referrals were made for InSite users to addiction counselling or other support services.Those who use InSite services at least once a week are 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visit infrequently.

Commencing one year after Insite opened, there was a significant drop in the number of discarded syringes, injection-related litter, and people injecting in the streets. Injection drug users who use InSite are 70% less likely to share needles. Reducing needle sharing has been listed as an international best practice in the reduction of the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.

InSite users are more likely to seek medical care through the site. This means fewer trips to the emergency room, an improvement in health outcomes, and a savings in taxpayer dollars.

Over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the British Medical Journal, the most respected medical journals in the world, have described the beneficial impacts of InSite. Conversely, multiple studies have looked for the negative impacts of InSite, but none of have come up with evidence demonstrating that it harms the community.

Safe injection sites operate in 70 cities and six European countries and Australia. A study by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in 2004 showed that supervised injection sites reach out to vulnerable groups. They are accepted by communities, help improve the health status of the users, and they reduce high-risk behaviour, overdose deaths, and drug use in open spaces.

Illicit drug use is an issue that all of us in this chamber regard as a problem. People from all parties across the country would like to look for strategies whereby we can assist people who are addicted to drugs get off the drugs. We share that goal.

The issue really is this. Where we have drug use, what is the appropriate way to achieve that goal? I am here to tell the House that in Vancouver, if members drive with me down to Hastings and Main Street any day of the week, at any time of day, they will see hundreds of people in the streets who are drug addicts. The question is not whether or not they will use drugs. The question is whether or not we will provide them with a safe, clean place where they can do drugs under the supervision of a nurse, where if they overdose or have a problem, they can get medical care, and most importantly, where if by any grace of God they want to access treatment, they have someone there.

Alternatively, we can ignore this and we can continue to let those people purchase and use their drugs in alleys and public spaces or in front of businesses in Vancouver with no medical attention, where they are sharing needles, spreading disease, harming business, costing taxpayers money and dying.

That is the reality of the debate before us. What we have here is an issue of science and evidence-based policy-making versus a moral, ideological one. We have a question of public policy where we ask whether we want to try to make it easier to provide these kinds of health services to Canadians or whether we want to set up roadblocks, as the bill would.

The bill would set up a set of criteria that would make it almost impossible for Canada to open a second supervised injection site. That is harmful for public policy. It is bad for the health of Canadians. It is bad for taxpayers. It is bad for business. I implore every member of the House to put science before ideology and stop the bill from going forward.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway will have three minutes remaining for his remarks should he wish to use that time at the next instance where the House resumes debate on the question, and of course, he will have the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed from November 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, Respect for Communities Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I cannot talk about Bill C-2 without making a reference to Bill C-65, the former bill introduced at the close of the last session of Parliament, which, need I remind the House, ended when the Conservatives prorogued Parliament. All of the bills left on the table when the last session ended needed to be reintroduced and renumbered. That is why we find ourselves now completing the task at hand.

I might as well say it upfront: Bill C-2 is a thinly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites. This proposed legislation goes directly against the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision that called on the minister to consider exemptions for supervised injection sites, in an effort to reconcile health and public safety considerations.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the only supervised injection site in Canada. It is located in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. I do not know if my colleagues have ever been there, but it is certainly a neighbourhood where truly disturbing things happen. Everyone deserves to know what I am talking about.

InSite was set up as part of a public health initiative launched by the City of Vancouver and its community partners, after the number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver increased twelvefold between 1987 and 1993. It took many years to get the InSite centre up and running, and each stage of the process was closely scrutinized, both locally and nationally.

The supervised injection site has the support not only of the Vancouver police, something which is by no means insignificant, but also of local businesses, the chamber of commerce and municipal politicians. The project has been the focus of over 30 scientific reports and studies that have described the benefits of InSite. These findings have been peer-reviewed and published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal. Studies of over 70 analogous supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia have recognized similar benefits.

When InSite opened in 2003, it secured an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with medical and scientific applications. It is worth noting that since then, InSite has had a positive impact. It helps save lives, minimizes the risk of accidental overdoses and above all, makes the neighbourhood safer for everyone.

However, in 2008, the exemption granted to InSite under the law was set to expire. The Conservative government rejected InSite’s application for renewal. The debate went all the way to the Supreme Court, which held that InSite was a key stakeholder in the health field. In its ruling, the court called upon the minister to consider all of the probative elements of the matter, bearing in mind the benefits of supervised injection sites, rather than set out a lengthy list of principles on which to base conclusions.

I would like to quote a critically important excerpt from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, since the bill now before us is supposedly based on this ruling. Here is what the Supreme Court had to say in its decision:

On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. 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. Where...a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

That is what the Supreme Court stated. In my opinion, this ruling is quite clear.

In my riding of Québec, I have had the opportunity to meet several times with stakeholders and volunteers, including those from Point de repères, a community organization that I would like to commend. The organization's mission consists of health promotion, prevention and the delivery of care and services, especially for people dealing with addiction. It is important to understand this difference: an organization like Point de repères does not encourage drug use, but, rather, it advocates a harm reduction approach. As the Point de repères website indicates:

The harm reduction approach is a community-based approach to health that focuses on helping people with addictions develop ways to mitigate the negative consequences of their behaviour, rather than on eliminating the use of psychotropic drugs.

I think it is important to understand the fine points of this often sensitive subject. Again, as explained on the Point de repères website:

Drug use has a significant impact on both the user and the community. Often, lack of knowledge, misconceptions and prejudices about people who use drugs lead to a series of inappropriate actions that cause additional harm to the user and the community.

I had the opportunity to watch a documentary entitled “Pas de piquerie dans mon quartier” about people's resistance to safe injection sites in their neighbourhood. The documentary shed light on the addiction issue in a city like Quebec City, for example.

The documentary's introduction, which unfortunately reflects the glaring truth, states that “the war on drugs often turned into a war on drug users. It is a bit like the war on poverty—we have to be careful not to turn it into a war on the poor”.

Why is the government so lacking in objectivity when it comes to this very sensitive issue? Why are the Conservatives refusing to recognize the facts laid out before them? The NDP believes that decisions about programs that could enhance public health should be based on facts, not ideological stances. We are not alone in thinking that. According to the Canadian Medical Association:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

For its part, the Canadian Nurses Association 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 that truly cared about public health and public safety would do everything in its power to improve access to prevention and treatment services, not create more barriers. Evidence has shown that supervised injection sites reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, and the number of overdose-related deaths. Evidence has also shown that they do not adversely affect public safety. In some cases, they actually promote it by reducing injection drug use in public, reducing the amount of violence associated with that activity, and reducing the waste associated with drug use.

Supervised injection sites strike a balance between public health and public safety goals. They also connect people who urgently need help with the health services they need, such as primary health care and addiction treatment.

The NDP believes that any new legislation about supervised injection sites must honour the spirit of the Supreme Court decision, which this bill does not do. As my colleague from Vancouver East has said, Bill C-2 contains as many criteria as there are letters in the alphabet, and those 26 criteria are so restrictive and biased that they are practically impossible to comply with.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the inception of InSite, it is important to recognize the great deal of effort taken by the different levels of government, such as the government in Ottawa at the time, and the provincial and municipal governments. Many different stakeholders were involved because they truly cared and wanted to make a difference in the community.

That initiative was put into place and as the years have gone by the facts speak for themselves. It clearly was a huge success, not only for the individuals who use the facility as a safer injection site but also for the community surrounding it, which is a better and safer place to be. There are many different documented benefits of just how successful it has been.

To what degree does she believe the government is basing its decision on solid evidence in bringing this legislation forward? Maybe she could provide comment on that.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his comment. I agree that when it comes to supervised injection sites, consultation and discussion with the community are absolutely necessary.

This bill, like all the others, proves that the government is not listening to the people on the ground. All too often, it bases its positions and its arguments on ideological prejudices. We have noticed that this is often the problem. That is why we always have to come along with a new proposal, because we have been on the ground and have seen what is going on. We met with the stakeholders. In this case, everyone—professionals and business people in particular—agrees that we need to act and we should use this example from Vancouver East to move forward.

It is high time that this government listened to the opposition, since it will not listen to the people on the ground, because we are proposing real solutions. The work being done must absolutely continue. We cannot just close our eyes and pretend the problem does not exist, as the government across the aisle so often does.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Québec for her very interesting and very important speech on this bill. I wonder if she could talk about one aspect of this debate that troubles me.

The Supreme Court often makes rulings. We have heard that this government is not listening to Canadians, but it also refuses to listen to institutions like the Supreme Court, which has issued an important ruling on this important matter.

In its decision in the Khadr case, the Supreme Court also said that the rule of law requires the government to act in a way that respects the Constitution. Does my colleague think that the government is once again going against a Supreme Court decision?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. My colleague is always full of wisdom.

The Conservative government is indeed not respecting the rights of these people by going ahead as it is doing. They want to close their eyes and hope these people suddenly stop existing. They would like there to be no more drug users, but that is not the case. These people have rights that must be respected.

That is what the Supreme Court says. Everyone's rights must be respected, including the rights of drug users. That is how we must move forward. The Supreme Court's decision urges the minister to pay close attention to that. This file should not be abandoned along with all the work that has been done on this first supervised injection site. We really should not wipe that work out only to have to rebuild everything later.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to stand in the House and follow my colleagues in speaking on such an important issue and one that relates to the piece of legislation that we have before us, Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

First of all, I would like to indicate, as my colleagues have done, that we in the NDP oppose the bill. Essentially Bill C-2 is a thinly veiled effort to stop supervised injection sites from operating, a direct defiance of a Supreme Court ruling on these sites. The legislation sets out a lengthy and arduous list of criteria that supervised injection sites would need to meet before the minister would grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These criteria would make it much harder for organizations to open safe injection sites in Canada.

I am proud to be part of a party that has long advocated for safe injection sites and a party that has indicated that we need to find ways to be able to support people who have fallen through the cracks, who suffer with addiction, who are keen to get out of the trap that so many face and who need help to do so.

The NDP believes that decisions about programs that may benefit public health must be based on facts and not ideology. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that InSite provided life-saving services and should remain open with a section 56 exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court ruled that it was within InSite users' charter rights to access the service and that similar services should also be allowed to operate with an exemption. Over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the British Medical Journal and others have described the beneficial impact of InSite.

Furthermore, studies on over 70 safe injection sites in Europe and Australia have shown similar benefits. InSite is one of the greatest public health achievements in our country. We in the NDP believe that it and similarly beneficial sites should be allowed to operate under proper supervision.

That is why we are so concerned to see Bill C-2 in front of us here today. This is a bill that is fundamentally based on ideology and is not based on evidence. It is certainly not based on what we are hearing from people in the medical profession who are saying that InSite and other operations like it are extremely important in being able to lead to harm reduction, to save lives, to get people on the right path to heal from their addictions, and to integrate back into their communities and into a life of dignity.

Bill C-2 is a deeply flawed bill based on an anti-drug ideology and false fears for public safety. This is another attempt to rally the Conservative base, as evidenced by the fundraising drive entitled “keep heroin out of our backyards” that started hours after Bill C-2 was introduced in Parliament. However, the bill, which would make it almost impossible to open safe injection sites, will actually put heroin back into our neighbourhoods.

Another reason we find the bill extremely problematic is that Bill C-2 directly defies the 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which called on the minister to consider exemptions for safe injection sites based on a balance between public health and safety. It called on the minister to consider all the evidence on the benefits of safe injection sites rather than setting out a lengthy list of principles by which to apply judgments.

We in the NDP believe that any further legislation on supervised injection sites should respect the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision, which is not the case with this bill. The NDP believes that harm reduction programs, including safe injection sites, should be granted exemptions based on evidence of their ability to improve a community's health and preserve human life, not ideology.

There is currently only one operational supervised injection site in Canada, InSite, which is located in Vancouver. Since it opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable disease infection rates, and relapse rates for drug users.

InSite, as many people will know, opened as part of a public health plan by the Vancouver Coastal Health authority and its community partners following a twelvefold increase in overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. At the time, the Vancouver area was also seeing drastic increases in communicable diseases among injection drug users, including hepatitis A, B, and C and HIV/AIDS.

InSite was originally granted an exemption in 2003 to operate under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for medical and scientific purposes, to both provide services and to research the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities. Section 56 of the current Controlled Drugs and Substances Act grants the minister authority to approve operations utilizing drugs for medical, scientific, or law enforcement purposes. In 2007, the OnSite detox centre was added to the site.

The InSite organization and the work that happens on the Vancouver east side is something that leads to better lives, not only for people who suffer from addiction but also for the broader community. I want to read into the record what people who support InSite and harm reduction measures based on medical evidence have said.

Pivot Legal Society, the HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition issued a statement on Bill C-2. It was a statement first made when Bill C-65 was introduced. They said:

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...

The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association have both criticized the government for bringing forward Bill C-2. The Canadian Medical Association said:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

Let us move on to other practitioners in the health care field. The Canadian Nurses Association 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.

Based on the validation of these positions we have heard from people who are involved in the medical field, based on people who work and live in Vancouver's east side, and based on the figures that overdoses have decreased by 35%, the evidence is clear. There is a great deal indicating that the government is going down the wrong path.

What is especially disconcerting is that the government is willing to ignore and disrespect a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that has ruled on this very issue. I wish I could say that this was shocking, but the government has shown great disregard for the work of the Supreme Court, certainly when it comes to areas that, ideologically, the government does not see eye to eye on. It is deeply disconcerting and problematic for a lot of people who are tuning in, whether to this debate or to Parliament, frankly, every day to see a government that was elected to represent the best interests of Canadians make decisions that are not based on evidence, science, or respect for the Supreme Court, the highest court of our country. It bases them on ideology and fearmongering.

I think of the people in my constituency who suffer from addiction, who are in a cycle of poverty, unemployment, and living in third world conditions, in many cases. They are unable to access help, because the same federal government has cut funding for important healing programs, including the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and other initiatives that helped people in my part of the country. I think of the many people across Canada who are increasingly struggling as the cost of living goes up, as employment leaves their regions, as they struggle to make do with what little they have. Often they are vulnerable to some of these same cycles of addiction and violence. I think of the fact that the government has a chance to act by retracting Bill C-2 and standing with us on the opposition side for harm reduction and healthier, better lives for people and communities across this country.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's remarks, as I have on other days in debate. A few days previously, one of her colleagues from Vancouver went through the specific criteria. At that time, I asked which specific criteria in the bill that set out where a safe injection site might be placed the hon. member objected to. Does the hon. member object to all the specific criteria?

I understand the philosophical problems the hon. member has with the bill, but are there specific criteria in the proposed legislation that the hon. member supports?Are there specific criteria the hon. member objects to? Could she provide some examples, both for and against?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would correct my colleague. I never referenced philosophical issues. I referenced science, evidence, and facts. It may be difficult for the other side to understand, as I understand that there is a difficulty grasping these concepts on that side of the House.

I think I, along with my colleagues, have been pretty clear in indicating that the issue here is the barriers that would be set up. InSite, and other communities that would like to start a similar program, would face a process that is so onerous it would be challenging for them to put it together.

They clearly already do a lot of work to get all the permits and follow all the rules. There is no question about that. However, Bill C-2 is attempting to make this such a difficult task that organizations like InSite would not have the capacity to do what needs to be done.

If the Conservative government truly cared about making a difference when it comes to harm reduction and getting heroin out of our neighbourhoods, as they put it, or crack cocaine—although some people they know seem to be quite connected to that substance—maybe they would talk to the medical practitioners about what needs to be done.

Supporting InSite, supporting harm reduction programs, is where it is at. Let us listen to the professionals and the people living in the communities who want this to happen. Let us support them instead of standing in their way.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation. We in the Liberal Party certainly share the same feelings about taking a very scientific and evidence-based approach to this very important issue.

The reality is that drug addicts are among the most unfortunate people on this earth. It is not something one goes into because one decides to become a drug addict. Very often, drug addicts, of course, have more serious problems that have possibly driven them to become drug addicts, yet some members from the government side, when they are hyperbolic, seem to treat InSite locations as if they will actually attract innocent people who want to take drugs, who want to become addicts, rather than understanding that this is for harm reduction.

Why does the member think this is the approach of the Conservative government toward this very important issue?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it really is mystifying. It is the year 2013, and science, medicine, and specialists have made it clear that, based on the evidence, InSite, harm reduction techniques, and safe injection sites make a difference. They make a difference because they save lives. They support communities. They support families that have family members and loved ones struggling with addiction.

I would challenge any member in this House who knows anyone who has struggled or is struggling with addiction to see how important it is for them to have services to access so that they can get help. What the government is doing, unfortunately, is standing in the way of people who need this help the most. It is standing in the way of services, knowledge, and a practice that we know is proven. Instead, the Conservatives are using the same old techniques of fearmongering. They are talking about heroin in the backyards of Canadians to change the facts, to change the conversation, rather than actually working with Canadian communities to make a difference, which is what we in the NDP would like the government to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of Sherbrookers to speak to this very important issue for all Canadians.

Bill C-2 is a thinly veiled attempt by the Conservatives to prevent supervised injection sites from being set up, or continuing their operations. There is currently only one such site in Canada. This is a thinly veiled manoeuvre to oppose this kind of supervised injection site.

Several scientific studies conducted by researchers have demonstrated the benefits of such sites, where people can go and inject drugs safely. Otherwise, they would do it in the streets of our communities.

The Conservative logic in all this is quite impressive and baffling. The Conservatives say that having supervised injection sites would result in more drugs on our streets. However, precisely the opposite is true, and studies have documented and demonstrated that on many occasions.

We of course cite the example of Vancouver East, the only place where a supervised injection site is located. It was ultimately observed that this produced benefits for the entire community. Needles, or everything people use to take drugs, ultimately wind up in supervised locations instead of in parks and public places, where they endanger neighbourhood residents.

You have children, Mr. Speaker. I do not for the moment, but I am sure you would prefer that those needles be left in safe places and disposed of safely rather than have your children walk around in a park or on the street and possibly find dirty needles, with all the danger that entails. You would prefer, as I do, that experienced people dispose of those needles safely. They know how that works and they can also help people who are addicted to certain drugs.

These sites therefore have clear and obvious benefits. It is unfortunate that the government is using this bill to put up all possible barriers to any future establishment of other injection facilities elsewhere in Canada. The obstacles are enormous, with conditions that are just about impossible to meet. To open a facility, 30 requirements must be met.

As I said earlier, the government’s thinly disguised objective with this bill is to stop other facilities from opening and prevent the one that already exists from continuing to operate.

It is sad to see the Conservatives using this for partisan purposes and even in order to raise funds. A few hours after introducing the bill in the House, they sent an email to their members, their supporters and the people on their email lists to tell them that the Conservatives would be protecting communities better, and then they asked for money from their supporters, with Bill C-2.

It is very obvious that they are using this issue to collect funds. They want to paint themselves as the great defenders of safety in our communities, while all the studies are showing exactly the opposite: that it is safer to have supervised injection sites.

In addition, it is important to mention that 80% of the people in Vancouver East support the supervised injection site. The Conservatives are saying that the whole community is in danger, that the people are against it, that it cannot be left open and that it must be closed as quickly as possible, while 80% of the people in Vancouver East are in favour of this supervised injection site. I do not understand why the Conservatives are saying that the centre is dangerous, it has to be closed, and people do not like it and do not want it in their backyard, when 80% of the people in the neighbourhood involved are in favour of it.

The other element that really surprises me is the fact that the Conservatives are going against a Supreme Court decision, which was handed down following a number of other legal proceedings. All the courts, from the British Columbia Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of Canada, came to the same conclusion, despite the opposition of the Conservatives and the government. All the courts have always been in favour of these facilities and have always recognized the rights of the people using them. Section 7 of the charter states 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 government tried to defend its position before the various levels of court. Finally, the Supreme Court rendered its decision saying that the infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them.

The Supreme Court itself—the highest court in the country—supports our position that people have the right to have access to these sites in order to protect their own charter-guaranteed rights.

The Conservatives are acting as though nothing has happened and doing the opposite of what the Supreme Court asked them to do. I am rather surprised to see a government respond to a court decision in that way. Since the decision did not go their way, the Conservatives decided to pass legislation that goes against the Supreme Court's decision.

It is rare for a government to behave in such a manner, and it is unfortunate that the Conservatives are thumbing their noses at courts that are recognized as being impartial. No one has ever questioned that. As legislators, it is an affront to the justice system for the Conservatives to try to defend a position in court and then go against the court's decision when it does not go their way. It is unfortunate to see this happening.

There is a lot of talk about public health and safety. It is often said that supervised injection sites strike a balance between public health and public safety. The court also recognized that. These sites strike a certain balance between the two poles because both are equally important.

It has been shown that supervised injection sites can enhance public safety by getting illicit substances off our streets and putting them in safe and supervised locations. These substances have not been legalized; their injection is merely supervised.

What is more, in most cases, the people who come to these sites are referred to community resources that can help them to overcome their addictions. This approach ensures that there is a good balance between public health and public safety, which is something that the NDP will always support. We are therefore going to oppose Bill C-2.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech on Bill C-2. It is very important that all members of the House stand up and be counted on the bill, which essentially is thumbing its nose at the Supreme Court of Canada.

As my colleagues have previously said in the House, we have this repetition of a policy of the government ignoring the Supreme Court of Canada. We saw it with the Wheat Board, we saw it with endangered species, and now we are seeing it with a critical health matter dealing with people's unfortunate addiction to drugs. What is particularly reprehensible is that, in reading the bill, we see that its clear intent is to prevent the establishment of any further drug injection sites. That runs directly contrary to what Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said in the Supreme Court ruling, which was:

Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak to that and speak to the calibre of intervenors in that Supreme Court case, showing the strong support from the medical establishment in favour of supporting injection sites.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for her excellent speech.

The government is indeed thumbing its nose at the Supreme Court. The member mentioned other files where the Conservatives have ignored Supreme Court rulings. It is also true that hundreds of experts, some of the most respected in this field, support supervised injection sites. All the studies prove that these sites are useful and beneficial.

Once again, the Conservatives are ignoring the science because of ideology and partisanship. They are using the situation to raise funds. This is the first time that I have seen a government go into fundraising mode hours after introducing a bill.

It is rather strange for legislators to use a new bill to raise funds for a political party. It is deplorable for a government to be doing this. Furthermore, the government is rejecting the scientific studies that show the benefits of such sites. This is just unbelievable. It is a shame to see a government acting this way in 2013.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is also surprising that very few Conservatives are taking the time to express their opinions and defend their bill in this debate. I am not quite sure what that means. I have the impression that they feel they have made up their minds, no matter what arguments we, the MPs, and Canadians might put forward. This negates the democratic process and our parliamentary structures.

Can my colleague tell us how important it is to debate such issues?

People who use heroine must first dilute it. Homeless people living on the street may not have any water with them and have to find some. They might resort to using the water from a puddle that could contain oil, or urine or who knows what else. This is a public health hazard; these people can become infected. Others might get infected by using dirty needles. This translates into economic costs for our society, which I find deplorable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and question.

To answer his question, I think it is clear that the government is not even making an effort to outline its position on many of its bills. This is not the first time we have seen that no members are prepared to take the floor or share their views on a bill. Is that because the Conservative MPs are scared that their views make no sense and they have a hard time explaining them to Canadians? It also demonstrates a lack of respect for a democratic institution like Parliament, which is a place for debate and for moving bills forward.

The government does not seem to care about the debates in the House of Commons. That is shameful. I agree with my colleague's comments.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to talk about Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. What we are actually discussing is supervised injection sites.

Do we live in a perfect world? In a perfect world, everyone is well educated, everyone lives well, everyone is happy and everything is fine. The reality, however, is that we do not live in a perfect world. Children do not to go to school as much as we would wish, people do not necessarily have the job they want, and in many cases, basic needs are not met. Unfortunately, some people descend into the hell of drug use.

Once that happens, and we find that people are descending into the hell of drug use generation after generation, what do we do? What do we do as a society? The bill compels us to ask that question. As a society, what do we do when the issue arises? How do we respond in a civilized and effective manner? This is important. Everything depends on it.

The bill is a response by the government to a 2011 Supreme Court decision. The court based its decision on fundamental principles of our society, namely the right to life, liberty and security of the person. I am not talking just about those living in the hell of drug use, but also about those who may be exposed to it indirectly or by misfortune. This is where we get to the crux of the issue.

A supervised injection site reduces the risk of death and disease. Public safety must also be taken into account, of course. This cannot be done just anyhow and anywhere. Such things must be regulated. Reducing the number of needle-borne diseases like hepatitis C or HIV, and reducing the number of overdoses, is no small thing. We know that supervised injection sites make results like this possible.

Our deliberations should be based essentially on the public interest. What do we mean by “the public interest”? Some demagogues will say that the NDP is just defending drug users, but that is not the case. The NDP wants to make sure that harm is reduced to a minimum and that as many people as possible can overcome their problems. That is what “the public interest” means. We do not want children and young people falling into that world. If they are caught up in it, we want them to get out as quickly as possible, so that they can make a positive contribution to society.

We cannot think that someone who has succumbed to drug use once or twice will never do anything worthwhile in life. We cannot think that way. We must be able to give such people a chance, so that they have a real opportunity to make something of their lives. The reason they turned to drugs in the first place is that they saw no way out, no opportunity. They did not think they had the resources to achieve some level of happiness.

To get back to supervised injection sites, if we think about it seriously, the concept for such sites is primarily one of a front-line health care service.

Let me explain. To take the Vancouver example: nurses and paramedics supervise activities. People using the injection site are assessed. They can also be treated if things go wrong. Detoxification services are available nearby. It is easier to reach addicts, and offer them a way out. In our society, it is not possible for workers to go into the streets and go up to people one by one and tell them that services are available and they are invited to make use of them. That is not how it works; we do not have the resources to do it. By bringing them into a safe place where they do as little harm to themselves as possible, and where they can then be offered a way out, I believe we are working in the public interest.

I would like to give an example of something that upsets parents. They believe it is unacceptable to find used syringes in the parks in some cities. As parents, we do not like finding traces of drug use scattered about where children may go to play. Nobody wants that. By moving the activity to a site, getting people to do it safely, concentrating our health care resources—which, as we know, are hard-pressed—and optimizing our health care services through this kind of response, I believe we are working in the public interest. We are thus able to offer a better society to many people, both those who are living through the hell of drug use, and people to whom the children should not be exposed unnecessarily. There are enough bad examples in our society. We do not need more, we need fewer.

That is why I fail to understand some aspects of this legislation. The application process for setting up such sites and the increased complexity may discourage more than one community from trying to take responsibility and resolve or at least address the problem. There is no magic remedy, but if we add to the paperwork, the requirements and so on, are we working in the public interest? Is that not, rather, a much more ideological position? Basically, they want to see no evil, they want to be repressive and hope that it solves the problem, but history tells us that such a strategy will never really succeed.

When they tried to prohibit alcohol nearly a century ago, we saw what happened and how people reacted. I do not mean that we have to put up with people injecting just anything, but in this 21st century, we should have 21st-century solutions. We should provide care based on the knowledge we have acquired about how to treat people. First and foremost, the debate should be about the public interest, and I call upon all parliamentarians present to think about the debate on the basis of the public interest.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way. As he brought out, it was the criteria from the Supreme Court decision that highlighted the importance of scientific evidence and proper consultation.

I have a question for him relating to that. Why would the NDP be opposed to scientific evidence and consultation? It seems as though New Democrats believe that the decisions have all been made and they do not want to hear any more scientific evidence, other than what their ideology is. They have heard it all and they do not want to hear anything more.

However, the courts clearly said that we need to have clear and scientific evidence. Why would New Democrats be opposed to that? Why are their ideologies getting in the way of current scientific evidence, and why would they be opposed to hearing from neighbourhoods?

We are talking about future supervised injection site considerations. Why would New Democrats not want to hear from the neighbourhoods where such sites are being considered? Why do they not want to hear from families and from health professionals and hear current scientific evidence? Why is ideology getting in their way of supporting the bill?

This is what the courts have said. These are the criteria. We have listened to the courts and put this into the bill. Why would they oppose even what the courts are asking for?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question, which raises two important issues. First of all, scientific knowledge is obviously something we believe in. There is no doubt about it. As a matter of fact, more than 30 scientific studies have shown that the approach used in Vancouver is effective.

The member also mentioned communities. Our role is not to force communities to support the bill, obviously. I believe that community acceptance will play a key role in each situation. It will be up to each community to assess whether this approach would be appropriate and helpful in their context. We can think about what is happening in Quebec City right now, where proposals for the grain elevators are considered unacceptable by the community. It shows what happens when one tries to implement a project without community support. We know how important that support is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very reasonable and sensible speech. I also want to remind all parliamentarians that the Vancouver supervised injection site is a great success. It works; it saves lives. People who use these services are more likely to take steps to overcome their addiction. The Conservatives argue that it makes no sense to help people inject drugs in a safe way. Are we to conclude that letting addicts inject drugs in an unsafe way would be a better way to help them?

I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that, far from encouraging drug addiction, these centres help people recover from addiction, a very positive goal.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. His comments go to two issues at the very heart of my speech: public interest and effective interventions.

We are not living in the 19th century anymore. Treatments have evolved. Nowadays, professionals from various disciplines can work together to treat people who have fallen prey to drugs. Concerted action is key. Parliamentarians from all political stripes all want the same thing: to see fewer and fewer people fall prey to drugs. That is the end goal, the most important thing. It is a public interest issue. We must use all the treatment tools and knowledge at our disposal to curb that problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, you have no idea how disappointed I am with this bill. One would think that over the years we would get used to these kinds of laws that do more harm to the public than anything else, but I cannot get used to it. Bill C-2 is a very important reminder of that reality.

There are several elements in this bill that remind us just what the Conservatives represent. They are ideologues, they ignore scientific evidence and they even disregard rulings from the highest court in the country. It is absurd. This bill is first and foremost a way to dismiss the idea of supervised injection sites, just like they tried to do with InSite in Vancouver.

We need to put this bill in context. This bill was introduced because the Supreme Court ruled that the only supervised injection site in Canada—InSite in Vancouver—was necessary and that the Minister of Health should continue to give the facility an exemption. The court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which states:

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 decision states:

On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. 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. Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

I have a lot of questions. The court recognized the positive impact that supervised injection sites have had in east Vancouver, and its ruling was unequivocal:

InSite has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.

I repeat, “without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area”. The court is not the only one to say this. The Canadian Nurses Association agrees:

In Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, where the Insite safe injection site is located, business owners, service providers and residents in the neighbourhood agree that the clinic has had a positive impact on the health of the people who use it and on the health of the community.

That is a fundamental aspect of this debate. While sites like InSite can improve the situation, the Conservatives want to ban them. The campaign of misinformation the Conservative Party launched just after the bill was introduced is proof enough.

As a health care professional, I find this bill mind-boggling. I want to add my voice to those of people in the field who have criticized this bill. The Canadian Nurses Association is concerned that:

...the conservative “tough on crime” ideology will overshadow evidence that demonstrates positive outcomes for communities with harm reduction programs.

The Canadian Medical Association had this to say:

The CMA fully endorses the existence of these harm-reduction tools, including supervised injection sites, and believes they should be included in a comprehensive national drug strategy. The CMA's position is founded upon clinical evidence. Bill [C-2], it would appear, is founded upon ideology that seeks to hinder initiatives to mitigate the very real challenges and great personal harm caused by drug abuse.

The CMA represents all of the doctors in the country. It added the following, which is even more critical of this government:

The unanimous decision [by the Supreme Court] was grounded in evidence, not ideology. The overwhelming clinical evidence is that centres like Insite save lives when it comes to some of our most vulnerable patient populations. In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that “…the evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption”. What we are seeing today seems to contradict the essence of the ruling.

Harm reduction works. This method has proven to be effective. In Australia, a report on supervised injection sites found that one site had reduced the number of overdoses, reduced the spread of HIV and hepatitis C and alleviated safety concerns related to users shooting up in public places and the availability of clean needles. The report even indicated that the site served as a gateway to addiction treatment.

Mr. Speaker, if that is not improving safety in the community, I do not know what is.

Many countries now have supervised injection sites: Australia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, just to name a few. These sites work.

It is no wonder Montreal's director of public health recommended, in December 2011, that the city establish such a site in the greater Montreal area. He gave a number of reasons similar to the ones I just quoted concerning Australia's experience. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because they are based on conclusive data that the Conservatives and the Minister of Health have patently decided to ignore. I will quote Montreal's director of public health:

The reasons that justify implementing SIS in Montréal are very succinct: the epidemic of infections caused by HIV and HCV, and the excess mortality among IDU [injection drug users]. Cocaine use, the drug most often injected in Montréal, is a major determinant of HIV transmission, as is sharing used needles. HCV infection is also having devastating effects: 7 in 10 IDU have been exposed to the virus and its transmission does not appear to be slowing. As for excess mortality among IDU, the data on hand indicate that the problem in Montréal is alarming.

I urge the government for once to do its job in the health field. Since the Conservatives took power, we have seen the federal government disengage from files where Canadians expect it to play a role. I am referring to the government's refusal to negotiate a new health accord with the provinces, the shortage of prescription drugs, and diluted chemotherapy treatments.

It is unbelievable and completely unacceptable for a bill such as this, which flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling, to be introduced.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear that the previous speaker, at least in theory, did not oppose scientific evidence.

I would like to ask the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert whether the NDP supports supervised drug consumption sites being approved for every drug that could be asked for, regardless of scientific evidence or community input. That is what we are asking for here, on a case-by-case basis: scientific evidence and community input. It is not some carte blanche, which is what the NDP is asking for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer my colleague's question. Where does scientific evidence come from? From statistics and conclusive data. That is what the NDP is talking about. On your side of the House, however, you focus on ideology and not scientific evidence.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I remind the member that she must address her comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I am very passionate about this.

The member mentioned scientific evidence. I am a scientist. I am a health care professional. You have to have collected conclusive data to be able to talk about scientific evidence. I am no better than my Canadian medical colleagues or the Supreme Court, which has examined this issue.

If the member is claiming that the NDP does not believe in science, I have to think that she did not understand my speech.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate speech.

I know that she is a professional who truly cares about her constituents' lives and health. She shows that every day in her work as a parliamentarian.

The government seems to be confusing the notions of “scientific studies” and “community acceptance” of specific projects.

Could my colleague talk about the methods used in the 21st century to allow people to work on rehabilitation and reducing problems in our society? She touched on this briefly in her speech, but I would like to hear more.

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

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

As he said, this is the 21st century. Things have changed, as has our way of viewing this societal problem of drug use. The problem is there. We cannot put our heads in the sand. The NDP wants to help people who have drug addictions. We want to offer them a safe place and avoid the transmission of infectious diseases. We also want these centres to be a gateway for directing vulnerable persons to withdrawal treatment so they can receive guidance from nurses and specialized physicians. We want to offer them good health practices so they can live in dignity.

I have visited Vancouver East, and I can say that it left me devastated. What I saw there were human wrecks, people wandering the street. Is that what we want for our fellow citizens? We want a medical framework that can help these vulnerable people get out of their situation, but that is contrary to the ideology of the Conservative government.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

It is my privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I would like to begin by firmly stating that our caucus and our party are opposed to this bill, which has now come to second reading. Our caucus feels that decisions about programs that could be beneficial to public health must be given serious consideration and must be essentially based on facts. When we talk about facts, we are of course talking about tangible, solid, quantifiable evidence, not hypotheses and qualitative methods, or indeed ideological positions.

Not so long ago, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the InSite organization was providing essential services and should remain open under the exemption provided for in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Once again the Conservative government is proposing a very imperfect bill, based on a very conservative and openly anti-drug ideology. To justify itself it is fearmongering about public safety.

However, at present there is only one supervised injection site operating in Canada. This is InSite, and it is in Vancouver. Since it opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% reduction in deaths by overdose. Furthermore, it has been established that InSite has brought about a decrease in crime, in communicable disease infection rates and in relapse rates for drug abusers.

This site has become such a model that big cities like Toronto and Montreal are thinking of creating their own. We in the NDP feel that decisions about programs that could be beneficial to public health have to be maintained. We must reject any intervention based on unjustified reasoning.

The position of our party is supported by three major institutions in Canada. Those institutions issued a statement regarding the former Bill C-65, which is now Bill C-2. That statement speaks of a flagrant lack of judgment. It goes even further, describing this initiative as irresponsible and unethical.

Other institutions have also spoken out against this bill as proposed by the government, including the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association. Both have criticized the approach being taken by the government.

I would also like to mention the attitude of the Conservative caucus, of our colleagues opposite. Since this morning, I have noticed that there are only seven to 11 Conservative members in the House.

That is evidence of blatant disinterest on their part. The members who have spoken—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order.

I would remind the member that it is inappropriate to speak of members who are not here. I do not know if he intended to name them specifically, but I would advise him to tread lightly.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

I understand, Mr. Speaker.

What I wanted to say, really, is that our colleagues should be here to defend their own bill, but they are not. They are not doing their job. I am sorry if that was interpreted as highlighting their absence. What is more, among those present, only three of them rose to ask questions.

On this side of the House, the hon. member for Québec quoted the Supreme Court decision, and then a member from the other side asked her an irrelevant question. Proof that the Conservatives do not listen.

Among other things, the hon. member for Churchill stated the evidence, contrasting it with ideology, but the Conservatives did not seem to get it. The hon. member for Sherbrooke very clearly described the importance of these sites that are set up safely to address the scourge the bill refers to, but his comments went unnoticed.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona asked an excellent question and made some wise observations about the importance of monitoring these activities, and the hon. member for Louis-Hébert did a great job underscoring the social impact that this represents.

Last but not least, my colleague for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert drew from her medical knowledge to explain the risks involved as well as the scientific underpinnings of the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly this is an impassioned debate and something that is very important to all of us. The opposition members continue to talk about it as having an ideological bent on behalf of the government, and clearly we are hearing just that from the opposition.

The Supreme Court ruled that the opinions of local communities must be considered when these sites are proposed. I ask what my colleague opposite objects to about informed decision-making processes, which the minister must go through by seeking consultation with the community and, importantly, determining where the community opinion rest on these issues. Clearly, it is a very emotional issue for a community, but I am hearing that the opposition members do not support community consultation. I wonder why not.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my hon. colleague because his question is the same as what his colleague from Langley was precisely talking about.

The point is that we are talking about a judgment coming from the Supreme Court, and it is clear because, as I said, it was read to them. They are trying to put their objective in the other way, about community. We all know what the orientation of the Conservative caucus is. The Conservatives are not for community, they are corporate, so what they are probably defending is not the health security of communities but the pockets of big corporations. That is the point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his pertinent remarks.

We all know Conservatives always try to get what they want, and they intend to put their moral values ahead of the lives of the most vulnerable Canadians. My question is for my colleague.

Does this bill not fly in the face of the Supreme Court decision?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert once again.

Yes, the hon. members of the Conservative caucus are directly challenging the Supreme Court by proposing this bill in this way. I do not believe that the highest court in the land would accept that a majority in the House of Commons with somewhat peculiar orientations can contradict what the Supreme Court has already ruled on after deep analysis and thereby jeopardize the processes or procedures that must be followed to protect the health and safety of communities by maintaining these injection sites in Vancouver. It seems to me that the Supreme Court has said that these sites should be maintained, and I do not see why the Conservatives are now putting up as many obstacles and barriers as possible to prevent them from doing their work.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House and join my colleagues in the official opposition in opposing the bill. Normally I do not read a speech, but I find that it is very important on this bill to be clear that I am conveying the actual words of medical specialists, including those from my city of Edmonton, from the Canadian Medical Association, and from the Supreme Court of Canada.

In reintroducing Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the government is flying in the face of credible, strong evidence that safe injection sites lead to improvements in public health and public safety.

The specific objective of organized, supervised safe injection sites is widely recognized to improve health outcomes and to reduce impacts to communities where drug use is already occurring, and it is important to recognize that drug use is occurring.

Bill C-2, in imposing 24 conditions on the operation of any safe injection site and then completely giving the discretion to the minister to ignore that advice and impose her decision, rather than relying on the opinions of scientists and medical experts, has a clear intent of rendering it inoperative.

The intent of a safe injection program is to directly address the problem of addiction to dangerous and illegal substances by mitigating the negative effects of such addictions while ensuring that addicts have access to support when they are ready to begin treatment to get off drugs, and it is important to emphasize. That is clearly the path we support, and that is the path of the safe injection sites.

Safe injection sites have been proven to do both of these things. The Canadian Medical Association has expressed deep concern about this legislation. It has pointed out that there is overwhelming clinical evidence to show that safe injection sites save lives, and it has called for such facilities to be included in a national drug strategy. According to the CMA:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion. In a preliminary assessment based on initial review of the Bill, the CMA is deeply concerned that the proposed legislation may be creating unnecessary obstacles and burdens that could ultimately deter creation of more injection sites.

The CMA's Dr. Haggie, then president, in response to the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, said:

While for some this is an ideological issue, for physicians it's about the autonomy to make medical decisions based on evidence, and the evidence shows that supervised injection reduces the spread of infectious diseases and the incidence of overdose and death.

Dr. Stan Houston is a professor and specialist in infectious diseases at the University of Alberta, and he has extensive experience working with HIV patient care and organizations assisting such patients. Dr. Houston expressed support for the operation of safe injection sites for a number of important health-related reasons. According to Dr. Houston:

Although exact numbers are difficult to determine, hepatitis C infection rates run rampant through intravenous drug users. At one point, more than 80 per cent of those users were infected.

He has advised that due to needle exchanges and other social services provided by Streetworks, an Edmonton support program, the rates of HIV and hepatitis C have declined. According to Dr. Houston:

HIV cases are steadily going down in drug users in Edmonton. In fact that's our biggest HIV prevention success story. HIV rates are going up in other risk groups, but they are going down in injection drug users. And harm reduction practices should get a large part of the credit.

He said that by provision of a safe, supervised location for injection, staffed by medically qualified people, the probability of engaging drug users in drug treatment is substantially enhanced. He said that the preponderance of evidence from 25 peer-reviewed reports determines that programs such as InSite improve rates of further treatment for addictions.

Dr. Houston has advised me that, to his knowledge, not one case of drug overdose has occurred at InSite since 2003. That is a lot of lives saved, lives that can be redeemed and then supported to end addiction. Should that not be the health objective?

Dr. Houston has pointed out to me that those who operate safe injection sites are not pro drug use. It is quite the opposite. Surely it is better to have addicts injecting drugs in a clean, secure place instead of back alleys. Quite logically, it is a preferable alternative to ensure public safety. He has also called for more government funding of drug treatment facilities to help end their addictions.

Dr. Houston points out that the research supports his position. The obvious question, then, is this: why is the government not willing to take the advice of Canadian doctors when it comes to dealing with a serious health issue?

In September, a total of 87 organizations experienced at dealing with addictions signed a letter to the Minister of Health, urging her to not reintroduce this bill. They included a number of Edmonton organizations that assist the homeless, HIV-infected persons and addicted persons, such as the Boyle Street Community Services, the Bissell Centre, the George Spady Centre and Street Works. Their common request to the minister was for support for increased access to supervised consumption sites similar to the InSite program in Vancouver and those in other nations, including Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands, in order that lives could be saved.

These dedicated and highly respected community organizations point out that supervised consumption sites have been proven to decrease overdose, death, injury, and risk behaviours associated with HIV and hepatitis C infections; to increase access to health care for marginalized people; to save health care costs; and to decrease open drug use and publicly discarded drug use equipment, which is one of the issues communities usually raise.

I urge the minister to respond to their request to sit down with them to learn from their direct experience in dealing, on a daily basis, with people battling addictions and seek effective solutions to both assist those addicted and increase public safety.

There are obvious medical, social and psychological costs associated with a single HIV infection. If nothing else, one can appreciate the cost savings derived from preventing HIV infection. Directly because of the introduction of a needle exchange program in Edmonton, reduced rates of infection among drug addicts have been reported for both HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C, while in the same period rates have increased in other high-risk areas.

If we are truly serious about tackling the issue of drug addiction and the attendant health risks to the entire Canadian population, as parliamentarians we have an obligation to base our decisions on appropriate program or regulatory responses, sound science, and research results. Surely this should be the basis for all good public policy.

As the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network concluded from a detailed study, “many of the arguments against are ill-conceived or overstated, and are outweighed by the likely benefits of safe injection facilities”. It reports that there is an ethical imperative to at least support the trial facilities given the unacceptable harms currently experienced by drug users and the general community, and the potential for these sites to eliminate or reduce at least some of the harms. It advises that a refusal to establish these critical sites may be deemed to violate human rights obligations under international law or potentially subject governments to negligence suits. It is important to observe what they are advising us.

It is important to observe and respect as well the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of the continued operation of InSite and right of access to similar facilities.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stated in that unanimous decision:

Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

In closing, by shutting its eyes to the evidence and seeking to put as many barriers in the way of communities opening their own safe consumption sites, the government is risking the lives and health of Canadians. Let us not forget that if it were not for the Supreme Court, lnSite would have been closed.

I urge the Minister of Health to withdraw this bill and begin a serious consultation on how we can decrease addiction to illegal drugs in Canada and the attendant health and social costs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite quite intently. There were a couple of things that popped out during her statement. One was with regard to those who were under the use of heroin. With respect to InSite she mentioned, “when they are ready to get off the drug”. Most heroin users who I have been around in my former life are dead scared to get off that drug because of what happens in the next 72 hours.

The other thing that I did not hear in her statement was that there has not been a decrease in the use of heroin. There may be a lot of things that InSite does, but one of the things it does not do is decrease the amount of heroin used not only in Vancouver but across Canada.

Therefore, could the member speak to the reduction in heroin use and how these sites would try to do that?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the time I spent with hon. member on a previous committee.

Those are two very interesting points. On the first one, absolutely, people who are addicted to serious drugs are terrified to stop that addiction. They are addicted. That is exactly what it means, and the more serious the drug, the more serious the addiction.

That is precisely why the medical specialists, including Dr. Houston, who is a very highly recognized doctor in Alberta, are saying that this is why we need the safe injection sites. If addicts are in a back alley taking those drugs, there are no people there saying to them they can help them get off the drug and refer them to a treatment centre. There is simply someone in that back alley saying that they can get another hit next week.

On the other matter, I do not believe I said these injection sites reduced the use of drugs. What I have said is it has reduced the incidence of related diseases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona for her excellent speech. It was very well documented with quotes, evidence, and clear examples of the benefits that supervised injection sites can bring. These sites may not reduce the number of drug addicts, but, as we have seen, they definitely decrease the number of people who die from their addictions. This is a proven fact.

It was interesting to hear my NDP colleague talk about people who inject drugs in the streets. As a parent, I am worried about my children, because I live in a neighbourhood where children play in the streets and parks. If they fell on an infected syringe, they could get dangerously ill. The supervised injection site would ensure that there would be fewer syringes that could end up, just like that, in the hands of our children.

I do not understand why the Conservatives, who certainly must worry about the children playing in parks and streets, are not more responsive to this reality. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced the hon. member is a good father and wants to protect his children. I am convinced that any other member in this place who has children or grandchildren wants to do the best to protect them from both becoming addicted and from coming into contact with people who are addicted and might become HIV contaminated or into needles. I have found needles in my garden in my residence in Ottawa. That is deeply troubling.

This is exactly why we need to set up these safe injection sites: so there is not a possibility that anyone in our community can come in touch with contaminated items. However, there is also the chance that any of our family members, our children, could end up becoming infected with hepatitis C or HIV because we do not have those injection sites for using drugs.

We must remember that it is not simply people lying in alleys who are injecting these drugs. Drug users are across society. Everyone needs a place to go that is confidential, where they can get assistance. Clearly, evidence from around the world and Canada says that drug injection sites are the best mechanism to reduce disease and to get people off drugs.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak today to oppose Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. As you are aware, this bill had been introduced as Bill C-65 at the end of the previous parliamentary session. It has now been reintroduced in its current form, as Bill C-2.

We are the only party to comment on the subject today. The NDP is the only party standing up to give a voice to the least fortunate in our society.

The Conservative government has missed a fine opportunity. It should have taken advantage of the House prorogation to consign this bill to oblivion. It is a thinly veiled attempt to stop supervised injection sites from operating, in direct defiance of a Supreme Court ruling on these sites.

The bill sets out a lengthy and arduous list of criteria that supervised injection sites would have to meet before the minister would grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These criteria will make it much harder for organizations to open supervised injection sites in Canada.

For new supervised injection sites, preparing the application would be so onerous that it would likely deter applicants from opening such a site. The department's representatives have told us that if an applicant were to accidentally forget to include any detail, the application would automatically be refused. Even if all the required documents were included with the application, and it has the full support of the community, the minister would still be able to refuse the application.

If the bill is passed, new applications will have to include the following: scientific evidence demonstrating a medical benefit; a letter from the ministers responsible for public health and safety, municipal governments, local police chiefs and senior public health officials; information about infectious diseases and overdoses related to the use of illicit substances; a description of the drug treatment services available at the public safety site; a description of the potential impact of the site on public safety; a description of the measures that would be taken to minimize the divergence of controlled substances; information on loitering in a public place that may be related to certain activities involving illicit substances, drug trafficking and crime in the vicinity of the site at the time of the application; a report of the consultations held with a broad range of community groups from the municipality, including copies of all written submissions received and a description of the steps that would be taken to address any relevant concerns.

Needless to say, drug addicts could die 15 times in that timeframe.

Some requests may also take forever for no good reason, which means groups could be kept waiting for months or even years. The bill mentions there will be a 90-day public consultation period when a group requests an exemption, but it does say how long it could take for Health Canada to process a request, or for the minister to reach a decision.

The bill also lays out principles that the minister will have to consider before accepting a request. These principles, stated in section 5, essentially list all reasons why a request could be rejected. I quote:

The Minister may only grant an exemption for a medical purpose under subsection (2) to allow certain activities to take place at a supervised consumption site in exceptional circumstances and after having considered the following principles:

(a) illicit substances may have serious health effects;

(b) adulterated controlled substances may pose health risks;

(c) the risks of overdose are inherent to the use of certain illicit substances;

(d) strict controls are required, given the inherent health risks associated with controlled substances that may alter mental processes;

(e) organized crime profits from the use of illicit substances; and

(f) criminal activity often results from the use of illicit substances.

I am not sure what kind of circus the Conservatives are living in, but they seem to act as if we were still in the 20th century, rather than fully in the 13th year of the 21st century.

I encourage them to open their eyes, and to see that drugs have infiltrated communities all across the country. I encourage them to put on new glasses, and to realize that Canada exports a lot of drugs, mainly to the U.S.

To back up that statement, I would like to quote from an article by Tom Godfrey published on the Canoe network on January 30, 2012. He said:

Canada has joined Colombia as a leading exporter of synthetic or designer drugs, flooding the global market on an almost unprecedented scale, police say. The RCMP have seized tonnes of illicit synthetic drugs that include Ecstasy and methamphetamine being shipped abroad after being “cooked” in make-shift labs in apartments, homes and businesses in the GTA.

Police are now seizing more chemicals and synthetic drugs, which they say is favoured by young people, at Canadian border checks rather than the traditional cocaine, heroin or hashish that officers call drugs of “a last generation”.

According to a Radio-Canada report broadcast on November 8, 2013, Colorado was about to legalize the free consumption of marijuana for all adults over 21. This is a North American first, and it is happening in a country that has always officially waged war on drugs, including cannabis. The state is unmistakably planning to legalize it, not decriminalize it. We are talking about recreational marijuana use, not medical use. This is unique, and Uruguay and Washington state will soon be doing it too.

Before wrapping up, I would like to talk about an experience I had. I was living with my two daughters in an apartment with a back alley. I frequently found needles in that alley. When the kids found needles, they gave them to us. That is why I would really have appreciated having a place in the community that I could have referred people to when they came to shoot up behind my apartment building.

When people are sick, they get care. When people are using drugs, they are sick and need care. That is why specialized care has been made available to help these people get the unique care they need. That is what Vancouver's InSite provides.

This is a deeply flawed bill based on anti-drug ideology and false fears for public safety. This is the latest attempt to rally the Conservative base. The Conservatives' “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign, launched just hours after Bill C-2 was introduced in Parliament, makes that very clear. That is what I call turning a blind eye.

This bill will make it practically impossible to open safe injection sites, which will put heroin back in our neighbourhoods. The Conservative government is increasing barriers to providing a service to those in need in a safe place, rather than in an alley where needles can be found by young children. There are many risks associated with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite that heroin is not the only drug that is injected with a needle. Certainly those needles that she finds could be from a drug other than heroin.

There are some other things I would like to bring forward before my question.

Injection sites do not provide drugs to those who are getting high. In fact, anyone who buys any form of heroin has to buy it from a street dealer, and that street dealer is promoting organized crime because that is the only place it comes from.

With that in mind, it seems to me as though what we are trying to do as a government is to ensure that communities have an input into what they want. What I understand from the member is that the intent of the NDP is to oppose this bill from the perspective that its members do not believe that a consultation needs to take place. Furthermore, given the comments from the member who spoke previously, are they insinuating as well that heroin could be dispensed from an injection site?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is important about injection sites is that they provide needles with which drug users can inject the drugs they have brought with them themselves. After the needles are used, they are not thrown on the ground. This protects our children. It is extremely important. As I said in my speech, I have found needles in the street. It is important that this does not happen.

These people no longer have enough sense of responsibility not to throw needles in the streets. They do not want to be caught with a used needle. It is thus very important to promote the creation of these sites across Canada. Denis Coderre wrote an article that supports my position. He says that he is in favour of supervised injection sites. Drugs are a problem. We cannot just turn a blind eye. The problem is there and we have to take action to help those affected.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she thinks about the Conservatives, who pride themselves on showing no mercy to anybody who is not one of their own. They stand and talk about being tough on crime and how much they oppose illegal drugs, yet they tiptoe around the disgrace in Toronto of Rob Ford, a man who promotes his ties to gangs, a man who takes illegal drugs, a man who takes crack. We do not hear anyone on the Conservative side saying that the mayor of one of the largest cities in North America is an absolute disgrace and needs to resign.

Meanwhile, they want to go after something that has been examined by medical authorities across North America and that has been supported by the Supreme Court. They will do fundraising efforts on that.

I would ask my hon. colleague why she thinks they are not doing fundraising letters on Rob Ford, the crack mayor who has disgraced North America? Why are they not saying that they are going to be tough on him? He is one of their friends. He is one of their own. They will protect their own, no matter what kind of criminal activity they are involved in.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague on this.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I too think that if the government were this tough on people like Mr. Ford, he would no longer be where he is. The Conservatives are tougher on petty criminals and ordinary people, those who are addicted to drugs and who throw their used needles everywhere.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay—Columbia asked a question earlier on with respect to why we would not allow the community to make decisions based upon its interpretation of the bill.

If we look at InSite in Vancouver, we see that it was set up through community consultation with health care professionals and the police. I know the member is a former RCMP officer. It was set up in consultation with the community, yet the Conservatives wanted to shut it down in 2008.

How would my colleague reply to that?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have rarely seen a bill that contains so many rules and that requires that such a strong case be made when an application is submitted. It is unbelievable. All this is being done to deter supervised injection sites from being opened. This is an ideological position. The Conservatives do not want supervised injection sites because injection means drugs. However, drugs are everywhere. We cannot ignore that fact. They are even in small towns. Everyone knows it. Many people have children and friends who struggle with this problem. Drugs are everywhere. We have to help people help themselves and help ease their suffering.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I asked for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2 today because it is a piece of legislation that has to be called out. It has to be exposed. We have to tell the Canadian people what is really going on in the Parliament of Canada and what is driving and motivating the type of legislation being put forward by the Conservative Party, the ruling party.

I should say at the outset that Bill C-2, the bill that is supposedly entitled “an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act”, should really be called “an act to raise money through fearmongering act”, because within hours of Bill C-2 being tabled in the House of Commons, a blitz, a flurry, of fundraising letters went out across the country under the title “Keep heroin out of our backyards”.

Imagine the cynicism of introducing legislation that is not based on evidence, reason, logic, science, or public health. Not one of those factors enters into this whatsoever. The fact is, the Conservatives are running out of red meat to throw to their base. They do not have the gun registry to milk anymore. I am amazed that they killed the goose that laid the golden egg on the gun registry. That used to be how they bankrolled the whole darn party, really, their war room and everything.

The hon. member across is probably wanting to say that we do not have the Canadian Wheat Board to slap around anymore. No, the Conservatives cannot milk that one anymore either. That was a good one. They milked that one for years, calling it marketing freedom. I always called it the freedom to sell grain for less.

We should label these bills a little more honesty, really. The keep heroin out of our backyards fundraising campaign started just hours after the bill was tabled. Sometimes it is the same minute that the bill is tabled that the fundraising letters start blitzing out. It makes us wonder who is paying for some of the mailing, because I know a lot of this messaging is paid for by the taxpayer.

In my own riding, 10 Conservative members of Parliament have been carpet bombing my riding with their propaganda and their literature, followed up immediately with a fundraising letter from the party. The Conservatives plant the seed on the taxpayer's dime, putting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of letters into my riding on a regular basis, and then they pay for the postage stamp for the follow-up letter that asks for money based on the taxpayer-funded literature that just arrived.

Is that legal? I do not think it is. I think it is an abuse. At the very least, it is an abuse.

When the Prime Minister's Office is being investigated for high crimes and misdemeanours, let us summarize some of the abuse of privileges, mailing privileges being one. With the Prime Minister's Office being investigated for bribery, breach of trust, fraud, and obstruction of justice, we could add contempt of Parliament to that sordid list. We could add abusing the taxpayers' dollars by misusing the mailing privileges of members of Parliament to another one.

But I digress. I want to speak to the substance of the bill in a serious way.

I might be one of the few people in the House who have actually toured the InSite safe injection site in Vancouver, although I know quite a few of our NDP members have, in fact. I doubt that very many members on the Conservative side ever have, because they would not be able to say with a straight face that there is any evidence in the way they have been arguing in the keeping heroin out of our backyard fundraising drive. That is because if they did canvass the community of the Downtown Eastside, they would find it is overwhelmingly supportive. If they canvassed ordinary Vancouverites, they would find the site is overwhelmingly supported. There is no NIMBY, not in my backyard, associated with InSite, yet we have a whole piece of legislation that is crafted specifically to undermine the Supreme Court ruling and shut down one public health facility in downtown Vancouver. It is another spurious, wasteful use of the taxpayer's dime to have Parliament seized of the issue in order to get revenge for the Conservatives losing a Supreme Court ruling on the veracity, the use, and the efficacy of the InSite safe injection site in downtown Vancouver.

One of the problems is that the mindset of the Conservatives is that substance abuse and addiction are somehow a criminal justice issue. They are not. They are health issues and they should be treated as public health concerns.

One of the other problems that I do not think a lot of the people who introduced this bill realize is that if we are going to help someone who has a substance or addiction problem, we need to reach them and have the supports available and concentrated for when that person is ready.

I had an example in my own office recently. My riding has some serious issues, not unlike the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver. There was a young sex trade worker who worked up and down the street on Sargent Avenue, where my office is. One time, she came into our office, clearly jangled on what we believe was crack cocaine. She wanted to make a change to her life. She said she had had it and she wanted to get off the streets. She wanted help and she wanted to clean up.

We got on the phone to try to help her, but we could not find a bed for her. We could not find any place to refer her. We cannot tell addicts that we are glad they want to clean up, but to come back in six weeks when we will have a bed for them. It does not work that way.

One of the magic things about InSite is the Onsite, which is eight floors above. There are rooms. They are clean, safe, detox-assisted rooms where an addict can literally be using the safe injection site on the main floor one minute, speak to a counsellor or social worker that very moment and then be referred to the detox centre, where they dry out in the rehabilitation program in the same building at the same time.

The success rate is evident. The empirical evidence exists that InSite saves lives and helps people get off drugs, because we can have access to them to offer the services that they need to clean up their lives. Unlike the situation with the woman in Winnipeg, where there was no room available. InSite/Onsite/apartment hotel services are a whole campus of support mechanisms, concentrated right where they are needed.

In this fearmongering and fundraising campaign about keeping heroin out of our backyards, one of the pieces of literature that the Conservatives are bombing into my riding, misusing their MPs' mailing privileges, has a picture of a guy sneaking in a bedroom window with a knife. It is as if this junkie is going to kill us in the night with his knife if we do not vote Conservative and only the Conservatives can help protect us from the junkie who is going to creep into our bedroom windows. That is how cynical this messaging is. They build up a straw man and then try to convince people that this straw man is going to hurt them, and say that the Conservative Party is the only one that can protect them from this imaginary straw man.

That is what the Conservatives are doing with this legislation. They are trying to imply that if the bill does not pass and if we do not somehow overturn the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling, we are going to have junkies in our backyards shooting up heroin. That is really what the message is when we strip it down to its actual substance. The Supreme Court ruling showed great wisdom and it is a shame that it had to go that far.

InSite opened in 2003 and started showing improvements immediately. There used to be 12 people a year dying from an overdose in the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver. That has changed dramatically. Communicable diseases are way down in terms of people using dirty needles and sharing hepatitis C, or even worse, HIV-AIDS. These things are being treated with a common sense approach.

People were supportive. The Supreme Court of Canada was supportive. The Conservatives are sore losers, so they are again abusing the arbitrary and absolute power that they have by not showing any respect for Parliament to ram this through. At least show some respect for the Supreme Court of Canada, which has spoken recently on this subject.

Bill C-2 should go down in flames. The Conservatives should apologize for the fundraising campaign where they are trying to milk the public by fearmongering.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member. I think he knows and is refusing to admit that in my riding, I received fundraising letters from the NDP, including the late Jack Layton, that came in government envelopes, obviously paid for by the taxpayers. I know the member supported that blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. Would he like to see that evidence? I have saved it.

For my second question, and I am not sure that I totally disagree with the member, if heroin addiction is, in fact, a health matter and not something that should be a legislative matter, why are he and his party putting forward legislation against salt? Why is the NDP so soft on crime, soft on heroin and tough on potato chips?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague would like to see a copy of some of the literature that his colleagues are bombarding my riding with. Here is one that is signed by 10 individual members of Parliament, all from Manitoba, who I guess are pooling their mailing privileges, which I thought was something we did away with. I thought the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy prohibited this.

I hope my colleague is listening. The worst thing about it is that New Democrats believe that they are mining the Revenue Canada database to get this information. I will give an example.

A guy who works in my office received one of these letters in his mother's name. His mother only lived in his house for four months before she passed away. He filed her taxes from that address just once, and guess what? She got a personalized letter from the Conservative Party in her name at that address. Nobody in the Conservative Party should have known that Mrs. Morrison passed away living on Dominion Street. No one knew she was in that house. She was only there the last four months she was alive. How did the Conservatives find out?

Another one went to the Theule family. How did the Conservatives know? When anybody turns 18, they can change the personalized letter. It says, “Dear Gerrit and Jennifer”. Gerrit just turned 18. How do they know these things? They are misusing their mailing privileges by bombarding my riding under the signatures of Vic Toews, Merv Tweed, and eight others.

[An hon. member]

There is a crook.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The only guy that has ever been convicted of electoral fraud in the Parliament of Canada is writing letters to my constituents on Government of Canada stationery and postage. It is wrong.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. If members want to carry on a conversation about this, they can do so outside the chamber.

I would also remind all hon. members that questions and comments ought to relate to the matter that is before the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Winnipeg Centre; his articulate and heartfelt speech focused on issues that are dear to Canadians. The benefits of supervised injection sites and their positive impact on communities are known across the world.

The Conservatives have launched a campaign with the slogan “keep heroin out of our backyards”. Furthermore, it does not take an MBA or a medical background to see that, with Bill C-2, the Conservatives are doing everything they can, not only to stop new supervised injection sites from opening, but also to shut down the Vancouver site.

Would this not bring heroin back to our doorstep, our parks and our neighbourhoods?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her particular insight into this situation. Excuse the pun. I know that as a medical practitioner, she has first-hand experience in observing ways of treating addiction that show results and ways that do not. New Democrats made the distinction early on in our remarks that addiction and substance abuse is a health issue and should be treated as such, not a criminal justice issue.

Even Conrad Black, who I usually do not pay a lot of attention to, said that when he was serving time in an American prison for his fraud charges, 80% of the prisoners he was in there with did not belong in jail; they belonged in a rehabilitation or detox centre for their substance abuse issues. He said it was how they got there, they were not being treated there and they would be back in again because their health issues would still be a factor.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am very glad to be rising to speak to the bill, but I am speaking with a sense of sadness. This is the level to which the current government is descending in terms of its misrepresentation of facts, its willingness to leave people basically out on the streets to die and of course to play political games, attacking the Supreme Court, attacking the peer-reviewed medical communities and attacking medical authorities so it can make a few bucks for its Conservative war machine.

Twenty-five years ago, I spent a number of years working on the streets of the east end of Toronto in Riverdale. Twenty-five years later, my oldest daughter is back in the east end of Toronto working with the homeless. We sit down and talk. She was born in a house that we were running, taking in men coming out of prison and taking in addicts. Having a child in that house did marvels for restoring a sense of community and of helping to heal people. We have had people who came through that house who went on to live wonderful lives. I think of my dear friend Pierre, a lifelong heroin addict whom we managed to get out of prison and who ended up becoming the adopted grandfather of my children. He lived with us until he died in his 70s. That would not have been possible if there had not been opportunities in place to get him off the streets.

Twenty-five years later, my daughter is back working on the streets of Toronto. I would like to say that things are better, but they are not. Things have deteriorated, as far as I can see. We talk about the causes. Of course, many of the causes are sitting over on the front bench of the Conservative Party. They are all the former Mike Harris thugs, who are now in the House of Commons, who stripped social housing programs. Previously we could get men and women off the streets and into subsidized housing, but that is disappearing, particularly in Toronto centre, where we see more and more condos going up and more and more of the poor being put out onto the streets. We see the lack of health supports for these people on the streets. I talk with my daughter about the issue of addiction and what she faces with the people coming through.

In contrast to the Conservative Party and its dumbed-down attack machine that likes to show people the junkie sneaking through the child's bedroom window so they will give them some money so that the Prime Minister, whose office is under investigation for all manner of criminal activities, can defend them, what we see with junkies and addicts is a cross-section of society. What we are here to discuss today is not ideology. We are here to discuss the Supreme Court, to discuss the support of the Canadian Medical Association and peer-reviewed studies. This is on our side of the House. On their side is a cynical attempt to make money off the Conservative base with their expression “keep heroin out of our backyards”.

If we look at the evidence, we find that if we do not have a way of dealing with these street drugs, it will be in our backyards. When it is pushed underground, that is where we see the crime and the break-ins, and this is where we see the long-term effects. It is not just the overdoses and the deaths, but the hepatitis, HIV, and the other blood-related diseases that end up destroying people, sometimes who sober up and then many years later start to die from liver ailments and other problems that have been caused because they were not dealt with properly when they were on the street.

I would like to say this for the Conservatives who live in this fairy bubble that it is the 1950s: the drugs are in their communities. It is the fentanyl patches that young people are getting caught up in. It is the OxyContin addictions that went across our communities when they were over-prescribed by the medical authorities. It is the meth. These are drugs that are cutting across all manner of society. As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre said, when you see the people who ask, who try to break the cycle of addiction, try getting them a bed in rehab, try getting them the support they need. If it is not there, the cycle becomes worse, and it becomes a cycle of crime.

What we need to do here is to put this in context. The Supreme Court called on the current government and laid down very clear rules for when there would be an injection site.

I personally have many problems with anyone using heroin under any circumstance. I find it is an anathema. However, what was agreed upon was that there had to be a way of constraining this to limit the damage. Therefore it is done with the community. It is done with proper oversight. It is done with support so that somehow these people can get off the addictions.

As they say in the 12-step program, and I spent many days at Alcoholics Anonymous with the men coming out of prison, to get them sobered up, there but for the grace of God go I. People who find themselves in this situation are not born to be criminals. They have medical problems that hit them, and it takes over their lives.

I will also say, having dealt with the Toronto police 25 years ago, and in talking with my daughter, who deals with the Toronto police today, that too often the police in Toronto, and in other cities as well, are the front line social and health care workers. They are the ones dealing with people who are in this crisis. It is a waste of their resources and a waste of our resources.

Do I believe that heroin needs to be stopped on the streets? I would do anything to stop heroin on the streets. However, to simply turn it into a fundraising tactic for the Conservative base is a complete abdication of the role of Parliament, which is to find out the best ways to limit the damage and start moving toward constructive solutions so that we can bring people out of the depths of addiction.

I would like to point out that my colleagues in the Conservative Party pride themselves on their lack of mercy. It seems to be their hallmark. They have zero tolerance for anyone. They love throwing people in jail. They love standing up on the back bench on any given day railing against the little punk who took the old lady's purse. However, when it comes to defending their own, oh my God, they have arms so wide they could fit around Rob Ford. That is how much they are willing to defend their own.

Here we have one of their close friends, a man who is a thug, who has disgraced a public office in this country and around the world, who has turned our nation into a laughingstock with his egregious use of crack cocaine, of all things, who was hanging out with drug dealers and criminal elements, and who is under investigation by the Toronto police.

We do not hear a peep out of anybody on that back bench. Oh, no, he is one of theirs. He is one of their pals. When we have the mayor of Toronto, the fourth-largest city in North America, the economic engine of Ontario, a mayor who has turned city hall into something that looks like a Hells Angels hangout, we hear nothing from over there. Oh, no, he is one of their boys.

The Prime Minister said that he was slightly concerned. The Minister of Health, who is helping to rally the troops to go after the poor addicts in downtown Vancouver, has so much concern for Rob Ford. Oh, my God. Then the Minister of Finance was tearing up about this thug. Poor little Robbie; he is one of our boys.

The Conservatives have no mercy for anybody else, but when it is one of theirs, like those in their office, like their senators under investigation for breach of trust, under investigation for fraud and bribery, they say that the Prime Minister cannot be held accountable; everybody else is accountable.

When we ask the Conservatives questions, we have to ask the Rob Ford kind of question: “Are you smoking crack right now? Did you smoke crack yesterday at three o'clock”?

You see how the Conservatives cannot stand up and be accountable.

This bill being brought forward by the government is an attack on the Supreme Court. It is an attack on attempts to save lives. It is being done not because the Conservatives really care about what happens to the junkies in downtown Montreal or Vancouver. It is so they can make a few bucks from their base. That is as dismal a political standard as I have ever seen in this country.

We will continue to stand up for smart policies, not dumbed-down policies. We will continue to oppose the government. It is mired in corruption and mired in criminal activity and would prefer to hang out with its Conservative gang members while going after victims on the street.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member intently. I would like to maybe educate him a little bit with regard to the use of heroin in my three years of drug work.

First, when people buy heroin, they trust the dealer they are getting it from. They trust that the percentage of heroin they are getting is actually not going to harm them. They know how much they need to take to get high.

The fact of the matter is that dealers, from time to time, like to play a game. They like to increase the amount of heroin in the point, just to watch someone overdose. I have seen that personally. It is not fun by any stretch of the imagination. I have watched people inject into places they should not be injecting into. The fact of the matter is that an injection site is not going to solve that. Everyone should know that.

My question to the member is this: if he is so intent on having injection sites to ensure that people inject safely, should we also ensure that the heroin is there so the amount these people can inject is controlled? What does the member have to say about that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know a fair bit about heroin overdoses, having dealt with them on the streets of Toronto.

I would say that my hon. colleague, with all due respect, misrepresents or maybe misunderstands. The dealers do not try to get a kick out of watching someone overdose. What happens is that when new heroin comes out on the street that is of higher quality than is expected, that is when overdoses happen.

What my hon. colleague is suggesting as a medical solution is to let them go and die in an alleyway. That is the Conservatives' solution. What about the people on the fentanyl patch? We have seen those addictions. My hon. colleague is saying to let them go die in an alleyway.

What the Supreme Court and the medical authorities are saying is that this is happening now. That is the Conservatives' position: let them go die in an alleyway. It is happening now.

What we have seen in Vancouver is that by going into a safe site, medical authorities can watch them. I notice that on the other side nobody has talked about the fact that in Vancouver, there have been fewer deaths. The number of deaths has dropped substantially. However, they would rather play to their Conservative base and say, “let the junkies die in the alleyway”.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in this House for the last year watching the Senate scandal unfold. I hear the Prime Minister speak every single day saying that the facts are crystal clear. If the facts are so clear, why do we keep asking the questions?

This is like when one tells their kids to clean their rooms. Six weeks later, we tell them to clean up their rooms. The fact is, the room has not been cleaned, and that is why we keep telling the kids to clean up their rooms.

The facts are very clear. The facts are on the side of researchers, public safety officials, and health officials. They see a benefit in having InSite in various communities.

Is this bill based on ideology or facts?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this is an attempt to undermine the work of the Supreme Court, which laid out a clear test for what should be an InSite site. Our colleagues on the other side would misrepresent the facts so that they can make some bucks off their base.

I look at a government that promised that it would bring ethical standards. What do I see? I see the unprecedented situation of an RCMP investigation into the office of the Prime Minister. I saw 80 pages yesterday of police testimony that said again and again that it was the office of the Prime Minister that was interfering with an audit in the Senate. This audit was about the defrauding of the taxpayers of the country. Senator Gerstein, Senator Olsen, Senator Tkachuk, Pat Rogers, and Benjamin Perrin, who is the personal lawyer for the Prime Minister, were involved. Their names are there.

We are talking about attempting to whitewash fraud against the taxpayers. This is the Conservatives' idea of good representation. It is criminal behaviour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a brief comment. It is curious that no Conservatives decided to rise to debate this bill. Is it because they realized that it is indefensible? I wonder why they decided to remain silent. I hope that one of my hon. colleagues on the other side of this House will be able to answer this question. I still have a few nagging doubts, though, because they do not have many arguments to use to defend their position.

That being said, this issue of public safety must go much further. We must ask ourselves some questions here: what is a government? What is a government for? What is the purpose of the Parliament that I am part of right now?

Its purpose is to serve Canadians. Its purpose is to help vulnerable people who unfortunately have not been as lucky as we have been.

What is a government for? It must do what it can to help the people who have unfortunately fallen into the vicious cycle of drugs at some point in their life. You can try to justify the situation or blame it on a number of things, but the fact is that this situation must be resolved and it is through initiatives of this kind that a government ensures that the most vulnerable people are able to recover.

A number of members have been in this House longer than I have, and I would have hoped for better from them. Why did we become members of Parliament? It is because fundamentally, deep in our hearts, we thought that we could hold out a helping hand to people in dreadful situations and that we could help them out. I am sorry, and far be it from me to lecture my colleagues about morality, but I believe a good member of Parliament must know the difference between the common good and his or her own personal opinions.

Every person in this House has personal opinions. We have opinions about abortion—we know, that debate is not going to be reopened—and about this kind of situation, the drug situation. That is okay. That is good. That is what makes us human beings.

We have values, principles and personal opinions. However, we are here as representatives of the people, and we make up a House of Commons. We do say “commons”, and I would like to point out that in the past the House was for the common people, the people representing the people. We are here today because we are the representatives of the people. Our values and our personal opinions are not any more important than the common good.

Working towards the common good begins precisely by recognizing that supervised injection sites not only contribute to public safety and help ensure that children, women and families are safer, but also help people overcome completely intolerable situations.

Why would the government, whose fundamental role is to ensure the safety of Canadians, while at the same time helping vulnerable people in extremely difficult situations, refuse to take on this role? I cannot express how disappointed I am right now that I have to make this speech to say that the public safety of Canadians is more important than mere political ideologies.

The Conservatives are trying to make us believe that supervised injection sites, which are internationally recognized as being beneficial to public safety for having reduced the number of deaths and crime rates, will not benefit Canadians. I am truly disappointed.

We know that the minister decided to give preliminary authorization to InSite on a trial basis.

Why would the minister want to give this kind of exemption if not to make it possible to conduct impact studies, to see if it works? Now that we know that this site has reduced the crime rate and the number of deaths, in addition to making the streets safer, why is it not being granted a second exemption?

The inherent role of Parliament is to provide assistance to vulnerable people. 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.

The Supreme Court stated, and I quote:

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 an inherent duty to ensure that people get help. In 2008, Health Canada published a report indicating that since 2006, InSite had intervened in 336 overdoses and there were no deaths. This means that that site is saving the lives of Canadians. I cannot believe that a Conservative member can stand here today and say that this kind of site has no purpose. If it saves just one life, this kind of site has a purpose. Unfortunately, the government cannot say that this is not in the interest of Canadians. The government has a role to play in saving lives, making our streets safer and helping vulnerable people get by. It should not be standing in the way.

Based on observations made six weeks before and 12 weeks after InSite opened, the number of people injecting drugs in public had decreased. All the municipalities agree that this kind of site reduces crime. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has shown that injection sites reach out to vulnerable groups, are accepted by all communities and help improve the health of drug users and even 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. I am repeating this because it is very important. This site has actually decreased drug use. Is that not what the Conservatives want—to reduce crime, make our streets safer, and most of all, decrease drug use? These sites exist all over the world and experts everywhere approve.

For example, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have all said that these types of sites have positive outcomes. The Supreme Court also said that these sites are in the inherent interest of Canadians' security of the person and life.

I urge the Conservatives to understand that the role of Parliament is not to champion an ideology, but to open its heart to Canadians and help them. If we save even one life, the government cannot say that these sites are useless and serve no purpose. Canadian lives have been saved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way. I very much appreciate her passion.

When I was in college, I worked at a free clinic in downtown Toronto, and we dealt with everything from prostitutes who were beaten up and needed stitching, et cetera, to many types of addictions. Heroin is not the only addiction that causes physical and social problems. There are, of course, alcoholics and sex or gambling addicts. There are many other types of addictions.

If the NDP wants to go toward free clinics for injecting heroin for addicts and perhaps toward sex clinics and gambling clinics, or maybe for alcoholics there would be a place to get some free drinks, which I think we tried in the past, if the NDP wants to provide better access to those kinds of things, we think the community should have a say. That is the democratic way. Why is the NDP so soft on crime, so soft on heroin, and so tough on potato chips?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am truly saddened to have to reply to such an absurd question. As I just said, the inherent role of a government is to help people. Experts agree that this type of site has merit, works and helps people with a heroin addiction as well as other problems. We know that people who take drugs often have other problems. They have psychological or mental health problems. Experts say that these sites have been proven to save lives. People have been saved from the sort of lifestyle that goes with drug addiction and many types of problems. These people have gone to get help and their lives have been saved. I am disappointed to hear the member say that we are soft on crime and tough on potato chips. That is really ridiculous. Lives have been saved. I am disappointed to hear the minister say that we are soft on crime. Lives have been saved. To say that the NDP is soft on crime is completely absurd. We are talking about saving lives. We are not talking about criminals, we are talking about people with health issues. Lives have been saved and we must remember that. I am sorry, but the Conservative ideology should not stand in the way of saving lives.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I also listened to the hon. member for Cambridge, and all I can say is, “God help us”. With that sort of attitude, we are in serious trouble. When a member of the government, like the one who just spoke, tells us that the problem comes from the fact that we are soft on crime, it makes an extremely important point. It shows that this government has absolutely no sympathy for those who are struggling with addictions. Its response is basically to say that if people have that problem, then it is their own fault and the government is not going to do anything to help. This government is not capable of showing compassion for those less fortunate than us. I would like to ask my NDP colleague this question: how can we hope to change such an attitude?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I knew, I would make sure that the Conservatives could see all the shoddy work they have done over the years and all the work that still needs to be done and has needed to be done for a long time.

I would like to say that all the municipalities, such as Montreal and Vancouver, agree that this type of site will help people. Contrary to what my colleague might say, these people are not necessarily less fortunate; they likely have mental health problems. These people are suffering from depression and need help. The government's role is to help these people, not criminalize them. The government should not be saying that, unfortunately, it is people's own fault if they take drugs. As I was saying, according to a 2006 report, over 2,100 people sought help at InSite over the course of a year and managed to overcome their addiction. The government cannot divest itself of its responsibility to help people. We are here to save lives. Unfortunately, on the government side, no member has risen to defend his or her position. That is because it is indefensible.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how shameful it is that the Conservatives are not standing up to take part in the debate on Bill C-2. As my colleague just pointed out, their position is indefensible.

This is an important debate about saving lives by giving people in need access to care and referrals to drug treatment options. This debate is about a very important public health and public safety issue: setting up supervised injection sites.

I would like to begin my speech with some quotes from a feasibility study for such a site in Montreal. The study was conducted in 2011 by the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal. The tone and the word choices paint a very accurate picture of what supervised injection sites do:

Supervised injection services are medical and nursing services provided in response to addiction, which is a disease. In countries where these services are legal, they are offered in places where injection drug users can inject drugs they bring in themselves in a clean and safe environment, under the supervision of qualified medical, nursing and psychosocial staff.

What are the goals of these sites? I quote:

...to help prevent diseases and deaths among people who inject drugs, and to reduce social inequalities in health that affect one of society's most vulnerable groups.

Earlier, members talked about compassion and helping people who need resources and tools. That is what the government should be doing, but the Conservatives either do not understand or they have decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.

Anyone who wants to understand what supervised injection sites do has to understand what drug addiction is and what patients suffering from the disease go through. It just so happens that drug addicts consume substances deemed illegal, but they are still people with a disease. More than anything else, they need help.

Any government that cannot understand that basic need for care and help cannot create public health legislation. Unfortunately, that is what is happening now with Bill C-2.

This bill is the result of the Conservatives' ideological war against drug addicts. It is not based on science or facts, but rather on ignorance and fear. Earlier we were accused of being soft on crime and soft on heroin. On the contrary, supervised injection sites provide a safe, secure and supervised place for users, while the Conservatives would rather send all these people into the streets, with no resources and without any chance of being referred to health care professionals.

The New Democrats cannot help but be opposed to this witch hunt. This is not the Middle Ages. This is a modern, advanced society with experts who can help the people who need help.

The Conservatives' war on the InSite supervised injection site in Vancouver and others has been going on for years. In 2003 InSite received an exemption to operate for medical and scientific purposes under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. More than 30 scientific studies have confirmed that InSite has positive effects on patients and public health.

In Europe and Australia, 70 similar injection sites have seen the same positive results. I do not know what other evidence the Conservatives need. There have been 30 scientific studies on 70 sites around the world.

In 2008, when the site had been operating successfully for five years, the Conservative government set out on a crusade against InSite. It refused to renew the site's exemption and spent thousands of dollars in court, but every court ruled in favour of the medical centre.

The B.C. Supreme Court, the B.C. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada all said that the centre should remain open. The Supreme Court was very clear: the minister's decision to close InSite violated the charter rights of the centre's clients. Here is what the court had to say about the decision:

It is arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety.

Who is soft on crime? I do not think those of us on this side of the House are. This quote was from the Supreme Court of Canada.

With Bill C-2, the government sets out the new criteria to establish a supervised injection site. Some of these criteria are reasonable, but others seem to indicate that the government will use this legislation to close such sites. Moreover, the sheer number of criteria is enough to deter people from launching a project before they even begin. The number of criteria is really high.

These criteria are basically new ammunition for the Conservatives' ideological war against addicts. This is also a way to shape people's minds through fear. Bill C-2 requires proof of the project's acceptability to the community. That is fine. However, this will have to be done with all the necessary medical and psychosocial information. When people are well informed, they support such initiatives.

However, I suspect that the government will once again resort to ignorance and fear, rather than education and public health. How can we trust it when it has been fighting for years to close InSite, a decision that flies in the face of the Supreme Court's position? Did the government even read the scientific studies confirming the results achieved with these supervised injection sites? People who use these sites are almost twice as likely to enter a detox program.

There is a significant drop in the number of discarded needles on the streets. As I mentioned, there are fewer people shooting up on the streets. There is less crime and less violence. Consequently, there should be less fear about the Conservatives' claims whenever they talk about heroin on the streets.

The drop in needle sharing reduces the transmission of HIV-AIDS. More importantly, supervised injection sites help improve the health of people who use them and lower the number of overdose deaths. Even though people's lives are at stake and studies show that crime decreases, the Conservatives deny this and only talk about crime.

This approach is pragmatic and humane. It is based on compassion for people with addictions and respect for their rights, including their right to life and their right to be treated like any other citizen. This medical approach has proven effective, unlike the coercive and repressive approach proposed by the Conservative government.

Repression has only had negative and deplorable effects for decades. Criminalizing drug use gives power to the Mafia and street gangs. We must talk about both public health and public safety because they go hand in hand. By criminalizing substance abuse, we force people struggling with this problem to live on the margins of society. By contrast, if we treat them, we help them overcome their addictions. Fewer drug users also means less crime and less power for the underworld.

Would we rather focus on medical science or ignorance, on compassion or fear? What moral values do we want to teach our children? Do we want to teach them to pass judgment on a sick individual or to help that person? Do we want to base our judgments on facts or ideology?

Canada is held up as an example for its universal health care system. Our system is based on respect for universal rights, including the right to life, health and safety. By restricting access to supervised injection sites, the government is denying patients their right to be treated and receive care. This is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Supervised injection sites that have done well work with the community. That is the case with Vancouver's InSite. Effective mechanisms are put in place to promote cohabitation, patients must comply with a code of conduct and the site co-operates with the police, the public and various community organizations.

The Conservatives should be ashamed of inciting public fear and making up information that is not based on scientific data or studies. Instead, they should look at the studies and the Supreme Court decision supporting an exemption for a facility such as InSite.

They should co-operate with the opposition parties, with the NDP, which feels that policies should be based on facts, not ideologies. Crime reduction programs, including supervised injection sites, should be evaluated based on their ability to improve public health and safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely off base on some of her comments.

I appreciate the heckling from the opposite side. I participate in that myself, so I thank those members for balancing it out.

The bill would require organizations to submit the scientific evidence that would demonstrate the benefit of the site in their area. It would require that to happen, so the member is wrong on that.

However, the question ultimately comes down to why the member opposes parents in communities having a say on whether an injection site should be put up where their children play. That is a simple question. Would you not want to have your opinion heard for your children's safety?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we go to the answer, I just remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it deplorable to see the Conservatives' patronizing attitude toward other MPs, considering we are here to advance the debate by relying on studies and scientific facts.

Here are some facts for the hon. member. Thirty peer-reviewed studies, published in journals like The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, describe the positive impact of these sites. The member talked about people in the community having a say in the process. The fact is that 80% of respondents living or working in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, where InSite is located, support this initiative.

The legislation should be based on facts, and there are many. I am going to mention a few. The rate of overdose deaths in Vancouver East has fallen by 35% since InSite opened. In one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addiction counselling or other support services. The number of people enrolling in a detox program is 1.7 times higher.

Therefore, there are many benefits. Thanks to the expert staff supervising InSite users, there are even people who survive overdoses.

The benefits can be quantified. They are based on scientific facts. It is all there. Even the Supreme Court invalidated the decision by the Conservatives, who were opposed to supervised injection sites.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, who gave a compelling, fact-based speech. The facts show that supervised injection sites save lives, help people, allow people to take care of themselves and get off drugs. These people are sick, suffering from addiction.

I can scarcely believe that the Conservatives have managed such a feat with Bill C-2. They have managed to challenge the Supreme Court, the scientific community, doctors and nurses and ignore international proof, all with a single bill. My hat goes off to them.

I would like my colleague to tell us how these sites protect the community. Thanks to centres such as InSite, fewer people will be shooting up in back alleys and parks. Our children will be less likely to come across dirty needles.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He has identified all of the Conservatives' contradictions and inconsistencies regarding this bill, which has not been researched at all. It is simply based on an ideology governed by fear and that neglects to inform people about the benefits of these sites.

The sites are supervised by experts, whether doctors, nurses or people who provide psychosocial support. They ensure that the people there receive care. These people often come looking for help, and a relationship of trust needs to be developed. That can sometimes be subtle. They need help.

It means that fewer needles are left on the streets and the fewer people are struggling with problems of violence. That has all been documented. We have numbers to back that up, and we have been referring to them all day. I do not know what it will take for the Conservatives to make an informed decision and consult people in the future.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to today's debate on Bill C-2, which I would have entitled the “not in my backyard” bill.

The Conservatives’ ideology is to always be sure to try and hide what they regard as neither fine nor good. It makes me think of those countries that are named hosts of the Olympic games and, at some point, decide that when the foreigners are about to arrive, it will be time to clear the area around the games site of the homeless and all those who, in the authorities’ opinion, would not reflect a good image of the country.

However we must not bury our heads in the sand, as a member of the Quebec National Assembly has said. It is a fact, however, that people do play the ostrich. In vain we put on rose-coloured glasses, in vain we try to build a wall of silence around problems of health, homelessness, substance abuse and so on: the fact remains that these things exist.

The InSite centre was created to help people who are dealing with substance abuse problems, not to be a place of debauchery. To listen to the Conservative members’ speeches since the start of this debate, one would think that the latter was true.

However, as my colleague just said, the courts that have considered this issue have been very clear.

First of all, the British Columbia Court of Appeal declared in 2010 that this was a medical centre falling under provincial jurisdiction. The matter should have been settled there: it had been put to rest. The province, the local authorities and the people familiar with the issue who work in the health field know what to do and what is good for their population. The City of Vancouver and the Government of British Columbia had decided that the supervised injection site had its place and its usefulness, as has since been demonstrated.

The Conservative government just cannot accept this. It is now bringing forward a bill that sets a whole pile of conditions. I think there are 26 in total. The purpose behind this, and it is certainly no secret, is to effectively shut down InSite and prevent other sites from opening.

I will talk a bit later about Montreal, for example, in Quebec. Indeed, the new mayor, Mr. Coderre, said during his campaign that this was a pressing public health and safety issue, and that he was considering at least creating an agency to discuss the issue more thoroughly and move forward with plans for a supervised injection site. I never thought I would be quoting him in a good way; no, I am just joking.

A Supreme Court decision followed in 2011, as the federal government had appealed the ruling of the B.C. Court of Appeal.

This was clear to the Supreme Court:

It is a strictly regulated health facility, and its personnel are guided by strict policies and procedures. It does not provide drugs to its clients, who must check in, sign a waiver, and are closely monitored during and after injection...The experiment has proven successful.

The Supreme Court also stated the following:

The Minister’s decision, but for the trial judge’s interim order, would have prevented injection drug users from accessing the health services offered by InSite, threatening their health and indeed their lives.

I think that this is very clear and very far from the horror stories we heard earlier from the Conservative minister. He would have us believe that supervised injection sites are located in residential neighbourhoods right next to daycares. According to him, these sites hold open houses every Sunday afternoon after church, so that small children can visit, play with needles and mingle with people who are, as they say, unsavoury. Obviously, this is not at all how these sites operate.

Bill C-2, with its 26 conditions, requires obtaining the approval of a city’s police service, first responders and mayor. There is nothing wrong about this on the surface, because we tend to think that nobody can be against social acceptance.

However, the InSite centre in British Columbia is socially acceptable because the provincial government, the municipal government, the police, first responders and doctors have decided that it is. Clearly, all these people are not imbeciles who suddenly decided that it would be fun to open such a site, and, why not, to open more sites just about everywhere else in the province; and to arrange, as I was saying, for sites like this to be located in residential areas, more or less haphazardly, with no framework.

On the contrary, when a decision is made to set up services like these, it is done with a sense of social acceptability. We do not need an ambulance attendant to suddenly exercise a veto right and to say that it cannot work, and that the site will not be opened. That is not how it works.

In any event, it is clear to the Bloc Québécois that medical treatment and the organization of health services are not Ottawa’s areas of jurisdiction. It is up to Quebec to evaluate and authorize treatment, together with Quebec's health institutions. Quebec has the power and the jurisdiction needed to open supervised injection sites as part of a solution to mental health and addiction issues. That, moreover, is a subject that was studied by Montreal's health and social services agency in 2011.

There is a very eloquent and interesting report entitled “Vers un service d'injection supervisée” that sets out succinctly what would justify the opening of a supervised injection site in Montreal. It is a matter of a higher mortality rate among injection drug users and infection epidemics caused by HIV and hepatitis C.

It says:

Cocaine use, the drug most often injected in Montréal, is a major determinant of HIV transmission, as is sharing used needles.

That is why, in one of the main recommendations in the conclusion of the report, the director of public health recommends fixed sites and a mobile unit staffed by nurses:

It is proposed that the fixed sites be located in RSSS [health and social services networks] institutions and community organizations that based on an agreement with the RSSS, would integrate medical supervision of injection and nursing care into the services they already offer.... The mobile unit would be more appropriate for priority sectors where a fixed service could not be offered....

According to this report, supervised injection sites are essential because even though they are geared toward only a small segment of Montreal's population, that segment of the population is affected by more than its share of health and social inequalities. Dr. Richard Lessard, Montreal's director of public health in 2011, stated that he felt it was a matter of social justice and equality.

I would like to give everyone a chance to have a look at this important report. As I was saying, this issue came up during the Montreal election campaign. It definitely has a lot of momentum. Neither Quebec, nor Montreal, nor public health and safety stakeholders will let the federal government create all kinds of obstacles and barriers to prevent this kind of service. That is what the Conservatives really want. They would rather not see and not know.

I am sure my government colleagues will be interested in the fact that the Montreal police has studied this issue. The Montreal police has said it will collaborate under certain conditions. That makes sense because the police force cares about public safety. It is in favour of a collaborative effort among partners to combine several approaches: prevention, treatment and care, law enforcement and harm reduction. To keep users from shooting up on the street, the Montreal police would encourage them to go to supervised injections sites.

Earlier, I was listening to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is clearly from Montreal. In response to the Conservatives' rhetoric, he said that by not allowing drug addicts to use supervised sites, they will not just suddenly give up drugs. Unfortunately, these people will not stop using. That is what we would like to see, but they will not necessarily stop using drugs. They will keep using, in public washrooms, parks or places where a child's hand, foot or finger could come into contact with a used needle and he could get sick or hurt himself. That has already happened; it has been documented.

It is a myth to think that banning these types of sites will improve the safety of our children and families. It is quite the opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill actually states some facts the member has missed. The fact is that the bill simply requires organizations to submit scientific evidence demonstrating the need for an injection site in a particular area.

Also, the fact is that the Liberal leader has admitted to possessing and smoking illegal drugs. The fact is that the NDP consistently votes against our bills on crime. The fact is that this morning New Democrats admitted this is a health issue and should not be legislated, yet they present a bill to legislate salt.

I want to ask the member why he thinks, based on these facts, that the NDP and Liberals are so soft on crime, so soft on heroin, and so tough on potato chips.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member should talk to the NDP and Liberals themselves. As a Bloc Québécois member, I cannot answer for them.

The member talked about scientific evidence, but we all know what the Conservative government thinks about scientists. Whether environmental scientists or scientists in other fields, they are not popular with this government, and in particular that member, who is living in the dinosaur era when it comes to technology, health and the environment.

Speaking of scientific evidence, according to the Canadian Medical Association, 80% of its members support services like InSite, and their opinion is based on scientific evidence. What is more, they are far more informed than members of the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party or independent members.

The 2011 Supreme Court ruling in this case was based on scientific evidence. The court ruled that such sites are not only useful, but are also very important, and that they should exist in Vancouver, where InSite is located, as well as in other places.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask a question of my colleague, whose riding is not far from mine.

What does he think of the fact that, just a few hours after introducing this bill, the Conservatives exploited the issue to launch a partisan fundraising campaign?

Is that a responsible way to act, as legislators—to draft legislation simply to raise funds for a political party?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I thank my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke for the question.

Quite frankly, I cannot say that I am surprised, because I am not. I have been a member here since 2004, and the Conservatives came to power in 2006. They are capable of anything. The member for Sherbrooke has surely seen this, too. He was elected here two years ago, but I am sure he is not surprised by anything the Conservatives do, either.

I would like to revisit a couple of issues. For instance, the Conservatives always attack the other parties and their positions in a demagogic way, particularly when it comes to justice and public safety. If we are not with the Conservatives, we are against them. A certain George Bush had the same attitude in the United States. There are no grey areas and there is no room for compromise; either you are right or you are wrong.

However, that is not how life works, and fortunately, Quebeckers and Canadians are not fools. If these sites are properly set up, located in the right place, properly supervised and monitored, with the approval of experts in health care and public safety, people can really get the help they need. They will stop injecting hard drugs in parks, near schools and near daycare centres. Basically, they will stop doing everything the Conservatives say is so dangerous when it comes to these centres.

The fact that the Conservatives would use this issue to raise money is ludicrous, but it does not surprise me.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about Bill C-2, formerly Bill C-65. After prorogation, the bill was reintroduced with a different number.

This bill is a direct attack on supervised injection sites. Once again, we are faced with a government that uses every possible means to impose its political ideology at the expense of the broad social consensus and the positive effects of supervised injection sites.

We must remember that the Conservative government's bill challenges the Supreme Court decision and is just another way for the government to get what it wants and to put its moral values ahead of the lives of the most vulnerable Canadians.

We feel that all new legislation on supervised injection sites must respect the spirit of the Supreme Court decision. The 2011 decision reminds us, among other things, that Vancouver's InSite—the only safe injection site in Canada—has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area. It is also important to note that the police, local businesses and the chamber of commerce support those types of projects.

Evidence has shown that supervised injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne infections, such as HIV and hepatitis C, and reduce deaths from overdoses. Evidence has also shown that these sites do not negatively affect public safety and that, in certain cases, they promote it by reducing the injection of drugs in public, the violence associated with such behaviour, and drug-related waste.

Supervised injection sites make it possible to strike the appropriate balance between public health and public safety. They also connect people in urgent need of health care with the services they need, such as primary health care and drug treatment services. Those are quantitative and qualitative facts that describe a reality, not an ideology.

We believe that harm reduction programs, including supervised injection sites, must be granted exemptions based on the evidence that they will improve public health and save lives, not based on ideology. Pragmatism and humanitarianism must be the two principles underlying the reality of drug use, a reality that goes against our moral values. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives do not feel that this debate in the House is useful and that they prefer to have the conversation by themselves.

In order to clearly understand the purpose of supervised injection sites, one has to take an interest in the people who need the service and remember that they have rights and that we have responsibilities toward them. Drug consumption has significant effects on people's lives, including debt, a breakdown in communication with friends and family, isolation, crime, medical problems and stigmatization. We need to support these people, not send them to prison. We must support them, not exclude them. They need to be given an anchor so that they can regain control of their lives, not left adrift without a purpose while we turn a blind eye to their problems.

Supervised injection sites are an innovative response to the expectations of an advanced and enlightened society. The philosophy of harm reduction gives priority to the personal and social management of drugs and high-risk behaviours and their negative consequences.

It is therefore important to have a pragmatic dialogue and approach. In other words, we need to look at the situation with a critical eye and assess the social costs and benefits of our laws and practices for humanism, which places human development at the heart of economic, environmental, political and social decisions.

What is more, the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling warned the government against any law that would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The discretion vested in the Minister of Health is not absolute: as with all exercises of discretion, the Minister’s decisions must conform to the Charter. If the Minister’s decision results in an application of the CDSA that limits the s. 7 rights of individuals in a manner that is not in accordance with the Charter, then the Minister’s discretion has been exercised unconstitutionally. In the special circumstances of this case, the Court should go on to consider whether the Minister’s decision violated the claimants’ Charter rights. The issue is properly before the Court and justice requires that it be considered.

What is more, in this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the charter guarantees Canadians the right to access supervised injection sites and that such services should generally exist when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

A 2004 study by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction indicated that supervised injection sites reach out to vulnerable groups and are accepted by communities. That is what social acceptance is. The study also showed that these sites improve the health of their users, reduce high-risk behaviour, and reduce fatal overdoses and the consumption of drugs in public places.

Canadians do not understand the Conservative government's lack of empathy towards citizens living with this difficult reality, and the dearth of recognition and support it shows towards organizations working day after day to improve the well-being of those citizens.

Canadians see a government that imposes a course opposite to that recommended by various qualified stakeholders working with safe injection sites.

Bill C-2 will establish a process that is so burdensome that it may well deter applicants from even trying to open a safe injection site.

What would happen if an applicant should accidentally forget to include something? Could the application be turned down automatically? Even if an applicant had all the required documents and the full support of the community, it would still be possible for the minister to deny the application.

It is important to remember that a number of projects are on hold in major Canadian cities and that Bill C-2 is an obstacle to their implementation.

Speaking about safe injection sites, on June 7, Dr. Richard Massé, the director of public health for Montreal, said in Le Devoir:

…These services save lives. It is too early to say what will happen, but… [this bill] appears to me to create significant barriers, even though the Supreme Court clearly said that not providing these services was a violation of human rights.

Also in Le Devoir, the Canadian Medical Association said it sees a bill that is built on ideology. As to the objection that establishing a place where drugs obtained from illegal sources are consumed could cause a lot of harm in the community, Quebec's health minister says that the studies that have been conducted on the subject do not bear that out. He said that the bill should be studied further, specifically with the justice minister of Quebec.

Many groups are concerned about this bill that challenges the Supreme Court decision. It is designed as a way to undermine the court's decision and to find another way to close safe injection sites because they go counter to this government's ideology.

Why do the Conservatives not simply admit what this bill is about? What are the real reasons behind the bill? How far are the Conservatives prepared to go to jeopardize health, safety and the dignity of human life and when are they going to admit that this bill really is based on ideology?

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

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member opposite. He is absolutely correct that the stigma and the socio-economic and health implications of addiction are devastating. This is dead true, but it is not unique just to heroin, nor is it unique just to drug addictions, as I mentioned earlier.

I am somewhat curious as to what is next for the NDP. The NDP is on record, along with the Liberal health critic, as feeling we should, as a government paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, provide the heroin as well. I just want to know if that is the next step in the NDP's agenda.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should realize that injection sites reduce economic and social costs.

Just think of a homeless person who wants to shoot up heroin. He must dissolve it in water, which he will find somewhere if he is lucky. It might be in a toilet or a puddle that might contain oil or animal urine. As a result, that individual might inject urine into his blood, which could lead to infections and diseases.

In addition, he might leave the needle anywhere and other individuals might come into contact with it and become infected, because there are no safe places for people in that situation. Those people end up in our social service centres and hospitals, which results in additional costs.

The hon. member should realize that safe injection sites reduce social costs and help those dealing with that reality. Experts can supervise them and help them find a way out. That is an important aspect the Conservatives seem to forget.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord on his outstanding work in the House of Commons.

I have personally seen him on the ground in Charlevoix. He is doing a great job with his constituents. He is in touch with them and he is also very active in the House. I wanted to pay tribute to him and talk about my community, because I know that he is very present in his.

In the lower mainland of British Columbia, in the greater Vancouver area, support for a more sensitive approach to safe injection sites is roughly 80%. However, the Conservatives want to go against that support and pass a bill to close those centres.

In my colleague's view, when a cause has this much support from a community, whether his or mine, should the federal government listen to the local people who understand the situation?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, basically, the Conservatives want public support for a project. However, InSite in Vancouver has that support. People want it. They see the benefits of a supervised site.

All the analyses, statistics and studies conducted by experts, not just by the government, clearly show that these sites improve public safety and health and promote the reintegration of the people who use them.

When such projects have the people's support and proven benefits, all the government needs to do is approve them and let them become a reality.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit saddened to have to speak to Bill C-2, which is an attempt by the government to change the channel after all the months of crime and corruption among Conservatives. Every night that Canadians turn on the television, they see police investigations into the Prime Minister's Office or into prominent Conservatives such as Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, and Rob Ford. Every night—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. minister of state is rising on a point of order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I read the orders for this morning and I do not think the member is debating the correct issue. I wonder if you could remind the member of the bill that he should be speaking to. It would help those of us who are here to—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The member is correct that there is a rule of relevance. However, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has just begun. I am confident that he will be speaking to the matter before the House at this time, which is Bill C-2.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I absolutely always respect what we are debating on the floor of the House of Commons, but the debate on why Bill C-2, which is deeply flawed legislation, has been brought forward is very much related to the circumstance in which the government finds itself right now. Criminal inquiries into Conservative activities are taking place.

Even though the government knows this bill is bad, even though the bill certainly does not have the support of the population of my area and is primarily concerned with a 15-page document that wants to shut down InSite, and even though the government is attempting to change the channel, the reality is that this bill is on the floor of the House of Commons as a result of the criminal inquiries into Conservatives and the corruption we are seeing in the Conservative Party.

In my area, in Burnaby—New Westminster, I get half the vote. The other half of the population, which I support, have their rights, and many of them chose to vote Conservative in the last election, but I meet Conservatives every day who say that they did not vote for the criminal activities that we are seeing in the Conservative Party with the police inquiries. They did not vote for the corruption that they are seeing.

Rather than putting forward flawed legislation like Bill C-2, it would be much better for the government to work to lower the crime level in its caucus and in its party. I think that would be a very positive step.

When we look at the overall criminal justice system, what we see is mistake after mistake by the government. With all the police inquiries taking place right now, a limited number of police officers across the country are spending their time inquiring into criminal activity in the Conservative Party. That is worsened by the fact that the Conservatives never kept their key commitment in the last election and previous elections to actually put more police officers on the line.

We see the corruption and the criminal activity, and we see police officers having to spend their time inquiring into criminal activities of Conservatives rather than doing what they should do, which is protecting our communities. One would argue that they are protecting their communities from Conservatives, and perhaps that is a valid point, but I can say that the NDP will be protecting Canadians from Conservatives by booting them out of office in the 2015 election. That will be our objective.

It is not just the fact that what we are seeing is a lack of commitment to add more front-line police officers. It is not just the fact that police officers are now having to spend all of their time inquiring into the criminal activity of Conservatives. It is the disrespect with which police officers are being treated by the Conservative government that also concerns me.

That is why, rather than presenting Bill C-2, it would have been good for the government to actually put into place the NDP motion that was adopted just before the government came into power back in 2005. It was for a public safety officer compensation fund, and it was an NDP initiative. The Conservative MPs actually voted for it. That was back in 2005.

Every year since then, police officers and firefighters from across the country have come to Parliament Hill on an annual basis to ask one thing. They want to know when the government is going to put into place a public safety officer compensation fund so that when they die in the line of duty, their families will actually be taken care of.

I have spoken to police officers' families. I have spoken to firefighters' families. I have seen the devastation that happens when a member of their family who was a police officer or firefighter died in the line of duty. There is no compensation in so many cases. I have heard of families having to sell their homes. I have heard of families giving up thoughts of their children going off to school. That is all because Conservatives steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to bring in the public safety officer compensation fund.

We are not talking about a lot of money. It is a small payout for families who have lost a loved one, someone who has given their life for the country. Conservatives have really slapped the faces of police officers and firefighters by refusing to bring that in.

The NDP has always supported a public safety officer compensation fund similar to the one in the United States. In 2015, when we replace the government, we will be bringing in a public safety officer compensation fund so that those families will be taken care of. Canadians can be sure of that.

At the same time, there are crime prevention programs. That is another bill that we could have seen instead of Bill C-2. No government has cut back as much on crime prevention as the Conservative government.

We have seen the closure of crime prevention programs across the country because the government has refused to adequately fund crime prevention. It is a no-brainer. The reality is that for every $1 we put into crime prevention programs, we save $6 in policing costs, court costs and prison costs later on, yet the government has cut back on crime prevention programs. It is absurd.

Here are three of the things we could have seen instead of Bill C-2.

We could have seen actual enhancement of the number of front-line officers--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

That is okay, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind Conservatives heckling. It just shows how sensitive they are to the corruption and the criminal activity that the public is denouncing across the country.

The Conservatives could have put in place a public safety officer compensation fund. That would have been a good bill to see. As well, they could have restored the cuts they made on the crime prevention program. Instead of that, what they did was present this flawed bill. This, as well, flies in the face of the legal system. The Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that programs like InSite should exist.

Why was InSite put into place in the first place? It was put into place because of the escalating number of overdose deaths in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, skyrocketing up to several hundreds. The community responded by putting in place InSite, with the support of the city, the province, the health authority and the community. I mentioned earlier in speaking to my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord that it was with the support of over 80% of the public in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

The Supreme Court, tested by this, as the government wanted to shut the thing down, said yes, that there was definitely a place for this, not only because it was good for crime reduction, not only because it had reduced overdose deaths by 35%, but because it made good policy sense. That is what the Supreme Court ruled.

Again, we have a government that likes to slap the law in the face. It is not just police officers who receive its bad treatment, and not just Parliament, where we see regularly the disrespect for democratic institutions, but it is also a Supreme Court judgment that clearly stated that a program like InSite was beneficial for the community.

Instead of responding to that, the government brought forward Bill C-2. It would allow the minister to shut the whole thing down. Does that make sense when there has been a 35% reduction in overdose deaths? Does that make sense when we have actually seen an overall reduction in crime? Does that make sense when we talk about thousands of referrals to the whole issue around addiction programs?

This has also not been treated well by the government, but when thousands of people have been referred to addiction program to be weaned off drugs, how the government has approached this issue does not make sense, not at all. Here we have a community that is in support of a program, that has reduced the crime rate and reduced overdose deaths and increased referrals to addiction treatment programs, but the government says that it will shut the damned thing down. It does not make sense from our point of view. It does not make sense from the public's point of view.

We are debating this bad bill now, but I, like so many others across the country, can hardly wait for 2015 when we finally get the chance to throw this corrupt, tired, criminal government out of office and put in place an NDP government in Ottawa.

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

My goodness, Mr. Speaker, the bill simply requires that there be presented scientific evidence that an injection site is necessary and would do well in a community. What is wrong with that? It would do exactly what the member professes to say. He talks about democracy, but what is wrong with asking parents and people in the community what they think? Why is the NDP so soft on crime, soft on heroin, and tough on salt?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country have seen an unprecedented number of criminal investigations into the Conservative Party. The Conservatives embrace people like Rob Ford. They think that kind of conduct is fine. They say that. What we have seen with Mike Duffy and a whole range of other high-ranking Conservatives is that the Conservatives and criminals seem to go together in parallel. It is hard to take lessons from a government that is corrupt and has had so many criminal investigations into its conduct.

I know the minister does not like to hear scientific facts. However, the reality is that over 80% of people in my community in the Lower Mainland support the principle of InSite for the simple reason that science shows there were 2,171 referrals, a lowering by 35% of the overdose rate, and an accompanying lowering of criminal activity. If the government followed the science, it would not be presenting this bill. It would be permitting InSite to operate.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I did not catch all of the member's remarks, but I caught some of them.

I want to avoid the political rhetoric around this bill. I am on the public safety committee and I am quite disgusted that this bill is not going to the health committee.

I would ask the member this. Is it not about the end result? Is it not about people's lives and the health of people? The evidence around InSite is that there is less HIV and other health problems as a result of it being there. Therefore, the government is going the wrong way with this bill, because it is really about people, their health, and indeed their lives. We should not be talking about more punishment or shutting these places down, but about ensuring we are doing the right thing in terms of the health of people who are struggling with drug addiction and exposing others in the community to health risks.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question from the member for Malpeque is relevant. I have respect for him, but there was a skyrocketing number of deaths by overdose that took place after the former Liberal government, of which he was a part, closed down the national housing program. The government's decision was devastating for the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. The Liberal government decided it would no longer provide housing and that those affected would be out on the street. As a result, there was no treatment offered for addictions and there was a skyrocketing number of deaths by overdose. Therefore, InSite was put in place because of an appallingly irresponsible decision by a Liberal government. Now we have an appallingly irresponsible approach by a Conservative government that is trying to shut down InSite.

What we need is a responsible approach, one in keeping with Canadian values. That is what the NDP offers.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am proud to carry on the debate on the important discussion of InSite and injection sites.

Although I was born in Holland, I was raised in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. I understand all too well what the east end of Vancouver was like in the 1960s and 1970s. It was not the greatest thing, because one saw a tremendous amount of people, for a variety of reasons, with severe drug or alcohol addictions. There were folks down there from all walks of life. It was an extremely unfortunate circumstance as a young man to witness the tragedy of what happened to these people's lives.

Fast forward to years later, and we have InSite.

I am the first person, along with everybody else in the House, who would encourage every Canadian not to use illicit drugs whatsoever. That is the main principle, but it is very difficult to get people off illicit drugs if they are in the back alleys, street corners, throughways, under bridges, or anywhere else.

The best way to get to these people is to show them compassion and the dignity of their lives. They may be on the bottom rung of the ladder, in a deep hole where they keeping digging it deeper and see no way out with the exception of an overdose or possible suicide. It is the Canadian people, the good people of Vancouver, east end Vancouver, and former municipal and provincial politicians who had the insight to come up with InSite. They were able to get these people off the streets and into a shelter. Even though they were still using drugs, there was an ability to work and consult with them to get them off the drugs and allow them to become productive members of our society.

On the other hand, we can just ignore the problem. They will be back on the streets, under bridges and in vacant lots, but then we will have the paramedics, firefighters, police officers, and social caseworkers going in when the situation has gone too far.

I know everybody in the NDP, Conservative Party, Liberal Party and other parties here are very clear that we do not want young people or anyone resorting to illicit drugs of any kind. However, when that situation arises, it is best to get them off the street to a place where they can be safe and get counselling. They can then understand that there is hope and a possibility that life can be better for them.

InSite is all about that. Injection sites are all about that. It is to show the compassion and love that we have for these individuals who are going through a very severe and difficult time.

Some of these folks may have come from the aboriginal community, some may have gone through a divorce, some may have psychological or physical problems, and some may have come from our police, firefighter, or veteran community. We do not know where these people have come from, and to be honest, I really do not care. All I see is a human being.

A lot of my Conservative colleagues over there profess to be of the Christian faith. I ask them this: what is the Christian thing to do in this regard? It is to reach out with an open hand and show the compassion and love that these people deserve in order to turn their lives around, and there is a lot of evidence of where this has happened.

My great colleague, the representative for Vancouver East for the past sixreen and a half years, has been in the forefront of this struggle. She has represented Vancouver East with great pride and honour and with great distinction. We are very proud to have her, one day in cabinet, but right now in our caucus. She is an outstanding human being who understands the situation probably better than anybody else in the country or in Parliament.

With that, I will resume this most vital discussion shortly after question period.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member will have five minutes remaining in his speech when this matter returns before the House.

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 amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has five minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the first 30 seconds to congratulate him and the great province of Saskatchewan on its future victory over the Ticats. I can say that we were not whipped on this side of the House. I send my condolences to my colleagues from the great city of Hamilton, as well, but congratulations to the Ticats for even getting there.

I will come back to the serious issue of InSite in British Columbia, the safe injection site. It is an extremely serious issue. As I said prior to question period, the men and women who find themselves at the bottom of the ladder, as we say, in the deepest hole they can find themselves in, who have unfortunately turned to intravenous drugs, or drugs of any kind, are in a really desperate situation.

What these sites do is take these men and women in and allow them to continue that habit while hopefully giving them the counselling and the means to be get off the drugs so that they can realize that life is beautiful, that they have worth and are loved, and that they and their families can live normal lives.

If we do not do that, they will end up under bridges. They will end up in the back alleys and everywhere. I should know. I grew up in British Columbia, in the Lower Mainland. I saw the east end of Vancouver.

Again, I go back to my colleague from Vancouver East, our representative there for the last 16 and a half years, and my colleagues from the Lower Mainland. They know what we are talking about. The reality is that this site is really a godsend to these people. It is a beacon of hope and trust.

I understand the Conservative philosophy. They do not like the idea of people using illegal drugs. That is also our philosophy. However, we have a great divide on how we react and how we treat people who use drugs. They look more at the criminal aspect of it, and we look more at the health aspect of it. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the NDP.

We encourage all people not to use intravenous or illegal drugs of any kind, ever. That is a wishful thing to say. As long as we have been on this planet, people have somehow managed to abuse themselves in particular circumstances for a variety of reasons.

There is only one person who can judge those individuals, and that person has a lot higher standing than me. It is simply not for me or anybody in this House of Commons to do that. These people are human beings. They have worth. They have lives. At one time, they had mothers and fathers who loved them. For whatever reason, they found themselves in a very terrible and unfortunate situation.

We on this side of the House are very concerned about the legislation coming forward, not necessary because of what the government is trying to say but because of the ulterior motives behind it. We understand how the Conservatives work in legislation. The devil is always in the details. What is the real motive for their doing this?

If the bill gets to committee, we will be able to examine it very carefully and get witnesses in. The government will hear not just from members of Parliament. They will actually hear from people whose lives were saved by InSite and safe injection sites.

With that, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I wish you the very best this weekend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to hear an opinion from the parliamentarian of the year, and congratulations to him, on whether, like many on the opposite side of the House, he feels that those unfortunate individuals who are poor and disadvantaged, have had bad luck, and have then turned to drugs to ease the pain, should be further marginalized and criminalized.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and my personal friend very much for a very important question.

We are not to judge how a person ends up there. The reality is that these people have worth. As a Canadian society, as a society that cares for one another, we should be looking at these individuals and not judging them.

What we should be doing is taking the opportunity to work with them and help them, not only on the medical side but on the social side and the religious or spiritual side or whatever one wants to call it. If we do that, can give them a leg up, and help them be productive citizens in our society and feel that they have worth, in turn they will become advocates for other people who may find themselves in that situation. That would indeed be a good thing.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleague's commitment to humanity. This is just another example of the issues that matter to him and certainly to those of us on this end of the House.

The whole issue of harm reduction has been talked about for probably the last 20 years. The clinic is just one example of what harm reduction is all about. It tries to help people who clearly have tried to get help, and it has not worked. This is a way of offering them a chance to be part of the human race by getting them the help they need and treating them like the human beings they are.

I appreciate the positive comments from my colleague, but I would like to know if there is any interest in the community he represents that harm reduction opportunities be provided.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, my community is much smaller than Vancouver or Toronto. I thank my colleague from York West for that important question.

We do it in a different manner. We do not have the population base or that type of visible intravenous drug use on our streets. There are homeless people, do not get me wrong, and we know what some of them may be up to, but there is simply not that large a population in that regard.

Usually what happens in a particular case of that nature is that shelters, such as the Salvation Army, Phoenix, Adsum House, Beacon House, and all these organizations, assist these individuals to try to give them a lift up. However, my community just does not have the sort of problem that exists in Toronto and Vancouver.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the debate on Bill C-2, it is crucial that we focus on the benefits of supervised injection sites like InSite, which has achieved many things.

What would my colleague say are the benefits of having such a site in Canada?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

With a question like that, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this member from Quebec will be a long-time member of Parliament in the House of Commons.

She is so right. It gets people off the streets, out from under bridges, out of abandoned trailers, out of the back alleys, and out of the holes and ditches they find themselves in. It gets them into a safe, warm, and loving environment. While there, they get the medical help and counselling they need. That is the human approach to assisting those who end up that way.

I ask everybody here who has children, what if it is one of their children who ends up in that situation? Would members throw them in jail? Would they punish them, or would they hug them, show them the love, and give them the help they need? I ask that as a father of two children. I have been blessed with my children, but I know people whose children, unfortunately, have had very difficult and challenging times. When that happens, that is when the hand of friendship, the hand of humanity, what we call social democratic values, reach in, lift those people up, give them the help and guidance they need, and show them the love they require.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this difficult but important debate. It is worth noting that InSite as a program has been peer reviewed around the world. There were further studies on over 70 other safe injection sites in Europe and Australia. The fact is that it saved lives. That is exactly what we are talking about, saving the lives of Canadians.

My friend from Sackville—Eastern Shore talked about the impact on families and how we did not have to walk too far before we ran into either immediate or extended family members who had been affected by addiction. If we could just hold our breath, click our heels and make this problem go away, we would not be here, but we cannot.

These kinds of drugs bring evil upon those who succumb to addiction, as well as those around them. For every person who is at InSite, how many family members, friends and others who love that individual are hurting?

I served on the municipal council. I get it. I get NIMBY, not in my back yard. Sometimes it can be a plotted and deliberate thing, but most often it is just ordinary people who are living their lives and going to work. Suddenly something happens down the street and impacts their lives, and they react. Guess what? Their first thought is for the very kinds of children that we are talking about in other families who need and want love. Their first reaction is to protect their own, and that is totally understandable.

However, as we have shown in Canada, there are ways to approach these issues. Municipalities are given the responsibility to determine where things go in a community, what the best land use is and what the best mixed use is. Quite frankly, NIMBY applied to this issue means that it is not going to happen anywhere, and more Canadians will die.

We are one of the countries that is leading to show that a compassionate, responsible country can find a way to deal with these things, recognizing and accepting the challenges that facilities like that usually create in our urban centres. We recognize that a larger purpose has to apply.

I want to read something into the record. Let us remember that the government is bringing in a new law because the Supreme Court said it had to when it refused to extend the original program. Basically, as far as the official opposition is concerned, this legislation is merely a nice way of just saying no. That is not acceptable for us in the NDP.

It is also not acceptable for the Supreme Court of Canada or Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. I defy any member of the government to stand and say that this is somebody who does not care about Canada, crime, issues, or those things. They can go ahead, make that case, and let us hear it. That is what the Conservatives are accusing us of doing.

This is what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, a G7 nation and arguably the best country in the world to live in, said about the action of the government minister who denied the extension of InSite. This will give us some insight into the government's motivation.

The Supreme Court said:

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....It is also grossly disproportionate: the potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition on possession of illegal drugs on Insite's premises.

That is exactly where the government is.

It further said:

The effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves...is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.

That means, just saying no is not good enough.

We are mounting as strong an opposition to this as we can. It is not because we have any desire to see or assist individuals in harming themselves; it is quite the opposite.

Collectively, we are grappling. Those nations that are compassionate and have the means like ours to deal with these issues, as opposed to just providing food, security and a roof over the head of their population, is a luxury we have and the direction we were heading. It took quite a while for the Liberals when they were in government to come on side and allow the exemption, but they got there. However, now we are running headlong into the ideology of the hard right element in the current Conservative government.

I read those quotes from the Supreme Court of Canada chief justice as my response to those members who, not necessarily today but in previous debates, accused members of the opposition of all kinds of horrible things in terms of not caring. The issue is not about caring really; the issue is the responsibility we have as lawmakers to bring in the best laws we can.

InSite works to the extent that it is saving lives. It has been peer reviewed. It is similar to other initiatives in other G7 countries. All the studies show that this is the way to go. Is it perfect? No. Would we like to just close our eyes, click our heels and make it go away? Yes. Is that going to happen? No.

We have two choices.

We can take the approach of the government and just flatly say no and then use the rhetoric of politics to play that out and accuse and hurl accusations over here that we are all somehow secretly supporting those who are addicted to drugs. I am not going to comment anymore on that thought.

The other choice, rather than to say no, is to be grown up about it and realize that we have a life-and-death issue where the easy politics, which is to just say no, do not work. We need to find a way to come to grips with this, mitigate as much as we can any impact on our communities, of course, and recognize, as the Supreme Court of Canada has, that there is a higher obligation here.

Just saying no does not make it okay in terms of the number of people who have died and will die if this site is not there. We will do everything we can to stop this wrong-headed bill and advocate for a progressive, compassionate, human approach that deals with the problem rather than hiding behind political rhetoric.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently here and in the lobby to my colleague's speech.

Something that is missed is that supervised injection sites do not provide drugs to the folks who go there. Addicts buy these drugs on the street from dealers and that money goes directly to organized crime, which I do not think anybody supports.

Through the bill, we are simply trying to provide the Minister of Health with some documentation from the local community and the local police force that says they support that.

Since the New Democrats will obviously oppose that community involvement with this project, is it their position that these sites should not only be approved without such consultations, but that they should also provide dangerous and addictive drugs like heroin to these people?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That is an interesting approach, Mr. Speaker.

First my thought was, as the hon. member was speaking, that he thinks that all of a sudden those drugs would not be bought because people who use them do not have somewhere safe to go. It does not make sense. It does not deal with that issue. Those drugs will be bought, agreed. The question is this: will we provide a compassionate environment that allows them to at least try to live, or will we just send them off into the alleyway to crawl into the darkness and what, die? That is an alternative? We say no.

The last thing is that I am informed by my colleagues from British Columbia that the CMA and even the local police are on side with this. They are the ones who have to deal with the repercussions with what happens if we do not have InSite.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to make note of the wonderful example of how a federation can work when we get a national government working alongside the provincial and municipal governments and the many different stakeholders that were involved in turning Insite into a reality. All of them should be applauded for their efforts.

That said, through years now, InSite has demonstrated to be hugely successful, not only for the people in direct need, but also for the community in which it is located. It has made the community a healthier, safer community to live. All the stakeholders tell us that this is the case and that we need to sustain it.

Would the member comment on why one easily gets frustrated with the government when it seems to want to toss aside science or facts when it brings in legislation such as this?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have been at a couple of committee meetings lately. I have not had a chance to agree with him much. I will take the opportunity now to say that I do, very much.

I have served, like my colleague, not just here, but provincially, and I am not sure if he served municipally. Provinces deal with a lot of municipal issues because municipalities only exist by virtue of provincial legislation.

I agree with him entirely. The shame of it is that when we are here at the federal level, these issues seem awfully far away, yet by not providing framework and using legislation that is a federal responsibility, it leaves the provinces with less ability to do anything. It certainly leaves those municipalities that have to deal with the fact that people are dying in their communities, and they would like to do something about it. When they turn to the province, it says it is willing to get on board with the municipality, but it needs the feds.

There are an awful lot of examples of things that are only properly dealt with when we have the co-operation my hon. friend talks about between the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, but in so many cases, the feds have to provide the leadership.

First, the federal government has more means to money and access, but also a lot of the legislation. In this case, it is federal legislation that allows whether that can exist, because we are bumping up against the Criminal Code.

In order for municipalities, the ones that are grappling with this day by day and looking these individuals in the eye, rather than them being left alone, leadership could and should be provided from the federal level to bring those other two partners together so we can work together.

They are Canadians. It does not matter whether we are talking municipal, provincial or federal governance for them, they are Canadians.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the member from Hamilton, not only for an insightful addition to this debate but also for the passion and the compassion that he brings to the debate, qualities that are so lacking on the other side.

So unwilling are Conservatives to defend this legislation that they will not speak to it. Time and time again an opportunity comes to speak to the bill and to justify their actions today and the day previously, but they stay silent. They have nothing to say.

Here is the challenge for them: it is that they have no evidence to support the decisions they are making in this legislation. It has become so cynical for the Conservatives that the first and virtually only thing they did after writing the bill was to use it as a fundraiser. They drafted legislation that negatively affects Canadian society, municipalities, and the police forces that do their work on our behalf, and then immediately sent out a fundraiser to raise funds for the Conservative Party.

That is what they use Parliament for. That is what they think legislation and law-making has become. It is to raise a few more bucks.

That is what they have done with the bill. They do not debate it. They do not defend it. They do not offer up any evidence.

One would think that a party that says it is interested in good governance and providing some sort of sanity in the way we make policies would have one scrap, one piece of paper in this place that produces so much paper, that would actually identify why they think this is a good idea and what is it based upon.

Let us deal with some of the facts.

Such radicals as the Canadian Medical Association think that safe injection sites work. Such radicals as the Nurses Association have testified that the bill is bad for Canada, along with such radicals as conservative and progressive mayors consistently in the city of Vancouver, which has the only safe injection site in Canada. Those people, regardless of their political affiliation, have taken up this cause and realize that harm reduction can only happen if we practise harm reduction.

The Conservatives take a knee-jerk ideological approach to this issue with no compassion whatsoever. They yammer and they heckle across the way, but they do not have anything to support their view on this issue. All they have is some cynical, cheap attempt to win a few votes and get some cheap dollars in a fundraising initiative, rather than supporting the city of Vancouver, British Columbia as a province, and the other municipalities that are looking to grapple with this intractable issue of drug abuse and addiction in our communities because their path has not worked so far.

We know that addiction rates drop at two times the level for those who have participated in the InSite program in Vancouver. If the Conservatives are actually interested in getting drugs off our streets, why not clean up the addicts? Why not help them out? We know this program works to do that. Why not do it? Do they have a better suggestion?

Of course they do not. Their suggestion is to put them in prisons, where they have six times the access to illegal drugs that they would have on the street. That is the Conservatives' agenda. That is the result of the Conservatives' agenda.

Those are facts. The Conservatives are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Those are the facts of the matter. There has been a one-third drop in the rate of death due to overdose in the city of Vancouver over the last 10 years since this program has started. There are 35% fewer people dying as a result of drug overdose, and the Conservatives talk about standing up for communities and protecting communities.

Which communities are they talking about? Are they talking about any of those people who are likely to die as a result of shutting down and preventing any safe injection sites? Those folks do not count as community. They are not Canadians. They do not matter in the Conservatives' world.

It is a deeply cynical point of view. It points to a government that is so wedded to an ideology that it refuses to listen to anybody, including doctors, police, nurses, and municipal leaders of this country. All of those people do not matter in the mix in creating the bill, none of them.

One would think that one Conservative would get up here today and offer some sort of fact-based decision-making. Conservatives decide on something based on their ideology and then present legislation that is only intended to raise money. It is only intended to wedge out a few more votes for their cynical purposes rather than to deal with the issue at hand.

If they want to deal with drug addiction in this country, then let us deal with it.

Conservatives defy the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling. So much for respect for the courts. The Supreme Court ordered the government to do something about this, and it has done the opposite. It is disgraceful.

There is not right and left on this one, there is right and wrong. The Conservatives are wrong on the bill. New Democrats will stand up against them every single time.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his very heartfelt, convincing and compassionate speech.

Can he explain how keeping supervised injection sites open will make our streets and neighbourhoods safer, and most of all, minimize the number of victims?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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

Once again, the Conservatives have no opinion and no evidence, and they are remaining silent because they have no arguments against our position. However, it is absolutely clear that the number of victims can be reduced, not only in terms of the people directly involved, but also their families and their communities, which are also the victims of drug abuse.

As for whether we need to talk to people in the community, the NDP believes that yes, we do, but with compassion and taking into account the scientific evidence, not with cynicism, like the Conservatives do, although today they remain silent.

The Conservatives say they oppose drugs. Okay, but I would like them to give me an example, because no Conservative voices have been heard today; it has been radio silence.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very passionate remarks.

What worries me is that the Conservatives have decided to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security instead of to the Standing Committee on Health.

When I read the bill, I felt that it was mostly about the health of patients and victims. We are talking about drug addiction and people who need health care. Safe injection sites are health care sites.

I also see that the Conservatives are trying to scare the public. Sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is like saying that people should really watch out because this is a safety issue.

Could the hon. member comment on this issue? I feel the Conservatives are trying to scare the public about safe injection sites in a backhanded way.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' argument is clearly a lie.

The safe injection site works well and helps victims and families a great deal. What is more, it has the support of the police, doctors and leaders in the municipality. Those people support it because it works. This is a very difficult issue.

A bill like this is unbelievable to me, just like the government's cynicism. The government is just trying to raise funds because it has no support.

If the government is looking for a voice for communities, we recommend listening to the voices of the Vancouver community, particularly those of the Vancouver police, Canadian doctors and all those who feel they can contribute to solving the problem. It is unfortunate because this is a terrible problem for individuals and communities. All voices must be heard, not just the ideological voice of the Conservatives.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before giving my speech, I want to point out that this debate unfortunately has to be take place because a Conservative bill has been introduced.

This week is Drug Awareness Week in Quebec. If we have to have this debate, this week is a good time to do it.

During this awareness week, there was a morning program on Radio-Canada. Three young women roughly my age were talking about their problems with addiction, with substance abuse. These utterly brilliant, committed and dynamic young women unfortunately became addicted to drugs. Fortunately, they had the support of their families. Their families and their friends managed to help them overcome their addiction. They had the support of their communities and their families. That is unfortunately not the case for everyone.

All too often, people addicted to drugs have no family to support them. Too often, they live in the street and sleep in emergency shelters. That is why it is important to have centres like InSite. There they are not viewed as bad people. Yes, they use drugs. Drug use is an indictable offence. I am aware of that. However, I must say that addiction goes far beyond that. People should not be thrown onto the street because they are addicted to an illegal substance. InSite is important because it provides a place where those people feel accepted. The staff there want to help them overcome their addiction.

Coming back to the example of the three women who gave an interview to promote Drug Awareness Week, they all have a future; these are incredible women. They have the courage to speak publicly about their personal substance abuse problems. I know that many other women and men, young people, are in the same situation, and they all have lives to lead. If we give them hope, if we welcome them, if we give them the health care they need, we can help them escape the cycle of addiction. As a society, we have a duty to try.

Thanks to InSite, 1.7% of users are more likely to go further, to OnSite, where they can get treatment to overcome their addiction. It is not easy to overcome an addiction to drugs, particularly hard drugs. Users have to be assisted by people who are well trained and very patient. In addition, people who receive care need a lot of courage to say they are ready to go into treatment to overcome their addiction. To have that courage, they need a place where they feel comfortable, where they do not feel rejected by society, but rather accepted. When they feel accepted, when they feel that someone is listening to them and when they know that people will take care of them, it is easier for them to ask for services.

That is exactly what InSite does. Of course, it is an injection site, but it is also a health care centre for users, and who knows, perhaps one day that will enable them to overcome their addiction problem. That is the ultimate objective. The ultimate objective is not for people to continue using hard drugs, but for us to be able to help them overcome their addiction problem.

This Conservative bill is too short-sighted. We notice this problem frequently with this government. It thinks only about the immediate future. It says it does not want to encourage this kind of behaviour.

I would really like it if there were no more drugs and no more drug addicts in society. I think that all my NDP colleagues dream about this at night, but it is not the real situation.

Right now, drugs are being distributed to younger and younger people in schools and other places. People get into drug use. Social problems can lead people to use hard drugs, and then they become addicted.

The reality is that unfortunately people become addicts. At the end of the day, we want to help them recover from their addiction.

This bill presupposes that we do not want people to use drugs. We do not want to see this, so they will go and hide in the streets or back alleys. This is not how addiction problems should be dealt with. Whether we like it or not, if these people do not feel accepted by the wider community or welcomed into a safe environment, they will not want to recover from their problems.

We want this program to work. InSite is the only supervised injection site in North America. However, in Quebec there is a service called Cactus Montréal. As I am a north shore MP, it is perhaps more relevant to our local situation, but I can tell you that the people at Cactus Montréal are watching InSite and all the progress it is making. They say it is a great project and that ultimately they would like to do the same thing.

InSite is the sole progressive example of a community that got organized and found an innovative solution to this problem. However, the government is setting up roadblocks, with requirements that are completely ridiculous to make sure that they cannot even operate. This flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling that said it was legal and that InSite should continue its operations. The court added that these facilities are completely legal under section 7 of the charter.

I want to go back over a few statistics, because I think they are interesting. I have already said that the people who go to InSite at least once a week are 1.7 times more likely to enter a recovery program. In addition, 80% of the people questioned who live or work in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside support InSite. In spite of the “not in my backyard” syndrome, people who live in that area support the project.

I have been to Vancouver a number of times. I was even accompanied by the member for Vancouver East when I went to look at the real situation there. I can tell you that InSite works. The people support it and are happy to have this innovative service that takes in people who all too often are marginalized by society.

I am urging the Conservative members to reconsider this attack on InSite and other care services, which may perhaps be outside the norm, but which are innovative and really help people who are unfortunately addicted to drugs or have other drug problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I served as a trustee on the Waterloo county board of education for a number of years. As chair of the board, I visited many schools. I am a father of three and a grandfather of nine children.

I have a question for my colleague. Does she not think it is reasonable for a school community or the parents in that community to have a say as to whether one of these injection sites is brought into their neighbourhood? I cannot understand why they would not, at the very least. This bill would give members of the community a say as to where these sites would be built.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether as a mother, grandmother, or aunt she would want one of these facilities in her backyard.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question, but perhaps the hon. member did not hear me. If he had heard me, he would not be asking the question.

I hear “not in my backyard”. However, 80% of the respondents living or working in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, where InSite is located, are in favour of that facility and support it. Therefore, this site enjoys widespread support.

I do not have the honour of being a mother, but I have two young nieces. Should they ever fall into the trap of addiction, I would want them to have access to support services and be accepted by the community, so that they would not feel isolated and end up on the streets or dying from an overdose.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is somewhat related to the question the member opposite just asked.

Would my dear colleague rather not know whether her children can walk around and play in parks because there are needles? With a facility like InSite, needles would all be in the same location, and not in parks.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to share an interesting statistic directly related to Cactus Montréal. This is a needle exchange service, and the people who run it hope some day to provide the same service as InSite, because they know it works.

In 2000, Cactus Montréal distributed and collected 400,000 needles on the streets. That is a huge number. Just think of the individuals who would reuse these needles and risk contracting a disease such as HIV or AIDS. Imagine a huge pile of 400,000 needles. That is the kind of work they do.

Cactus Montréal is a different organization, but its needle exchange service is clearly essential, not only for the health of individuals who, unfortunately, have an addiction, but also for the health of children who can find needles on the streets. This initiative protects them all.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I am not pleased with the act, but I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak against it, because the act does serious damage to the notion of what government ought to be doing to help some of the most vulnerable people in our country, those who are seriously at risk of dying because of an addiction to a particular drug.

Maybe Conservatives do not have any sympathy for addicts, except for Mr. Ford, in Ontario. I do not know, but they certainly seem to be willing to put at very serious risk of death and further harm people who, by their circumstances, end up being addicted to drugs and could make use of a place such as InSite in Vancouver. They tried to shut it down, and they were told by the Supreme Court of Canada that they could not do it, so they are trying an end run around safe injection sites with this legislation.

Let us look at some raw numbers and the reason this safe injection site was established in the first place. There was a situation in the Lower Eastside of Vancouver in the mid-1990s, when about 200 people a year were dying from drug overdoses. That is a serious public health issue. It is a serious crisis in public safety. There were all sorts of other harms associated with all that activity.

InSite was established to provide a safe place where those who were addicted could inject. It was supervised by professionals who were not only providing a safe place but were also providing other services, such as referrals and access to medical services, counselling, and programs that would lead to detoxification and overcoming their addictions.

In fact, users of this site were nearly two times as likely to go to a detox centre and go on drug programs than those who may have gone there occasionally. It was not the idea to allow the addiction to continue. It was an opportunity to get them out of addiction. As a result, twice the rate of participation in detoxification programs to get off drugs took place.

When InSite started to operate, the number of fatalities from drug overdoses in the Lower Eastside in Vancouver went down by 35%. We are talking about 70 individuals a year whose lives were saved as a result of this. Those are a lot of human lives that one particular program was able to save by being in existence. What was the government's response? It was to get rid of harm reduction as a principle of drug treatment and to shut down InSite. It is trying an end run around the Supreme Court with this particular action.

Another statistic reported in a leading medical journal deals with the fact that there were 273 overdoses in a one-year period at InSite, but not one fatality, not one. That is indicative of the fact that the supervision of the safe injection site leads to greater safety and a lack of deaths. That is how it happens. When we add up some of these facts and the startling number of 70 lives a year saved, what is the possible excuse or reason the government has for introducing this legislation?

One thing we hear about often, even from the current government and lots of others, is something called evidence-based decision-making. We have heard that before: evidence-based decision-making. A good, sensible, reasonable government should be making decisions based on evidence.

What do we have here? We have more than 30 peer-reviewed studies published in some of the leading medical journals in the world. Members will have heard of them. They include the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the pre-eminent medical journals in the world; The Lancet, another significant British medical journal, which publishes only serious peer-reviewed, high-standard, high-quality studies; and the British Medical Journal.

More than 30 peer-reviewed studies have described the beneficial impacts of InSite, just this one particular operation. Some people and many studies have looked for the negative impact, but none have come up with any evidence demonstrating harm to the community.

We have a situation where the evidence is on the side of the use of places like InSite to facilitate harm reduction, the saving of lives, detoxification, helping addicts to get off drugs and making communities safer.

Those are the facts. That is the evidence that is brought to this. There is support from organizations like the Canadian Medical Association. It is hardly interested in promoting the use of drugs. It is hardly interested in having activities that are bad for patients and individuals. It sees it as a positive thing, and it has criticized the government for bringing forward Bill C-2.

Who else? The Canadian Nurses Association 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.

Here is the kicker. They said:

A government truly committed to public health and safety would work to enhance access to prevention and treatment services—instead of building more barriers.

That is what we have here, a building of more barriers to helping people who are addicted to drugs.

My community of St. John's East has its share of serious drug problems. They have escalated to the point now where we have hold-ups of convenience stores and gas stations taking place. There are houses being broken in to get money to buy drugs. Some of these drugs are actually prescription drugs. There's OxyContin, a major, significant, addictive prescription drug.

How did that become the bane of so many people's existence? It is something that was supposed to be reserved for only the most serious of pain in the rarest of circumstances. I do not want to exaggerate, but I have heard people say that it is being prescribed for anything from wisdom teeth being extracted to very low levels of pain, as commonly as any other painkiller, instead of being reserved for that particular rare occasion when someone was in such serious pain that addiction was not an issue, perhaps because they were in palliative care or were about to die.

In the time I have left, I do want to say that we have serious problems. There can be solutions. The government should be working very hard to find solutions. Instead, what we see is government acting against the medical profession's advice, that of the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Medical Association and all sorts of significant scientific studies that have demonstrated the value of sites such as InSite in Vancouver. We see it taking action to make it nearly impossible for anyone to open further injection sites and perhaps making another attack to try to shut down InSite once again when it gets the opportunity to do so.

As I said at the beginning, I am glad I have had the chance to speak on this bill because I do oppose it. We are against this approach. We think this is a seriously harmful bill that will cause death to individuals who are vulnerable in our society because of their addictions, not allowing them to even get near the help they need. They will stay away. Obviously they will not be able to be near that.

If people are worried about heroin addicts in their backyards, they are going to find addicts a lot closer to their backyards if they do not have a site like InSite that can actually help deliver harm reduction and vital medical and other health services to these individuals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Canadians that this bill is essentially about two things. It is about scientific evidence, and it is about community input. This bill requires organizations to submit evidence demonstrating why they feel an injection site is warranted.

My colleague used the term “end run” early in his comments today. I would like to ask him why he would do an end run around school communities that would like to have a say as to whether or not one of these sites is opened in their community. Why would the member do an end run around parents who might like to have a say in that?

I would ask him why he is opposed to letting communities, schools, or parent organizations have a say in whether or not one of these sites is opened in their community.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the member misses the point. Communities already have a say. They have a say about any new service that is being put in a location in a community or neighbourhood. City councils do that all the time. They hold public meetings, listen to their citizens, and understand what the effects are. We hear about this all the time in the news.

This is not about that. This is about making it nearly impossible to have a safe injection site by putting stringent barriers to it. The Canadian Medical Association and all these scientific journals support the effectiveness of this measure in saving lives. That is what is important here.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech. In his remarks he mentioned that there are people with a lot of Nimbyism, saying, “Not in my backyard; I don't want a heroin addict in my backyard”.

We know the fundraising article was posted by the government on the www.conservative.ca website. It asks us to help “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. Therefore, we see Nimbyism on the www.conservative.ca website on behalf of the government.

I ask my hon. colleague to help me understand how it is that the government proposes to do that when it is creating more of a situation for people who suffer from addictions, so that they do not have a place to safely have treatments, needle exchanges or whatever types of services they might need. How is it that the Conservative fundraising machine and the Conservative government plans on keeping heroin out of our backyards by creating a situation where it is much more difficult to keep heroin addicts out of our backyards?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises the point that this is part of the government's scare tactic fundraising activities. The day it introduced this bill, it started a major fundraising campaign for the Conservative Party. Therefore, I think the bill is really about pushing an ideological point of view and raising money for the Conservative Party.

The member for Kitchener—Conestoga talked about having a safe injection site next to a school. I do not know what community he lives in. I presume he lives in Kitchener. Do members think the City of Kitchener would allow a safe injection site to be set up next to the school and invite all of the addicts from anywhere around to use it? I do not think the people of Kitchener would put up with that. As the law is right now, I do not think they would have to put up with it.

Therefore, to raise these points and put in a piece of legislation like this, along with a lot of other matters that sensible people have accepted, would make it nearly impossible for anyone to cross all the barriers that are set up here to having a safe injection safe. That is the end run around the Supreme Court of Canada, which said it had to give permission because this is a life-saving activity.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in connection with Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which I oppose. We will definitely be proposing amendments. Prior to prorogation, the government had introduced Bill C-65, which has now become Bill C-2.

In my speech, I would like to explain how we got to where we are, and why we are examining this bill. The intent of the bill, which is largely hidden because the Conservatives have been actively fundraising since introducing it, is to put a stop to supervised injection sites like InSite. At the moment, the only such site is InSite, in Vancouver. In this bill, the government has introduced an interminable list of criteria to deter people from applying for an exemption.

I am going to put this in context. With the support of the community, scientists and experts decided to set up a supervised injection site. The term "supervised" is very important here. The government decided to challenge the site and intervened, taking the issue to court. InSite won and the government lost. The case went to the appeal court, and then all the way to the Supreme Court in 2011. The Supreme Court ruling is called Canada v. PHS Community Services Society. I strongly encourage my colleagues to read this important ruling, because it explains the state of the law. It is a matter of fundamental rights and the charter.

This government is known for being extremely good at introducing bills and taking action that is contrary to the charter. The government says that it is concerned about the taxpayers' money, and yet it continually pushes cases all the way to the Supreme Court. This costs the taxpayers and the stakeholders a great deal of money. If I have time later, I would like to explore the legal aspects. For the time being, I will focus on the public safety aspect and in particular on public health.

The government acts without paying attention to scientific research or the opinions of experts who have commented on the matter. We in the official opposition are beginning to get used to seeing the government introduce scientifically groundless ideological bills. When the government acts, it is only to be expected that it will exaggerate and oversimplify without really addressing all the important points or taking scientific considerations, or the experts, into account. The purpose of all this is simply to raise funds. This is clearly what it is doing at the moment.

Back to public health. Why is it important to consider that aspect? Of course we want heroin addicts to stop using drugs. There has already been preventive work and education around that. From the community standpoint, it is very important. Sometimes, no matter what we do, we cannot help these people. A centre like InSite provides a supervised environment where doctors and experts can ensure that people are not injecting drugs in the street.

In terms of public health, there are tangible results. Studies indicate a decrease of 35% in overdose-related deaths. If the government cared and if it sought the well-being of the public, it would take these figures to heart. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not do so. They do not look at this aspect, and they oversimplify the problem.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have had an opportunity to see that the Conservatives always adopt the same ideological approach. They imply that we are with them or against them, and if we are against them, they call us every name in the book. We are in the same situation here.

When we talk about public health, we have to look to the research. And there is research. Canada is not the only country to have studied this issue. Thirty studies have been reviewed by experts, and there are 70 supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia. Studies have also been published in such highly respected international journals as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. Actual studies have been carried out on this, and they clearly support the position taken by the NDP, which is that of the InSite people and British Columbia.

We should not forget that all of this has received community support. I am anticipating the question my colleague asks every time. There is support from the community and the authorities in the health care field on this issue. We should therefore pay careful attention.

This is not a free-for-all place to shoot up. In this facility, there is supervision and follow-up, and children are not allowed. The result is that people do not do it in the streets. We must stop burying our heads in the sand. Saying that we do not want this in our backyard will not stop people from doing it. People will continue to do it, and that is a problem. Naturally, there are efforts in the area of education and prevention. In this case, however, we have to rely on facts, and in this respect, the government is turning a blind eye.

Let us talk about public safety. If people do not have access to supervised sites like InSite to inject themselves with drugs, they will do it in the streets, in the parks and in all the other places where it can cause problems. We could have needles lying around, cases that are not monitored, people dying and people doing it in an unsafe manner, reusing needles from other users. This will lead to an increase in blood-borne diseases, and will have a direct impact on the health of those concerned.

The Conservatives tend to say that if we are against them, we will automatically say anything. I would nevertheless like to say that the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and many other organizations support the NDP's position on protecting the health and safety of these people.

In closing, I would like the government to support the amendments the NDP will be proposing, but above all to realize that it has to stop acting ideologically and must finally begin to take the facts and the science into consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, in part of the member's speech he said there is a very high threshold that may potentially not even be attainable. However, the reality of the situation is that what we are asking for is that communities be consulted to ensure that if an injection site is going to be placed in their community they are good with it. That is what this is about. This is not mandating that we are not going to do it.

With regard to injection sites, I have not heard once from the opposition that the one and only injection site in Canada discourages the use of heroin. In fact, it is the other way around. They just want to make sure that if someone overdoses while injecting, there is someone there to hopefully save them.

I guess I get back to my original question. Do they believe that heroin should be dispensed from the injection sites to ensure safe injection to the person who is using?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I feel that the hon. member opposite did not listen to my speech. I said clearly that we are talking about detoxification. Programs exist and we hope that they will succeed in getting people to stop using illegal drugs.

In this case, things have gone too far. The people have tried to get help, but it did not work. We want to find a solution. The preferred solution has been studied around the world and is supported by experts in the field. I know the member wants to make everyone afraid by saying sites like that are going to be established.

As the hon. member mentioned, only one site of this kind presently exists in Canada; it is located in Vancouver.

I remind the hon. member that, according to a study done by Boyd et al. in 2008, 80% of the people surveyed, those living or working in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, supported InSite, so there is community action. Clearly, if the City of Vancouver or the provincial government were opposed to it, the site would not exist.

Some people seem to be unaware of what is really going on. They seem to be blind to what we actually have. We really must study what is already in place. Once again, unfortunately, this is an ideological approach on the part of the Conservatives.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for his very well-chosen remarks.

He has visited my riding. He is very well-prepared, as always, in standing up for his fellow citizens in such an excellent way.

In addition to the very high level of social acceptance that the InSite safe injection site enjoys, there is also OnSite, located above InSite, where users can get detoxification and rehabilitation services. What are the additional advantages of the site? Personally, all I see are advantages.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his compliments. He paid me so many that they cannot all be deserved.

InSite has many advantages. As I have already mentioned, some of the advantages have to do with health and safety. This is about saving lives. This is about something that works. Studies show that 35% of the lives have been saved.

I find it very difficult to listen to the Conservatives pushing their ideological agenda. On this side of the House, we look at facts. Experience in the field shows that this saves lives. All opposition members are against the Conservative government's position.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit to a certain amount of soul-searching before writing my speech on the bill. It caused me to meditate quite a bit about what the role of a parliamentarian really is and the role of lawmakers in general. I am going to start there before going on to the bill itself.

What is our role here? The bill brings up this fundamental question. What are we called to be as parliamentarians? The answer is many things. First and foremost is the voice of our constituents, but we are also asked to use our conscience as any other citizen must do in his or her daily life. It is truly a great privilege to be an elected official, but there are pitfalls to this privilege. It can bring much arrogance, egotism and hubris, and we must keep at the forefront of our minds what we have no right to claim as our own power. No, this privilege does not bring with it any right to judge our fellow human beings. We are in no way morally superior because we have attained high office. We are as everyone, ecce homo, only human; dignified, yes, fundamentally good, filled with light and hope but not perfect. Yes, we are not perfect, but perfectible.

We must evacuate all sense of moral superiority and arrogance from our role as legislators. Most of all, we must be careful not to usurp the powers that belong not to us but to the one who made us. We must be careful when we choose to look upon our fellow human beings and judge them and see them as something other than us, something to be reviled or to be stigmatized. This is not the way of compassion as I have come to understand it.

Addiction is a terrible affliction. As a non-addict, I cannot imagine the struggle it represents every day to need a substance so much to be happy and to alleviate my suffering that I will do almost anything to get it. There is a malaise to our modernity. Our industrial society and its competitive ethos weighs heavily on the human spirit. Many people are unhappy and materialism has kept a lot of us from what is most noble and great in human beings. In this disjointed, mechanized, crass and sometimes violent and abusive culture we live in, how can we blame those most alienated and marginalized from it for suffering?

I believe that a response to this malaise and its many sicknesses must be compassion. We must offer to addicts, like any other human being, a way to be healed from what afflicts them. The question of supporting the bill does not lie in the personal views of the morality of injection sites, but in the evidence of their efficacy as a cure. Do they protect a fellow human being from the ravages of his or her disease? Do they increase his or her chances to be cured? These, in my opinion, are the fundamental and compassionate questions we should be asking.

The facts are clear. For example, people who made use of services at InSite—a supervised injection site in Vancouver—at least once a week were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a permanent detox program. Evidence also shows that supervised injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C. Evidence has also shown that these sites do not negatively affect public safety and that, in certain cases, they even promote it by reducing the injection of drugs in public, the violence associated with such behaviour, and drug-related waste. Furthermore, safe injection sites make it possible to strike the appropriate balance between public health and public safety. They also connect people in urgent need of health care with the services they need, such as primary health care and drug treatment services.

My colleagues do not have to take my word for it. These facts have been confirmed by health care professionals across the country. For example, the Canadian Medical Association said:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

The Canadian Nurses Association stated:

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 facts are clear: these centres have a positive impact on addicts and on our society. For example, the rate of overdose deaths in Vancouver East has fallen by 35% since InSite was opened. A study conducted over a one-year period shows that there were 273 overdoses at InSite but none of them were fatal. In one year, 2,171 users of InSite were referred to addiction counselling or other support services.

Injection drug users who are clients of InSite are 70% less likely to share needles. Reduction of needle sharing has been cited as a best practice at the international level for reducing rates of HIV and AIDS. Users of InSite are more likely to seek medical care through the site.

However, the Conservatives are remaining obstinate: they intend to be the judges of these people who are suffering enormously because of their addiction. Essentially, Bill C-2 is part and parcel of a broader Conservative initiative to bring all government policies and programs in line with their anti-drug and anti-addiction ideals. They are slowly eliminating every means whereby Canadians can access injection sites. The effect of the Conservatives’ agenda is to reverse the progress made in public health and the community benefits attributable to harm reduction programs over the last 20 years.

There is no denying that the Conservatives have been trying for years to close supervised injection sites. They have spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on court proceedings to get them shut down. They are even prepared to defy the Supreme Court ruling, undermine the court’s decision and find some other way to close down supervised injection sites, which do not square with Conservative ideology. Why are they so bent on refusing to heal people who are sick? Why not choose compassion instead of judgment?

If this remedy did not work and had no benefits, I might understand the position of the Conservative government, but that is not the case. It seems to me that it is our duty to rid ourselves of our prejudices, show compassion to addicts and create conditions that will help them overcome their difficult situation.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a couple of days of this debate and I have had the same question for the New Democrat speakers. I have asked it repeatedly and have yet to get it answered.

I understand they object to large chunks of the bill, but the bill has specific criteria laying out when and when not communities should be consulted. As well, there are criteria for the minister to make a judgment call about whether or not to allow an injection site. I am sure the hon. members do not object to every element of those criteria, but since they object to the bill, I gather they object to some of the criteria put in there.

Specifically, which criteria in the bill do you agree should be part of judging whether or not a site should be approved and which criteria do you think the minister has been wrong to include in the legislation?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member, I would just remind all hon. members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair. I presume it is the member for Pontiac who he would like to hear the response from, not the Chair.

The hon. member for Pontiac.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about public procurement, one of the major ways that we can try to modify the access to a particular program is designing the criteria so that, really, only one company could actually have a successful contract bid.

What is going on in this case, and it is quite clear as a strategy and all the professionals know it, is that the Conservative government is trying to create so many criteria that it is basically going to become impossible to have a safe injection site. I do not think that is the response that we need when we are dealing with people who are fundamentally ill and need the care of an injection site.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Pontiac. Like others before him, he talked about the environment these people need to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into our society. We marginalize these people, who are left to fend for themselves, and that is causing great havoc in our societies today. They need supervised environments to be rehabilitated. In fact, that is their first contact with society. They need a structured society, something that will give them hope. That is often their last chance.

Could my colleague elaborate on that aspect?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they are our society's exiled and marginalized. The worst thing we can do is push them even further away. Having access to a safe injection site brings them back to society. It shows them that there is a place for them and that professionals believe in their future. I cannot speak for them because I am not in their situation, but these people would surely like to be treated like human beings and to be loved. They would like to be able to heal, to have hope and to know that our culture is not abandoning them.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked the hon. member a good question.

Without any kind of answer, we have to assume that they are fine that there is absolutely no framework in place at all to limit people who are going to go out and actually do two crimes before they even get to one of these safe injection sites. They have to buy illicit drugs, they have to be in possession of illicit drugs and they have to go to one of these sites. Even after they are supervised or released from this site, they are hopped up on drugs, going back into the communities.

Is there any kind of protection that he would like to have for communities at all, in order to ensure that they are safe?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is an assumption in that question that the police do not do their jobs. The police keep the vast majority of our communities extremely safe. The other thing the member does not understand is addiction.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), I request that the vote be deferred to the end of government orders on Tuesday, November 26, 2013.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 21 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 amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading of Bill C-2.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #16

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The House resumed from November 26 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.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in regard to the respect for communities act. As my colleagues on this side of the House have often stated in the course of this debate—and the members opposite, apparently, wholly disagree—Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. The respect for communities act would ensure that parents have a say before drug injection sites open in their communities, and it deserves support from all members of this House, regardless of ideological belief. As my colleagues have outlined, the bill would contribute to the public health and public safety of Canadian communities.

I would like to focus in particular on the importance that these amendments place on input from the public, from potentially affected communities and from relevant stakeholders such as public health officials and local law enforcement.

First, here is a little background. As those who have been listening carefully to the debate in the House will know, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act prohibits activities with controlled substances, including possession, import, export, production and distribution of controlled substances except as authorized under the act, its regulations or a section 56 exemption. The CDSA applies to both licit and illicit controlled substances. Section 56 of the act provides the Minister of Health with the authority to grant exemptions from the application of the act or its regulations “...if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest”.

This section has also been used in the past to allow for routine activities with illicit substances, such as training law-enforcement dogs to detect drugs. However, it has been the case in the past that the same section has been used for activities that were not originally envisioned, those being supervised injection sites.

The respect for communities act, which we are debating today, would require any potential applications for supervised drug injection sites in Canada to address specific criteria before such applications would be considered. It also contains a plethora of additional criteria that, for some reason, the New Democrats are systematically opposed to. These include, of all things, scientific evidence. That, in fact, is the first item in the bill.

Throughout the course of the debate we have had on the bill already, we have heard the opposition members claim that there are numerous studies already existing that provide evidence that injection sites have medical value. That is a completely fair viewpoint. In fact, that makes the job of the applicants easier. They should simply submit those studies. The principal issue here is that many of those studies the New Democrats are referencing refer to the use of individual substances at supervised injection sites, like heroin. For the members opposite, what about other substances like, perhaps, cocaine or ecstasy? Studies that would speak to the pros or cons of an injection site for heroin would surely not be applicable to those drugs, yet they fall into the same category of illicit substances in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

That is why it is important that the studies and evidence that specifically relate to the activities that are proposed for the individual site be submitted with the application. That is why it is important to also note that these applications would be judged on a case-by-case basis.

No two locations would have exactly the same challenges. This is why it is important that the minister be aware of the issues facing each and every individual proposed site, so that a fair decision based on the facts can be rendered for every unique situation.

Given that no current statutory framework exists for such applications, this legislation would not only address a current gap but would also ensure that relevant community voices are heard in the process, as required by the 2011 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on the subject. Given the serious risks associated with the use and creation of illicit substances, our government agrees with the Supreme Court that exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to undertake activities with them at a supervised injection site should be limited to exceptional circumstances, only once rigorous criteria have been addressed.

One of the criteria our government is proposing that follows the court's ruling is that any applicant seeking an exemption for activities involving illicit substances at a supervised injection site must provide evidence of community consultations from a broad range of groups from the municipality in which the site would be located. This would include a summary of the opinions of community groups on the proposed activities, as well as copies of all written submissions received and steps that would be taken to address any relevant concerns that are raised during the consultations. The Supreme Court indicated that the minister must take into account these expressions of community support or opposition, if any, when considering an application for an exemption. How the NDP can oppose a requirement that is mandated by the Supreme Court is beyond me.

The proposed legislation would provide an opportunity for this community input into the application process related to supervised injection sites. It would provide greater transparency to the process. It would provide the minister with important information needed to assess the applications on a case-by-case basis.

This bill demonstrates once again that listening to local voices, maintaining safe communities and protecting public health are top priorities for this government, and they should be top priorities for anybody in this House.

Under the proposed approach, applicants for supervised drug injection sites would need to provide information outlining the views of a number of key community stakeholders who are considered relevant to the success or failure of a site. This would include stakeholders such as municipal leaders, the lead public health professional in the province or territory, the licensing bodies for physicians and nurses in that province or territory, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for health and public safety and, of course, the head of local law enforcement. This just makes sense.

As the president of the Canadian Police Association has said:

While treating drug addiction is an important goal, my experience in Vancouver is that these sites also lead to an increase in criminal behaviour and disorder in the surrounding community and have a significant impact on police resources, and that's why it would be vital for the views of local police to be taken into account.

In this new approach, the Minister of Health would have the authority to post a notice of application regarding any exemption application received related to a supervised consumption site for a 90-day public comment period to allow members of the public to provide their views. This public comment period would provide an opportunity for a broad range of stakeholders to make their views known to the minister. Any relevant feedback would be taken into account by the minister as she considers the application for an exemption.

This information would be combined with other rigorous application criteria intended to balance public health and public safety considerations. It would allow the minister to make an informed decision when considering an exemption application for activities with illicit substances at a supervised injection site.

To reiterate, these application criteria that would be required under the proposed legislation build upon the factors outlined in the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

In conclusion, given the serious risks involved, our government believes that any application involving illicit drugs under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act must be given serious and careful assessment. This legislation is designed to ensure a rigorous approach to future applications for exemptions to conduct activities with illicit substances at supervised consumption sites. It would provide greater clarity concerning the application process, and it would provide crucial information to the minister about the wishes and views of the local communities that could potentially be affected by the proposed site.

The bill would help protect the health and safety of Canadians and balance this with consideration of the public health impacts related to illicit drug use in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. It would also ensure that the voices of local communities are heard and taken into account in the decisions that affect them.

I urge every member of the House to vote in favour of the proposed legislative changes debated here today to help ensure that our government can continue to keep communities safe and abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.

With that, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, suddenly the Conservatives have two new-found loves.

One is to respect the local voices in communities that may be impacted by a proposal. I do not remember any of that interest when we were talking about pipelines or resource development coming from the Conservatives. Actually, we see the reverse when they make the entrance for public opinion and views even more restricted in any proposal having to do with oil pipelines. However, when it comes to saving lives, as is proposed by the InSite project in Vancouver, my friend says that we are entitled to our opinions.

Well, we are entitled to our facts, and the facts are that InSite has worked and has been supported by Conservative and left-wing mayors in that city as well as the chiefs of police. It is so confusing to me that the Conservatives want to take away something that works.

The second new-found love is to respect the Supreme Court of Canada. What an amazing moment that the Conservatives are suddenly interested in the views of the Supreme Court of Canada, because we see them so often introducing legislation that is unconstitutional and will be challenged in court, is challenged in the Supreme Court and is defeated at the Supreme Court. We had one just two weeks ago on trying to cut down on gun violence.

The Conservatives are not listening to their own constitutional experts, but rather they have the photo op and pretend to the public that they are doing something about crime, gun safety or any of those types of issues. Then they move in legislation that they know full well would not ever be realized in actual law.

My question to my friend is: Is this new-found consideration both for the court and for the opinion of the public going to extend beyond this one particular bill?

Let us be honest here. What the government is doing in this legislation is to ensure that never again would a safe injection site be built in Canada. That is what the real purpose of this legislation is: creating criteria that are impossible to meet, ensuring that these programs will never come to pass.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my cynical friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his comments.

What we have an abiding—not new-found—love for is common sense and balance. My friend calls the criteria impossible to meet. The court outlined factors that the minister must consider for applications. They seem like common sense to me: the impact of such a facility on crime rates; the local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support the facility; the resources available to support its maintenance; and the expression of community support or opposition. None of those sounds radical to me.

My friend mentions support from various folks. That is a fair comment because there are some. I will remind the House of the comments by the president of the Canadian Police Association that I quoted in my speech, which basically said it is vital for the views of local police to be taken into account, among other things. Therefore, this is not a new-found love for anything other than simple common sense and balance.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the quickness and haphazard way the bill was developed. It appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to losing the decision of the Supreme Court, which stated that under certain conditions safe injection sites are not necessarily a bad idea.

At one point, my riding was considered for an injection site. I think community involvement is something that every potential safe injection site looks for.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this question, in terms of the dangers of not having a safe injection site, where needles are used haphazardly all over the place. I was involved in a cleanup project with an organization. We found literally dozens of needles in parks where kids play. Had there been a safe injection site, those needles would have been disposed of in a way that does not harm or threaten our children. That protects our community plus offers the opportunity for those individuals who are under duress or the problems of substance abuse to potentially find their way to a better place. Is this not protecting our communities? Is this not helping our communities?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. friend's opinion. However, I will take a bit of exception to the suggestion that there are no needles in the neighbourhood around safe injection sites. In Edmonton, we do not have a safe injection site. That is a valid point. However, it has been our experience that the needles are out there regardless of whether or not there is a safe injection site. It may affect a very small amount of the total out there, but it really does not impact or affect the hazard of needles in the community.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. For members representing urban communities, like mine in Sudbury, this is a very significant and potentially dangerous piece of legislation, particularly as communities continue to see intravenous drug use taking place in outdoor public spaces.

There is also a very important public health component of this legislation, particularly as it relates to communicable diseases, such as HIV/AIDS. As the former co-chair of the HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis Parliamentary Caucus, I think some of the concerns of people on the front lines of the fight against HIV/AIDS merit strong consideration before this legislation is allowed to move forward.

Let me begin by focusing my comments on what this legislation would seek to do and how the changes to Canada's regulatory framework surrounding safe injection sites may actually contravene the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada on this subject. Essentially, what Bill C-2 is proposing is a complete reworking of the current framework governing safe injection sites in Canada by creating a lengthy and arduous list of criteria that supervised injection sites would need to meet before the minister would grant them an exemption to operate under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Among the numerous new provisions that would be included in the application process, many seem to be designed solely for the purpose of slowing down the process itself, while others, such as principles the minister must adhere to before approving an application, seem to be intended as a means of giving the minister unilateral power to accept or reject a new application. Essentially, these new criteria would make it much more onerous for organizations to open safe injection sites in Canada.

What is most troubling about this exhaustive set of new application criteria is the fact that this legislation seems to be an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision on this matter by creating a system that is so onerous and arbitrary that the minister could subjectively reject applications at his or her discretion.

In its 2011 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close Vancouver-based InSite violated its patients' charter rights and that the minister's decision was arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which includes public health and safety. Here the court based its judgment on section 7 of the charter, and stated:

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.

Yet here we are, not even two years later, facing a subversive attempt to undermine the decision of the court with a bill designed to find a backdoor means of closing down supervised injection sites. For instance, despite already having the Supreme Court of Canada rule in favour of its continued operation, InSite will now have to once again apply for a section 56 exemption under the new criteria. This means that InSite is being asked to validate its existence once again and that the minister can still arbitrarily shut down the institution.

This speaks to the heart of why I am so concerned about the way this process is unfolding. Without pulling punches, it is clear that Bill C-2 is part of a larger attempt by the Conservatives to align all government policies and programs with their anti-drug and abstinence ideals. They are slowly removing all avenues for Canadians to safely address their addictions at safe injection sites and to access medical marijuana for therapeutic needs.

With the Conservatives' agenda, we are turning back the clock on public health achievements and community benefits gained from harm reduction programs that have been proven to be successful over the past two decades.

In an attempt to garner support for the bill, Conservatives have been suggesting that it should be passed, because it will help keep heroin out of our backyards. However, the bill will make it almost impossible to open safe injection sites. It will actually put intravenous drug users back into public spaces in certain communities and make it more difficult to safely remove this activity from communities that do not currently house a supervised injection site.

Let me use a local example from my great community of Sudbury to illustrate how backward the government's thinking is on this issue. The Point, Sudbury's needle exchange program, has for the last 20 years supplied clean needles to reduce harm to intravenous drug users. While the majority of those needles are returned after they are used, some still end up on the ground. This means that each year, as the snow melts across my city, the thaw tends to reveal hundreds of discarded needles in our city's parks, playgrounds, and other similar public spaces.

Some Conservatives might cite this as a prime example of why we, as legislators, should be making it more onerous for intravenous drug users to access clean needles. However, I believe that it underscores that we have not created an effective system that allows these individuals to access clean needles in a space removed from the public so that used needles are not carelessly discarded on our city's streets. Evidence from Vancouver's experience with InSite supports this belief, as there was a significant drop in the number of discarded syringes, injection-related litter, and people injecting on the streets one year after InSite opened.

While no organization in my community has thus far come forward with an application to open a supervised injection site, should one eventually come forward with an application, the government's desire to make the process more onerous would actually reverse course on a 20-year public health trajectory. It would once again lead to a higher threat from discarded needles, and more importantly, from the threat of deadly communicable diseases, such as HIV and AIDS.

I mentioned previously my involvement in parliamentary initiatives related to HIV and AIDS. Given this experience, I firmly believe that the most disturbing thing about what Bill C-2 is proposing is the impact it would have on the spread of communicable diseases. For instance, the Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition have jointly stated:

[Bill C-2] 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 public purse to block access to supervised consumption services.

Once again, empirical evidence confirms the efficiency of supervised injection sites in preventing the spread of communicable diseases. Drug users who use lnSite are 70% less likely to share needles, and reducing needle sharing has been listed as an international best practice to reduce the rate of HIV/AIDS.

In conclusion, it is worth highlighting that safe injection sites currently operate in 70 cities in six European countries and in Australia. The experience in these cases, as with InSite, has been positive for drug users, because of health improvements; for the surrounding communities; and for reducing the transmission rates of HIV/AIDS.

By making the application process more onerous and arbitrary, the Conservatives are using processes as a means of clandestinely supporting their ideological beliefs regarding the morality of drug use, ultimately threatening more than 20 years of evidence-based public health policy. New Democrats support the use of evidence-based decision-making, and for this reason, I will not be supporting this ideologically driven attempt to skirt the decision of Canada's highest court.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to forgive my colleague from Sudbury, whom I have worked with very positively in a number of different dimensions, for inferring that there is some alternative intention of the bill.

He began his speech by mentioning a framework for supervised injection sites. In fact, the real issue is that there is no framework. He refers to section 56, which simply provides an opportunity to get an exemption for research on illicit drugs or for use with things like sniffer dogs. There is no framework at all right now.

Bill C-2 is the first attempt to put a framework in place for supervised injection sites. Would he not agree that some of the aspects of the bill should be in place to make sure that the community has a say and that police, the municipality, and the provincial health officer have a say in where these sites go, when we are talking about people who are hopped up on illicit drugs and who are going to be leaving these sites and going into communities?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should not worry about apologizing. I know that we are on different sides of the House, but what we are having is a good debate on a subject that is important for all Canadians.

What we are seeing in the bill would change a system that is working. If we are actually helping individuals who have addictions, then let us keep moving forward on this.

InSite, located in Vancouver, is the only site in Canada. Since it opened, we have seen a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable disease infection rates, and relapse rates for drugs users. This is coming from the community. The community is involved in it. We do not want to make it more onerous and leave it in the minister's hands to make an arbitrary decision, when the community is already saying that this site is working for them.

We need to continue to promote facilities like InSite to help those who are addicted.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very cogent speech on this topic, which I spoke about previously in the House.

To come back to the issue of what the Supreme Court determined, it is really important for everyone in this place to understand exactly what the Supreme Court said in this case. The Supreme Court was very clear that in this case, a declaration of the law was not sufficient. The matter was so serious, because of what the government was trying to do to provide public health safety, that it issued an order of mandamus, which does not occur very often.

The Supreme Court said that the infringement at stake, meaning from the government trying to shut down InSite, was so serious “it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them”. Therefore, an order of mandamus was necessary.

The Supreme Court was clear that the government, in responding to its direction, must take a balanced approach. It must look at the interests of the community, which the government claims it is looking at, but must balance them with the charter, or in other words, the rights of those who are suffering from a drug addiction where there are measures to also protect the community from this.

The Supreme Court actually directed the government to put in place balanced criteria. When we look at this legislation, there is the complete opposite of balance. We have almost 40 requirements that must be met before there can be an InSite-type of location. That is not balance. It is not simply about giving a voice to communities, which is normally done on every other matter by the local government.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 directly defies the 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which called on the minister to consider these exemptions for safe injection sites based on a balance between public health and safety. It called on the minister to consider all the evidence on the benefits of safe injection sites, rather than setting out a lengthy list of principles by which to apply judgment.

What we are calling it on this side of the House is a backdoor attempt to change the Supreme Court decision. We need to ensure that we actually find ways to continue to help facilities like InSite, because the job it is doing in the community of Vancouver is coming from the community, and it is doing a good job.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is an honour for me to stand here to discuss this particular issue. I have done a bit of research in the past little while, as I am not familiar with the areas in question, though I have experienced living around it. I did live in Vancouver for some time.

I became interested, after reading the evidence put forward and the decision by the Supreme Court, in the issue of harm reduction. Some time ago, I was in Europe with a delegation and we were talking about harm reduction in a very broad sense. We were exploring the best practices to reduce harm in big cities and to reduce drug abuse and how we could do it in a very smart way, not necessarily punitive all the time. Of course, there has to be certain punishment involved when it comes to drug abuse, but we certainly have to enable people to put themselves in better places by reducing harm. That is where the focus should be. I heard compelling reasons as to why harm reduction should be at the centre of this.

In this particular bill, there is talk of frameworks so that these sites could exist and that there would be rules to follow in order for the sites to do what it is they do, which I believe is good work. As my hon. colleague just pointed out, though, 40 requirements in Bill C-2 for InSite to exist really straps these people into positions—

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Too bad there weren't more requirements for the Senate.

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

There you go.

Basically, what we are looking at here is something that is onerous for these people to exist. We are scrambling now. Before the bill becomes law, hopefully we can engage members in debate and try to put some reason to this.

Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, would do the following:

(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.

This is where things start to fall off the rails, as it were, because it is an incredibly overly prescriptive way of trying to reduce harm in the cities and the impact drug abuse has on all of our communities, whether they are big cities or small towns. Very few people in this country have not had the experience of seeing what heavy drug abuse can do to communities and families.

Liberals feel that the bill far exceeds the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada ruling regarding InSite. We believe this is an ideological bill from a government always opposed to evidence-based harm reduction measures, such as safe injections sites, as I talked about earlier. Safe injection sites must be part of a broader evidence-based national drug policy that saves lives, reduces harm and promotes public health. The criteria that must accompany an application as listed in this particular bill are so cumbersome that it raises serious concerns as to whether any future site could be established in Canada, as my colleague from Alberta pointed out about the 40 requirements involved here.

We support the need to consult broadly and work in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments, public health authorities, business associates, and of course, the public. The engagement with other levels of government is not just important in this particular matter, but in all particular matters these days. The idea of engaging the provinces on much broader issues seems to be lost. I cannot remember the last time this country engaged with the provinces, certainly with the head of state of each province, with the first ministers involved, to allow them, in a public manner, to engage in a national issue. This is another one of these things.

It was initially launched as an experiment that has proven to be successful. I am talking about InSite, of course. It has saved lives and improved health and communities and the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area. The Vancouver police supports InSite, as well as the City of Vancouver and the British Columbia government. The minister has never even stepped into Vancouver's InSite and her legislation is based on ideology and not evidence.

Now we go back to the theme once more of evidence-based policy.

I have been here nine years and the Conservatives have been in government for about seven years. It seems to me that year after year those who work so diligently to give us the evidence upon which we can base our decisions have had numerous protests. Not just when it comes to InSite, but also in the case of the Library and Archives, the Meteorological Service of Canada, Statistics Canada. All these employees have high amounts of education and want to do their jobs in the best manner possible, yet each and every time policy seems to run away from what we consider to be evidence-based policy or at least the making of decisions and drafting of policy with the latest data and facts in mind, which are given to us by our experts.

This is just another example. Harm reduction is actually taking place in a supervised site. Now, in order for them to exist and do what they do best, we find ourselves in the situation where the government wants to strap them down. It is almost as if they want to use, I believe the term is, “regulation creep”, where the government would allow regulations to be imposed that would suffocate a particular incentive or a project, which has been successful in making our communities better.

That is the unfortunate part because when these regulations take hold, as was pointed out, the 40 criteria are going to make it near impossible for these places to exist. The Vancouver police certainly would not be happy, and the Province of British Columbia feels much the same.

Only an hour after the legislation was introduced, Conservative campaign director, Jenni Byrne issued a crass and misleading fundraising letter to supporters stating that the Liberals and the NDP want addicts to shoot up heroin in backyards in communities all across the country.

Now we have come to the nub of the issue. This is what it is all about. It is not about creating a framework for harm reduction. This is a 30-second ad or a tweet of less than 140 characters that talks about how good the Conservatives are and how bad we are. The Conservatives are chasing after this headline. Lost in the headlines would be a lot of drug abuse taking place in the dark shadows once more.

This site reduces the harm and brings it under control so that these communities can be better. It will not eradicate the issue. Nothing can eradicate the issue of drug abuse.

Certainly if evidence-based policy tells us that this is making a difference in our communities, making our streets safer, a phrase the Conservatives use all the time, why would they want to chase after a headline with a fundraising letter and a notice in Canadians' post office boxes geared toward an election campaign, when there is no election campaign? It smacks of desperation, and it is unfortunate that this is a ploy the Conservatives are using. I am not going to blame every member in the House for engaging in that. There are a lot of people on all sides of the House who, when they see it in their post office box, are obviously disappointed, and they just roll their eyes.

However, we are affected by this. We need to have a mature debate. I hope the idea of this is not to go after a headline and score some cheap political points. I say, “I hope.” We can only hold out for hope.

We support evidence-based policies to reduce harm and protect public safety. These are paramount. They should always be paramount. A 2011 Supreme Court ruling declared the Minister of Health's 2008 decision not to grant an extension of the exemption of section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which had allowed Vancouver's safe injection site, a safe consumption site, to operate since September 2003, had violated section 7 of the charter rights. That is:

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.

Determining whether there has been a breach of section 7 involves a two-part analysis that courts considering potential section 7 violations must ask. First, is there a deprivation of the right to life, liberty or security? Second, if so, is the deprivation in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice? Therein lies the core of the issue.

This is about harm reduction and this about the rights of communities to reduce harm and to reduce drug abuse.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. Liberal colleague, but first I would like to thank him for mentioning the importance of harm reduction so many times.

Yesterday the Standing Committee on Health was examining the issue of prescription drug abuse. Witnesses from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and the College of Family Physicians of Canada all agreed that the government should correct the mistake it made in 2007 when it removed the fourth pillar from the government's anti-drug strategy, which is harm reduction.

My question is very simple. He already mentioned that the fourth pillar was eliminated from the strategy based on ideology.

Can he explain why the Conservatives and people on the right oppose the notion of helping people who are struggling, who might not yet be ready to begin treatment, and who could be helped through harm reduction strategies such as a supervised injection site?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very valid point. This issue tends to divide itself along ideological lines, not just in Canada but also in the United States and Europe. As I mentioned earlier, I went to Europe and I found that a lot of people look at the idea of harm reduction and in particular look at these supervised sites as some kind of promotional or enabling mechanism to allow people to continue their bad practices.

However, what I find, which is promising, is that when people such as the hon. colleague get in front of people who are the practitioners, the physicians, the nurses, the health officers, the people who live in Vancouver on the east side, the councillors and politicians within Vancouver, when they are exposed to the evidence I would say the vast majority of them, if not all of them, change their attitudes toward it.

There is nothing wrong with changing our attitudes toward an evidence-based policy that is put in front of us. We change our minds a lot around here. The problem is that we all fault each other for doing it.

We must look at the evidence in this case. As my colleague points out, in that committee, just listen to the people who deal with this day in and day out. Here we are as politicians making decisions based on what we read on paper, but the police of Vancouver say it is the way to go. Now if the police are saying it, there has to be something to this.

To address my colleague's question, I hope more of these right-wing ideological people get more exposed to the evidence, as he was.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate is not one of ideology, it is one of understanding public policy and the nature of what a broad vision of public safety is, not only in what the member talked about in terms of harm reduction but also in the community that he is questioning, the community where such a site would be.

I mentioned to one of my colleagues earlier the fact that there is no framework right now for a supervised injection site.

Presently there are just two aspects in section 56 and they are explicitly for research and for things like using illicit drugs when sniffer dogs are being trained, et cetera. Does the member not think that there should be some framework for a site that has such a high level of risk so that communities can have the input from police, councillors, the general public, the provincial health authority? Does he not think that is something that should be necessary?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member is trying to say about the framework. There is no doubt it. Any plan that we want to carry out that reduces harm has to have an established framework as such.

However, the requirements in the bill, and let us talk about the bill for a moment, are so prescriptive and overly restrictive, we are starting to read between the lines that Conservatives do not want it to exist. I would not kill a mouse with a bazooka, pardon the analogy, but nonetheless, it is the only analogy I have right now, because the Conservatives are trying to take the very spirit of harm reduction out of these supervised sites with an overly prescriptive bill.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In listening to the debate in the House, it is good we are having it.

Today, I would like to talk about the history of the Vancouver safe injection site, or the harm reduction site, because it adds to the debate on of how we might move forward with future sites.

If I have time, I will also talk a bit about the scientific evidence that backs up the creation and continual operation of these sites because as a science and tech critic that is something I look at quite regularly.

In looking at the history of the safe injection site in Vancouver, the theme would be local choice. I have lived very close to the site. I know people who manage the site. When I was a professor at SFU, I would take students to the site when there were no clients there. I have known people who have used the site.

Sometimes when we talk about the facility in the House, we tend to overstate what it is. I am not sure if any of my colleagues on the other side have had a chance to visit the safe injection site, but I think they would be amazed at how innocuous it is. There is a lot to look at when walking down Hastings Street because it is a very active community. However, one would walk right by the site because there are no flashing lights which say “Inject heroin here”. It is a medical facility.

When one enters through its doors, it looks kind of like a hair salon. It has maybe up to 15 stainless steel booths with mirrors in front of them, bright lights, chairs and a nurse's station so when people are injecting there they are using clean needles and are being supervised. If they overdose, they can be rescued. There is also a room where they can relax and adjust to the effects of the drug. Then they move out. It is not a scary place. It is a place of comfort for a lot of people. That is why the history of this site is so important.

The safe injection site was created in Vancouver because there was a policy problem that emerged in the late eighties and early nineties where hundreds of bodies were being pulled out of hotels in the downtown east side. I know this because I had spoken with Senator Larry Campbell, who was the coroner. He said that he would go into hotels in the downtown east side and would pull dead bodies out. This was happening over and over again, mainly because of overdoses.

The mayor of Vancouver at the time was Philip Owen. He was in the Non-Partisan Association, which is the name of the party. It is a coalition of federal Liberals and federal Conservatives. He was a three term mayor at that point. I would describe him, and I think he would agree, as a very Christian man. He has a predilection for ballroom dancing, but is a deeply religious man who, as mayor of the city, felt that he had to address this. What had happened simultaneously was that a number of addicts had started the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, which was an unofficial safe injection site. Mayor Philip Owen, who was a good policy maker, decided to meet with those people and ask them what their problems were. I do not want to speak for him, but some of the questions he was facing were some of the questions my colleagues on the other side have. The idea of providing a safe site for people to inject clashes with the values they hold.

Philip Owen is a brave man. He commissioned a study on harm reduction and put it through council as official policy. It was voted through Vancouver city council. I believe the party then kicked him out as leader. It said that there were people with other ambitions who decided to move against him. It became the main debate of the 2002 civic election in Vancouver, which featured Larry Campbell, who had moved from coroner to mayoralty candidate, versus Jennifer Clarke, another mayoralty candidate. The debate throughout that whole election was about this safe injection site.

Larry Campbell ran for a party called COPE that had really never in the history controlled an absolute majority on council. He won, and that is why we have InSite today. Larry Campbell championed this cause, won an election on it, convinced all the local area residents and merchants, police, emergency services, that this was necessary and, as we heard, in 2003, this site was created.

The bill is problematic because it is too prescriptive.

If we listen to the story about how InSite was developed in Vancouver, it was a local choice. However, these local choices sometimes need some flexibility in terms of development. The are really driven locally anyway.

If we look at the funding of who provides these facilities, this is also co-operative and negotiated. We have federal, provincial, municipal agencies. We have police forces. We already have the local community negotiating. I can tell members that if a local community does not want a safe injection site, it will not get it, whatever federal regulation because it is solely driven by a local policy problem.

What now we have in Vancouver I think has been around the world in other places too. It is not like we invented this in Vancouver. We borrow from other places around the world. We have a facility where people can go and inject their drugs safely, under supervision, and then get on with their lives.

Heroin is a bugaboo. It is an illegal substance. However, I think the question that Philip Owen would have asked himself is what the alternatives were. I think the other side perhaps would prefer abstinence.

If somebody is a heroin addict and has perhaps other mental health issues and has a low income, it is very difficult, impossible actually, to safely go from being a heroin user to a non-heroin user overnight, especially because there are hardly any facilities for that person to do it.

It is about management. That is really what these sites do is help manage these problems that keep people alive.

My core belief is an idea called “intrinsic equality”, meaning that everybody's life is worth the same. Wayne Gretzky is not worth five drug users. Everybody's life is worth the same. It is found in many religions, but I am not coming at it from a religious perspective, but more of a philosophical perspective; all lives are of equal worth.

I think this is the problem Philip Owen would have faced. I believe life, in his perspective,would have been a sacred thing that is worth protecting. “If I do not go forward with this policy, people are going to die. Can I have that on my conscience?” I think the answer was no. This safe injection site is a simple policy solution to manage our problem that could not be eradicated.

It is a very mature way of looking at things and I am very grateful.

It is not for every community because there is not the need. This is why a local community choices are so important.

I would have believed the bill was a genuine attempt if the other side had not tried for so many years to shut down the safe injection site in Vancouver, indeed, writing fundraising letters about how it was shutting it down and so forth.

If this had been entered much earlier in the debate, it would have been something I would have considered,. However, my colleagues are right, that this is not a genuine attempt to open this debate. It is disappointing.

Again, I would ask my colleagues to reconsider, to visit the site themselves to see how innocuous it is and how it is helping people and bringing the community together in a positive way, in a community that is suffering greatly at times.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing a lot of the history of InSite. It is fantastic to hear how that unfolded and how we ended up with the site in Vancouver.

One of the interesting things we are hearing from the other side is a lot of talk about communities and how communities need to have their voices heard. We are representing the community. The member comes from the community where this site is located.

Once upon a time, I had the opportunity to live in the Vancouver area, in the city of north Vancouver, and worked in the downtown east side quite often. I would see individuals on the street in the 1990s with needles in their arms. One of the things that the social workers and the folks in the downtown east side would say was that they wished they had a facility where they could at least monitor these people to ensure they were not dying and give them an opportunity to know that treatment was there, where they knew they could step into a building, not feel judged, do what they had to do safely and then be offered treatment if they were ready for it. InSite is doing that.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my grand colleague from Sudbury, who I enjoy working with on the industry committee.

He is exactly right. It is important to know that this facility is not just a place where addicts go, inject and then leave. It is also a place where they can get help. If we talk to people who are or have been heroin addicts, the last thing they want to do is continue with this. They do not want to be heroin addicts. It is not something that they choose; it is usually because of depression or other reasons why people get addicted to these drugs. They desperately want to be able to manage their problem to get their lives back under control and, ultimately, reduce their dependency.

That is exactly what facilities such as this do. They give people options that they do not think they had. They keep people alive. They stop people from taking water out of mud puddles and injecting it into themselves.

It really is a win-win and it saves significant amounts of money, if that is important. It should be a consideration.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insight, no pun intended, into what has proven to be quite a successful community engagement in Vancouver.

I would challenge anybody in the House to find any drug user who does drugs because he or she wants to or because it would be a good time. Most, if not all, drug users are people who have scars, wounds and things in their lives that they want to hide from.

It seems to me that any legislation on this level should be coming from the perspective of how we can help organizations like this integrate into the community. How can we help organizations like this work with the community so they can serve the community, as opposed to putting up barriers and making it more difficult for organizations like this to exist?

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the questions are good today and I really hope they add to the debate.

Safe injection sites, again, are a flashpoint for debate just because they are new. They are new because people's thinking on them has started to change, mainly because of the great scientific evidence that we have had. Again, these are peer-reviewed studies that are in international scientific journals which stem from the work that has been done in the Vancouver site, as well as sites all around the world.

We have to pay attention to this evidence, because people are suffering. It is not just the people who are immediately affected by addiction, it is the communities. If we were in the downtown east side before the safe injection site was put in place, we would see a community that was in real pain and chaos. After the safe injection site, it is not totally fixed, but the harm has been reduced.

That is really the key here. When we went from thinking about it as a criminal matter to a health matter, that was when the debate started to change and we had a more mature debate about it. I hope we can do that in the House.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, and yesterday we were considering a somewhat similar issue, namely how to prevent prescription drug abuse.

Witnesses included health experts from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

These three organizations are the best of the best and represent thousands of health professionals across Canada in all provinces and territories, including urban communities, which struggle with problems of abuse of both prescription and non-prescription drugs, and rural areas. We must not bury our heads in the sand—drugs are everywhere in Canada.

In Saguenay and Chicoutimi, where I grew up, it was said there were both fewer drugs and fewer kinds of drugs, in comparison with major cities like Montreal and Quebec City. In reality, I knew people who used when I was in high school. In short, we should not delude ourselves: drugs are everywhere in Canada.

Until 2007, harm reduction was the fourth pillar of the national anti-drug strategy. The Conservative government unfortunately decided to remove it to focus only on prevention, treatment and enforcement of Canadian laws.

By removing the harm reduction element, the Conservative government has turned a blind eye to an entire category of people, and I am referring to those who are addicted to hard drugs. These people are caught in a downward spiral and feel they are trapped in a hole where their world becomes darker and darker every day. Although they may want to escape from drug abuse, they are not prepared to do so. These people are not mentally or physically able to take the initiative to seek treatment for their addictions.

However, the NDP and I—and I assume the Liberals agree as well—believe that we should not abandon these people. They are Canadians. They may be our brothers, our sisters, our children, adults or parents. No one should be left behind in Canada.

That is why I insist that the Conservative government, or the next government in 2015, which I hope will not be Conservative, put harm reduction back in the national anti-drug strategy.

This is the second time that I am speaking about Bill C-2. For several days, the Conservatives have been really criticizing Canada's only supervised injection site, InSite, which is located in Vancouver. I would like to know what exactly is so bad about it, other than the fact that they want to scare people with campaigns against heroin.

For example, the Conservative government recently launched an Internet campaign called, “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. If we ask parents with children, or even adults without children or single people if they want heroin near their homes, no one would say they want heroin in their neighbourhood, or their downtown or their rural area, except maybe for those who do not understand the issue.

No one wants to promote the use of heroin and hard or soft drugs in Canada, although the Liberal party wants to promote soft drugs. The NDP is more concerned with the marginalized. Drug addicts are marginalized and we must help them.

Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Health heard from some excellent witnesses from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, and the College of Family Physicians of Canada. I asked all of them the same question. I asked them if they believe that the government should put harm reduction back in the national drug strategy. They all answered yes.

I would like to ask the Conservatives if they have any expertise in health. Harm reduction can only be achieved if we take care of people with serious drug problems. We cannot make them see reason by simply telling them to stop using drugs. We have to help them.

Places like InSite help by taking in heroin addicts and giving them clean needles. If those addicts are on the street and they share needles, cases of hepatitis A, B and C and HIV will increase and it will cost Canadians and the provincial health care systems dearly.

Supervised injection sites take in drug addicts, but they bring their own drugs. I want to reassure the public that the government is not buying drugs for the people who uses these sites.

There are nurses and therapists at these sites to help the addicts get off drugs. They take the addicts as they are and guide them, not necessarily to a cure, but to a light at the end of the tunnel.

A number of other problems are associated with living in the world of drugs, such as homelessness and prostitution, which people enter into in order to pay for drugs. When a person spends their entire paycheque—if they have one—on drugs, then they cannot put $300 or $500 aside for housing. When people are deeply into drugs, they are no longer able to work. They leave the job market and end up on the streets.

Do my Conservative colleagues want people with drug problems to be on the street? The answer is no. The slogan for the Conservatives' campaign is “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. I agree. I do not want people to use drugs and leave needles in the parks in my neighbourhood. No one wants that, but we have to help those people.

The Canadian Medical Association has this to say about Bill C-2:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

I would ask the Conservative Party to think about that before the upcoming vote on this bill.

I will now share a quote from the Canadian Nurses Association:

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.

I have to wonder what is behind this. Why have the Conservatives been fighting since 2007 to block any approaches and treatments based on harm reduction?

There may be an answer, and I think it is important to share. Bill C-2 is part of the Conservatives' greater plan to bring all government programs and policies in line with their own anti-drug and abstinence ideals. I am also against drugs, but the Conservatives' methods are unsound and will have consequences for the Canadian public.

The Conservatives are slowly eliminating all the ways for Canadians to safely access supervised injection sites and for people with terminal cancer to access medical marijuana, for example. I think it makes sense to enable these people to ease their suffering.

In conclusion, the Conservatives' plan will undo all the progress that has been made in public health and will nullify the benefits that communities have experienced from harm reduction programs over the past 20 years. I thank the Conservative government for setting Canadians back and abandoning them. That was sarcasm, by the way.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was young, my father was a teacher at Samuel Hearne Senior Public School. The school engaged in regular community cleanups as part of its civic engagement with its local community. Of course, this meant going into different parts of the neighbourhood to clean up discarded trash. Something very serious happened during one of those days: my father, while picking up a pile of garbage, was pricked by a discarded syringe.

This was the late 1980s. I was nine or 10 years old at the time, and that was really my first experience in discovering things such HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and other communicable diseases, which my father then had to get tested for because of that discarded syringe.

I would like to ask the member about the harm reduction and increased safety in communities that could be reached by having supervised injection sites available for intravenous drug users so that they could get clean syringes and not be discarding them in alleyways, parks, and other public spaces where teachers or children could be harmed by them.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for that excellent question.

I have met his father and he is a remarkable man. As a citizen, teacher and mentor for the young people in his class, he has made an effort to protect the environment, and I am grateful for that. I am also grateful that he is teaching our young people good values, such as taking care of their neighbourhoods and society and picking up litter.

The government intends to close down supervised injection sites. I know that there are no safe injection sites in the riding represented by my colleague. A number of cities in Canada, such as Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal, are interested in opening such sites. Eventually, perhaps he will be interested in having such a site in his area of the country. If Canada prevents supervised injection sites from opening, what happened to the hon. member's father will happen again. Drug addicts are not going to put their dirty needles in the nice little yellow waste receptacles found in hospitals and other secure areas. They are going to leave them on the street. People who want to do their part for the environment or people who pick up litter and empty garbage cans will get pricked. This could be tragic for families. Was the needle infected? Could it make me sick or kill me? I do not wish that on anyone.

I am asking the Conservative government to think about the families that could be affected by dirty needles.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his excellent remarks and for his excellent work as the NDP's deputy health critic. He knows his stuff.

His arguments as to why Canada should have supervised injection sites are based on facts. I find it unfortunate that the Conservatives' arguments are based on their ideology and prejudices. What is more, they are unable to provide any scientific evidence or point to any scientific studies that show that supervised injection sites are harmful and detrimental to public safety.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the importance of supervised injection sites. Their importance has been scientifically proven, through various studies. I would like to hear what he has to say about those studies.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has 45 seconds to respond.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her good question. It gives me an opportunity to talk about statistics and the research that has been done on this topic.

A 2008 study conducted by Boyd et al. concluded that 80% of the people questioned who live or work in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside support InSite. A scientific survey was conducted and, according to the study, 80% of people agree with the site. That leaves 20% who do not agree, but the majority of people support this type of site.

In addition, since the site opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. The Conservatives should stop and think about that statistic. Do they want overdose deaths to increase by 35%? That is what will happen if the government moves ahead with Bill C-2.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-2. Members will know how unusual it is for a member in my position in this House to actually get a chance to speak at second reading to any of the legislation. This is a particularly important piece of legislation, and I am pleased to stand here and urge that, when this piece of legislation goes to committee, the Conservative members should actually take on board significant changes, in a departure from current practice. In fact, the most important and significant change that could be made would be to withdraw this piece of legislation altogether.

Let me go back and review some of the history of how it is that we find this piece of legislation before us, as was described by my friend earlier, the member for Burnaby—Douglas. Vancouver is the site of North America's only safe injection drug site. It is absolutely a sign of progressive, science-based decision-making within the municipality of Vancouver and also within the province of British Columbia.

The InSite safe injection site in Vancouver, just to put it bluntly, bottom line, saves lives. That is what matters. The InSite safe injection drug site in Vancouver does not promote drug use; it does not increase the number of people in the criminal element, but it seeks to save the lives of those who are so unfortunate that they have become users of illegal drugs.

To cover some of the history, we know this whole area of public policy is known as “harm reduction”, and a safe injection drug site is designed to assist people get to care, get to help and avoid overdoses. The studies that have been done make it clear on any empirical analysis that this is cost effective, saves lives and is in the interest of public health. It has been found to work as a system. Safe injection drug sites have been found in studies by international agencies—the United Nations drug and illegal substances organization, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Health Organization and others—to have the kind of approach in harm reduction that works and saves lives. The specific data from the InSite site in Vancouver confirm all this.

Why do I bother to mention all of that? It is because the current bill before us, Bill C-2, really goes back to a failed effort by a previous minister of health in 2008 to shut down the InSite centre by refusing to extend its licence. As one can imagine, a centre that allows the safe injection of otherwise illegal substances does require an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Back in 2008, the then-minister of health, currently the President of the Treasury Board, decided not to extend its licence. This was a decision taken in the absence of facts. It was taken in essentially a fact-free zone in which, unfortunately, too much of the legislation from the current administration resides. In this fact-free zone, it did not matter that InSite was saving lives; it mattered only that it involved illicit drugs and that there might be some scope here on an ideological basis, going along with an agenda that is generally described as “tough on crime”. In this case, it would be tough on people who have been unfortunate enough to become drug addicts.

Going back to the 2008 decision, that gave rise to several court cases that ultimately were resolved in the Supreme Court of Canada in a case of Canada (A.G.) v. PHS Community Services Society. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was handed down on September 30, 2011. What the court said was that the services of this InSite drug facility, for which the minister of health had refused to provide an extended exemption under the act to allow the site to continue to operate, were found by the Supreme Court to reduce health risks.

Further, the court said:

On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion—

This is the discretion the minister has to allow exemptions under the act. Then it continues:

—within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. 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.

Those are very strong words from the Supreme Court of Canada. First, it said this harm reduction safe drug injection site in Vancouver was in the public interest and was necessary because it reduced health risks. In other words, the Supreme Court found on all the evidence that this safe injection drug site saved lives. It further found that, if the minister is looking at exemptions in future cases, the minister must turn his or her mind to the question of whether denying such an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person and that there must be an appropriate balance between public health and public safety.

If there were a good-faith effort in Bill C-2 to find an appropriate balance between public health and public safety, then this piece of legislation would not have emerged. There is no attempt at balance here. Bill C-2 is, pure and simple, an attempt by the current ideologically driven administration to do indirectly that which the Supreme Court will not let it do directly. This is a convoluted attempt to make it impossible, or virtually impossible, for future ministers to approve any more exemptions to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to allow for safe injection drug sites.

Let me share with the House why I say that this is not a good-faith effort to find balance. This is a disguised attempt to shut down safe injection drug sites. In other words, it is an attempt, through the legislative process of this place, to let people die when we know how to save people's lives. That I find unconscionable.

If we look at subclause 56.1(3) of the act, which requires the minister to examine any application for an exemption—in other words, a permit to allow such a site to exist—it starts with a review for 26 different criteria. More than two dozen different criteria must be provided to the minister. Ironically—and I think we will all find this ironic—the first is scientific evidence. It is only by ignoring the scientific evidence that this particular administration wants to shut down such sites.

Scientific evidence must be provided, as well as letters from all and sundry, such as the police chief and local government. There must be surveys to consider what kind of local litter problems there are in the community. They must have statistics pulled together, which is again ironic from an administration that has shut down access to many statistics. It is a long and convoluted process.

I found the most stunning requirement was not the financing plan of how this would be self-sustaining, but at the early stage when anyone is applying to run such a site, the applicant must provide the name, title, resumé, relevant education and training of the proposed responsible person. In other words, before someone can even get permission to run such an operation, that person has to have staff ready and on site, and all of their qualifications must be put forward to the minister. Not only that, but the applicant has to have run extensive checks on the possibility that in any previous jurisdiction in which the employees have ever lived, they may have run afoul of the law.

On top of all the specific conditions and requirements for an applicant, there is the general (z) provision, which is “any other information that the minister considers relevant for the consideration of the application”. In other words, on top of these multiple onerous requirements before an application can even go to the minister, the minister can make up anything else that he or she feels like asking the applicant to provide.

If that was it, we could say it is important in any community to ascertain that the people who are running safe injection drug sites know what they are doing, that they are competent, that they have considered all the evidence and that it would be welcomed in the community. That is not necessarily unreasonable, but there is no balance. All the factors go against saying yes.

However, then we come to subclause 56.1(5), which is really putting the kibosh on any new site because the minister may only grant an exemption for a medical purpose if the applicant has taken into account certain principles.

Paragraphs 56.1(5)(a) to 56.1(5)(f) list principles that all go toward a thought process that leads to no. They must take into account that illicit substances may have serious health effects, that there are health risks, that there is a risk of increasing organized crime and that organized crime profits are part of the drug trade. There is no mention once that the minister should take under his or her consideration the fact that safe injection drug sites save lives. It is not even in the list of possible considerations for a minister. Therefore, after all the considerations are received and after all the hurdles to opening such a site, the list of principles under this act lead any minister to be forced toward saying no.

In other words, this bill is not about balance. This bill is a disguised prohibition on doing what the Supreme Court of Canada said we must do.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on saying exactly what is in this bill.

From my days as a municipal councillor, I know very well what to do to ensure that nothing happens in a community. There have be enough conditions and requirements to make it impossible.

It is a disguised attempt in saying, yes, these sites are welcome and we recognize a problem, when clearly that is not the direction. At the end of the day, the government wants to make sure there are no other sites like this.

These sites are clearly what is needed when we look at the studies on harm reduction and what is needed in our country. Our whole war on drugs of which I have been very supportive is not working, regrettably, in the way that we have been addressing it, in the U.S., in Europe and in Canada. We need to look at doing things differently.

Harm reduction has started with this clinic. I visited this clinic many years ago when it first opened. I was uncomfortable with the whole idea, but I went and visited. I talked to people in the Vancouver area. I really became convinced that, whether I wanted it or not, we have to accept that there is a problem, we have to try to fix it for those who need our help and we have to look at harm reduction for those particular people.

This clinic is one of the things we need to have in particular areas of the country. I would like to ask the member if there are other opportunities across Canada where she thinks these kinds of facilities should be located.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the term she used is part and parcel of this, the “war on drugs”.

There has been a war on drugs in North America for decades now. If we are taking a body count, we are losing. Organized crime is winning. That is not what any of us wants.

I have some exposure to those people who have been so unfortunate as to become addicted to illegal drugs, and only by the grace of God has it not been close to my family. However, friends of my kids and my grandkids are at an age where they could be exposed to these drugs.

Nobody in this place wants more people to be exposed to illicit drugs. Nobody wants to see the profits of organized crime go up. However, if we look at the track record of the so-called war on drugs, we will see that it is failing.

Let us try harm reduction. Let us save the lives of people who can come to a safe place and then have access to the kinds of assistance, therapy, supports and counselling that get them off drugs for good. Let us not pretend we are doing something while we turn a blind eye to their suffering.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hard-working member across the way for her interventions.

I do have a question for her. The purpose of this bill is to highlight the importance of consultation. In fact that is what the Supreme Court has said, that we have to have proper consultation. That is what the bill is asking for. Those are the changes, that we have adequate consultation before we have a new supervised injection site in Canada.

We have one in Vancouver, but if there were to be others, they would require consultation. Would the member oppose having consultation? If she does, what does she suggest replaces consultation?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of us would be against consultation.

These are sensitive issues, and I think we need more dialogue, not the kind of tactics that divide. I saw in one of the press stories that there was a fundraising appeal from the Conservative Party saying that the opposition members want to bring illicit drugs into communities so that people would be shooting up in neighbourhoods. That is unhelpful. I would not attribute those kinds of comments to my friend across the way at all.

What we need to have is that kind of conversation in which everybody is brought into the picture. For instance, in downtown Victoria we have problems with illicit drug use. We have people who are addicted and who get help through a fantastic facility in Victoria, Our Place. It is not a safe injection drug site, but it provides services, help and respect to people who are living on the streets.

Anything that provides a point of contact, respect and help to people who need help is of value. I think that can be discussed in a kind of enlightened fact-based respectful communication. Certainly some people may object within a community, but we should have consultation.

What is wrong with this bill is not that it involves consultation; it is that it creates a structure that makes it almost impossible under the way the law is written, given the principles the minister must consider, for a minister to say yes when a minister should.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House to join with my colleagues in opposing Bill C-2.

To be quite honest, I am extremely disappointed that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East was rejected. It is very unfortunate. She put forward an amendment that was sensible, reasoned and based on scientifically proven facts. Unfortunately, Conservative ideology has once again prevailed over science and reason. We are debating yet another seriously flawed bill that reflects the Conservatives' outdated thinking and prejudices. Falsely touted as legislation that will protect Canadian families, Bill C-2 is designed to violate the Supreme Court's 2011 decision regarding safe injection sites.

I think it is important to note that at the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite, in Vancouver, violated the rights—as guaranteed in the charter—of InSite's clients and that the minister's decision was arbitrary and undermined the very purposes of the act, which include public health and safety. The Supreme Court also ruled that the minister's violation was very serious. It endangered the health and lives of the clients as well as people in similar situations. The Supreme Court also stated that InSite and other supervised injection sites should be granted an exemption as provided for under section 56 of the act when a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety.

Naturally, this decision contradicted the Conservatives' obvious desire to get rid of anything that could even remotely resemble a supervised injection site. Bill C-2 is another attempt to satisfy this desire, even though many scientific studies have proven that supervised injection sites like InSite are beneficial. Studies have also proven that these sites do not represent any risk to public safety and that they actually tend to enhance public safety in our neighbourhoods.

Scientific evidence has shown that supervised injection sites can effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C, and also help decrease overdose-related deaths.

Supervised injection sites are consistent with a harm reduction approach, an approach that Canada took until 2007, when the Conservatives decided to impose their abstinence ideals at the expense of the public, even if it risked the lives of people struggling with addictions.

I think it is rather ironic that we are debating Bill C-2 to get rid of supervised injection sites so close to December 1, World AIDS Day. Yesterday, the Canadian AIDS Society was handing out red ribbons, like the one I am wearing proudly today. My Conservative colleagues went to pick up ribbons and wore them proudly, but today they are here in the House continuing to push their partisan agenda. They are still doing everything they can to get rid of supervised injection sites. They are directly undermining the work done by health care professionals to eradicate epidemics of blood-borne diseases like AIDS.

While talking yesterday with representatives from the Canadian AIDS Society, I learned that some parts of Canada are currently facing an actual AIDS epidemic. For example, in Saskatchewan, the HIV infection rate is almost three times higher than the national average. These figures are disturbing. One factor that contributes to the spread of HIV/AIDS in certain parts of Saskatchewan is unfortunately injection drug use.

Having sites like InSite would be a very effective way to reduce the incidence of this disease, in addition to reducing overdose deaths, as I mentioned earlier.

However, rather than directly supporting the efforts being made to eradicate this epidemic, the Conservatives are trying to prevent the opening of new sites and depriving vulnerable Canadians of the services and support they actually need. Rather than helping these vulnerable people, the Conservatives are using them to raise funds from their voter base. Honestly, this is one of the most disgusting things I have seen this government do, while hiding the truth from its base.

The Conservatives tell their voter base that this bill will help keep heroin out of their backyards. This is totally false. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. If people no longer have a place where they can go, receive medical care and get the help they need, in addition to having a safe place, inside, to use the drugs they are unfortunately addicted to, where will these people go? They will go into the streets and the parks and near schools.

In recent weeks, we have heard a number of Conservative members say they care about Canadian families and they want to protect mothers, children, widows and orphans. Really, they are simply fearmongering in order to fill their coffers in preparation for the next election and using vulnerable people in our society to do so. Those people really need our help; they certainly do not need the contempt this government is showing them every day.

Frankly, I cannot believe the Conservatives are waging such a fundraising campaign in our society. It is beyond comprehension and furthermore, based on a campaign of fear and prejudice, with no basis in fact. The Conservatives are trying to address some legitimate concerns of the people they represent.

Quite honestly, each and every one of us has people in our riding who are worried about supervised injection sites. These are legitimate concerns that must be addressed. We must not react by fearmongering or encouraging prejudice and scorn towards people with substance abuse problems. Instead, we should be using our resources to try to solve the problem. We need to ensure that people can get the support they need, as well as easy access to resources to help them treat their addiction.

That is exactly what is happening at InSite. People have direct access to health care professionals who are there to help them in case of any problems or to simply provide advice. They have access to social workers and can be referred to detox centres.

Research has shown that in addition to reducing overdose deaths in Vancouver by 35%, which is significant, people who use InSite's services are almost twice as likely to enrol in a detox program. They are also more likely to have access to the resources that will help them turn their lives around and overcome their addiction. However, we have to go to them. To simply say that services exist, without making them easily accessible to the people who need them most, does not guarantee access and will not have the desired effect on public safety.

I do not have any children yet, but I can picture myself taking my children to a park one day and watching them discover discarded needles that might expose them to communicable diseases. I do not want that to happen. No one does.

However, that is what we might see happening in our streets as a result of the Conservatives' decision. People will no longer have a safe place to go to. They will have to go back to what used to be standard practice in neighbourhoods across the country, when people would shoot up here and there in the street, in the lobbies of commercial and residential buildings, near schools and in parks. Unfortunately, that is what we can anticipate if Bill C-2 passes as is. I hope it does not.

I am totally against passing such a bill. I hope that the Conservative Party members will listen to reason and understand the message from social organizations, health professionals and people who work with addicts daily and know their reality.

These people and these organizations dispense with prejudice and false, backward ideology, and focus instead on research and proven clinical trials. That is what we should be basing our decisions as parliamentarians on. The government should rely less on ideology and more on facts. For that reason, I hope that Bill C-2 will be defeated.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech on this matter.

I would like to address clause 5 of this bill and review the six criteria that the government wants to impose for new or existing sites such as InSite.

Paragraph c) states:

The risks of overdose are inherent to the use of certain illicit substances

It is very clear. However, studies by InSite show that overdoses have decreased by 30% in the Vancouver neighbourhood where InSite is located.

Does my colleague have anything to say about that and about the important contribution that new sites could make to a community's safety?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I fact, as I mentioned earlier, InSite has managed to reduce overdose mortality in Vancouver by 35%. That is very significant. It shows the positive impact that a supervised injection site such as InSite can have.

Earlier, my colleague opposite, the member for Langley, seemed to insinuate that people opposed to this bill also oppose public consultation. If we read between the lines of the bill, we see that the Conservatives are trying to establish a structure to prevent the opening of other sites. I just cannot understand that.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to read all the criteria that the Conservatives have put in their bill in an attempt to tie the hands of people who would like to open new sites like InSite, which help people dealing with addiction.

However, the statistics that my colleague and I have provided show the direct positive effects of centres such as InSite. I find it unfortunate that, even today, we are debating reducing access to services for those with drug problems.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member listened to some of my comments, but I am not pleased that she has prejudged motives. I do not think she is elevated to the position where she can determine the motives of members of Parliament.

The motives are to represent Canadians. In the House, each of us has the responsibility to represent our constituents. Part of that representation comes through consultation. We consult with our colleagues, we consult with one another, and we consult with our constituents.

Why would the member be opposed to a consultation that the Supreme Court has suggested that we have, and not prejudge whether a supervised injection site can be put at a specific location? It suggested that we consult before any decisions are made.

Why would she be so opposed to consultation or prejudge the motives of others?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally decided to join today's debate in the House. Unfortunately, I also feel as though my remarks and intentions have been misjudged.

In the comment I just made, I clearly mentioned that I am completely open to consultation. What the hon. member for Langley has failed to mention is the huge list of conditions that organizations seeking to open new supervised injection sites will have to meet.

The member also failed to mention that, even if the applications submitted by organizations meet all the criteria, the minister can still refuse to allow these sites to open. Clearly, the criteria for opening new sites are excessively restrictive.

My colleague also seems to forget that some of his constituents may be struggling with drug addictions and may need the help provided by facilities such as InSite. We must not think only about the most fortunate people in our ridings. We also have to think about the most vulnerable. However, this government forgets and neglects these people, which I find extremely unfortunate.

We all have vulnerable people in our ridings who need our help and who gave us the mandate to represent them and stand up for their interests. However, unfortunately, these are the people who are being neglected in the Conservative ridings.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that all my friends are here to listen to my speech in great numbers.

I would like to start by saying that in analyzing the notes and looking at what is going on, I find this to be a disturbing situation. In one part of the country, we have a program that works, but then we have the government with its bill trying to make it more difficult to continue this program and more difficult for others to implement it. It seems that the tendency of the Conservative government is to ignore evidence as it constructs policy, which I would say is often based on ideology rather than the facts.

As a prelude to my speech on Bill C-2, I just had a chance to skim through the annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator for 2011-12. One of things highlighted is the increase in prison population even though our crime rate is decreasing. If members look at that report and the various crime bills and legislation, I would say that one could comfortably say that it is based not so much on the idea of trying to rehabilitate people to become productive members of society when they get out, but on punishment, almost vicious punishment. I think back in history to the age of enlightenment and the Dark Ages when western civilization was invaded by barbarians. I hope we are not going in that direction.

Some of the concerns in the correctional report is in regard to double-bunking, for example, which puts a strain on the system. In a sense, it is a punishment, but the effects, which I will talk about later, are far-reaching. The report says:

The increasing costs of corrections in Canada and rising inmate numbers are inseparable from a number of significant legislative measures. Since 2006, these reforms have resulted in:

Expansion of a range of mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences, particularly for serious drug offences, gun crimes and child exploitation offences

Abolition or tightening of parole review criteria

Reduction of credit for time served in pre-trial custody

Restricted use of conditional sentences.

Although we may agree with a number of these criteria, the fact remains that we have put more people into our prisons at a time when the crime rate was decreasing, and we have made it more difficult for these people to get rehabilitated and become productive members of society when they come out.

Prison crowding, for example, has negative impacts on the system's ability to provide humane, safe and secure custody. The report says, “Putting two inmates in a single cell means an inevitable loss of privacy and dignity, and increases the potential for tension and violence.”

The report talks about how this tension and violence is detrimental to the final rehabilitation of prisoners so they can come out into society.

As prisons become more crowded, the physical conditions of confinement are hardening. At the higher security levels, inmates already have extremely limited opportunities for association, movement and assembly.

Programming and vocational opportunities in maximum security prisons are extremely limited, defined by operational and security concerns driven largely by the influence of gangs, drugs and incompatibles.

I would like to transpose this to our current discussion on Bill C-2.

Overall, one would think that if we have a program that has been successful, has taken drugs off the street and was able to work in rehabilitating addicts, the tendency would be not only to keep it but to expand it around the country.

Unfortunately, what we have here is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down supervised injection sites, which runs directly counter to the Supreme Court’s decision. With these criteria, it will be much more difficult for organizations to open supervised injection sites in Canada.

The NDP feels that decisions respecting programs that may improve public health must be based on facts, not on ideological positions.

In 2011, for example, 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 permitted users to access InSite's services and that similar services should also be allowed to operate under an exemption.

What is surprising is that more than 30 peer-reviewed studies published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have described the benefits of InSite. That is more than 30 studies. In addition, studies on more than 70 similar supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia have reported similar outcomes. InSite in Vancouver is one of the biggest public health breakthroughs in Canada. We believe that this site and others delivering similar benefits should be able to offer their services under appropriate supervision.

It is strange. We have a program that works well. Articles and studies published in Canada and in scientific journals show that it works well and that it is helping people. However, here we have to debate a bill that will prevent that program from continuing. It makes no sense.

This is a very imperfect bill, based, as I have previously said, on an anti-drug ideology and on baseless fears about public safety.

The Conservatives say they are going to try to get drugs off the streets, but what is interesting is that this bill will make it virtually impossible to open safe injection sites. That answers my colleague from Langley's question. It will be virtually impossible to open safe injection sites, which will have the effect of promoting heroin's return to neighbourhoods. How ironic. This bill will promote heroin's return to neighbourhoods.

We believe that any new legislation on supervised injection sites should abide by the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision, which this bill does not do. We also believe that harm reduction programs, including supervised injection sites, must be subject to exemptions based on evidence of their ability to improve a community's health and preserve human life, not on ideological positions.

In conclusion, I am very disappointed that we are debating this bill, which will make life more difficult for people who are trying to combat this disease of heroin abuse.

When the bill goes to committee, which I imagine it will, there will be evidence and debate. I hope the governing party will take into account the effects and the scientific evidence when it looks at amendments to the bill, so that we can make this work for all Canadians.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

My background is in technology, and as we always say, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

In other words, if something works, there is no need to fiddle with it.

InSite works, gets results and provides a front-line service that leads to rehabilitation and the reduction of collateral damage, such as dirty needles in parks.

It is too bad that the government does not seem concerned about the effects of the law itself. I think we need to study this bill in terms of the public interest. What would be best for our society?

How does my colleague think we should study this bill in terms of the public interest?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I will comment on what he said at the beginning of his statement.

Personally, I think the government is saying, “If it works, we will fix it according to our ideological criteria.”

We have noticed this attitude in the areas of the environment, science and foreign affairs. In fact, we have seen it in everything that was working in my country. In my country, everything that works is being systematically changed. That is unacceptable. A program that works and can benefit Canadians can no longer work because of the Conservatives' false ideology.

This is not my country. This is not the Canada I know.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Louis-Hébert mentioned, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

Hopefully, the member who just gave a speech recognizes that the Supreme Court indicated that if we were to open any injection sites, community consultations were actually a requirement. Therefore, that is something that needs to be done. The Supreme Court has given us clear direction that we have to have community consultations.

Would the member please clarify whether he is against community consultations for future safe injection sites before they are implemented?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the thing is that the bill would set criteria for the opening of new sites and would make them so stringent that, as department officials have indicated to us, if an applicant should accidentally forget to include something, the request would automatically be denied. Therefore, are these consultations another kind of sham or a pretext to ram through this legislation?

I would think that if they are done properly, if it makes it easier for communities and cities to have similar programs, if it makes it possible for InSite to continue, then I would welcome them. However, I would submit that is not the case. That is not what the government is proposing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the injection site in Vancouver is a huge success story, right from its origin. It is a good example of co-operative federalism when we have the federal government, at the time, working with the provincial government and then working with the stakeholders to recognize a problem that is in the community and generate some ideas, a specific solution to the problem. They come together and they make it happen. It addresses the issue right up front.

Then, in the years that follow, there are success stories. They are real. They are tangible. Lives have been saved. Our community is safer, and so forth. These are all facts.

Yet, the government seems to be of the opinion that we should push all of that to the side because they just do not believe in injection sites, and we have heard that from members of the Conservative Party.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on that?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with that? What is wrong when we have one level of government co-operating with other levels of government? That is our country. The federal government co-operates with the provinces, which co-operate with the cities, and we get something that works. InSite is an example of that.

What we have here is a government that goes against other levels of government. Instead of co-operating, it goes against them. It does not co-operate. It introduces policies that are contrary to what most Canadians believe. I find that a shame.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the last portion of the debate, my colleague said that if it working, they fix it again. I have a different take on that.

I remember, in the government of Mike Harris, an education minister, John Snobelen. He actually had the gall to say, in regard to education, that we have to create a crisis so we can come in and fix it. We have to break what is working so that we can go in and fix it.

When I look at the front bench across the way, it reminds me that the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were all principal players in that government and are bringing that kind of approach to the federal level.

I am rising today to oppose Bill C-2. What Conservatives are trying to do with the bill is clear. I have to give them credit for the level of political camouflaging contained within the bill.

It is clear that the measures in the bill would hurt some of the most vulnerable in our society and would be very costly to our health care system.

There is another very troubling and repeating pattern with the government. Why do we even have a Supreme Court ruling in this case? It is because the government challenged the right of InSite and safe injection sites to exist. The Conservatives do not believe in them. They do not want them. They want to make it as onerous as possible, which is the purpose of this legislation.

The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore stood and asked if we are against community consultation. It is ridiculous to try to camouflage the deep flaws in the bill with statements like that. Of course we are in favour of consulting Canadians and communities about what goes on in their neighbourhoods. That is exactly how governments should work. However, the government, time and time again, ignores that basic principle when we are talking about resource development, environmental protection, and the safety of Canadians. It is like asking if we are against oxygen. No one is against oxygen. We would not be here without it.

The bill pretends to address public health and safety concerns about safe injection sites. In fact, it has three other completely different goals. Very simply, the bill aims to shut down InSite, the supervised injection site in east Vancouver, and to prevent any other supervised sites from operating. I believe that it aims to nullify and circumvent the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour of safe injection sites, and I believe that it constitutes a further attack on the principle of harm reduction.

Harm reduction is critical to dealing with issues of substance abuse. We have to reduce the harm so that people can be in a position to gain quality of life and have the strength to overcome the tremendous challenges that come with addiction.

In Toronto, we have one of the country's foremost centres for dealing with addiction and mental health. It is called CAMH, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. I would like to read its submission to the Toronto Board of Health in July in regard to supervised injection sites. It said:

Supervised Injection Services are another public health approach that can reduce harms associated with injection drug use. Research from around the globe has shown that these services are associated with several benefits to injection drug users including reducing behaviours associated with HIV and Hepatitis C infections, lowering risky injection practices, reducing overdoses, and increasing referrals to treatment and other health services.

I will stop there for a moment and repeat that last part: “and increasing referrals to treatment and other health services”.

I will bring up a business analogy, and of course, the folks across the way love those. Anyone who has run a business knows how much harder it is to get a new client in the door than it is to keep an existing one. Part of the purpose of safe injection sites is to get people in the door so that they can be given access to the other services that are going to make them healthy and productive members of our society, at lower cost. That is what is really funny about the bill. It is going to cost Canadians millions of dollars in future court challenges, in future health care costs, and in the destruction of communities, because these services will not exist.

The submission by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health to the Toronto Board of Health in July 2013 continues:

In addition, Supervised Injection Services do not increase crime and disorder in the surrounding neighbourhood and actually reduce other problems like public drug abuse and discarded injection equipment.

That is pretty clear and simple. It is very basic. It does not increase crime or disorder in the surrounding neighbourhoods and actually reduces problems such as public drug use and discarded injection equipment. It helps to actually keep our communities safer, the communities that have these kinds of problems.

With respect to discarded injection equipment, when I was a child of nine or ten, my father was a teacher in Scarborough at Samuel Hearn public school. Every year around environment day, they would engage in community public cleanups. They would go out into the neighbourhood and do a fabulous public service and help keep their neighbourhoods clean.

They were in an alleyway, about a block away from the school, behind Danforth Avenue near Pharmacy, cleaning up trash. My father was wearing work gloves, but they did not have the thickness that would be required to stop a needle from piercing. He picked up a pile of garbage and was pricked by a discarded syringe from a drug user.

As a nine or ten year old, it is very hard to fathom and understand what follows from that. What followed was that my father had to be tested for HIV, for hepatitis, and for other infectious diseases. That created months of concern and anguish in our family, not knowing whether he had picked up a transmissible or communicable disease and whether he would be facing horrific health challenges in the future.

We were very fortunate that in the end, all the results were negative, but the cost to the health care system, the cost to our family in having to deal with it, and all the uncertainty that followed was a direct result of the fact that there were discarded needles on the ground. Will safe injection sites eliminate this problem completely? Of course not. There is no silver bullet. However, they will be a big part of reducing the harms in our communities.

I also remember, not so long ago, when a Starbucks in Toronto, at John and Queen, installed a safe disposal box for needles in their bathroom. There was an absolute uproar from Conservatives. “You're encouraging drug use. People will now go to that Starbucks to shoot up”. No. What was happening was that people were already going to Starbucks and shooting up and throwing needles in the garbage can. The staff, at the end of the day, would have to pick up that garbage and put their lives at risk because of stupid, inconsiderate policies brought forward by people on the other side. This trend continues to this day. Never let an argument get in front of ideology. Absolutely not.

The submission by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health continues:

Given the difference in geography and culture of drug use amongst cities, experiences from these Supervised Injection Services are not simply transferrable to other cities such as Toronto. However, there is evidence to suggest that a Supervised Injection Service could be beneficial to Toronto, though further research involving the development of a pilot Supervised Injection Service would be needed to confirm. With that in mind, CAMH supports the development of a pilot Supervised Injection Service in Toronto. As a teaching hospital dedicated to care, research and education in mental health and addiction, CAMH would be happy to work with other partners to play a role in the evaluation of the pilot service and offer treatment to those in need.

Treatment is what is important and critical here. It is the treatment people would receive going to these safe injection sites, the kind of treatment that would help get them off the streets and help reduce the harm to them, their families, and the community. It would reduce the amount of drug addiction that exists in our communities, and it would help more people have a better quality of life and fulfillment and be active and participating members of our communities.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Scarborough Southwest. He talked about a couple of things. First was how it would be helpful for the drug addicts on the streets, once they got them inside the door, to get treatment and advice on how to live better and healthier lives. Just near the end of his speech, he talked about how we have to have another new pilot project and work on getting people off the streets and off drugs.

Getting people off drugs and living healthier lives are good things, of course, but we already have injection sites. If the member is going to make claims about how helpful they are, I would love to see some statistics to back it up that show clearly the results of any help that was given. How many people were treated? How many people actually got off drugs? How many people repeated and have never gotten off drugs? It is great to talk a good story, but there have to be facts to back it up.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the facts have been relayed time and time again today by the other members stating the facts about the InSite service in Vancouver and why it is so helpful to the community. The fact is, 80% of the community supports the site. Overdose deaths are down 35%. Perhaps if the member paid attention to more than one speech, he would have heard all those wonderful facts being relayed.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a few questions of our hon. member. I want to congratulate him first on his comments and on his understanding of how serious this issue is.

I have been in politics for 25 years now. One of the first things I did in elected office, some 25 years ago this month, was initiate a “dollars against drug abuse” fund. We raised all kinds of money to help in our war on drugs and our fight. Here we are still, and we have made very little progress.

When harm reduction was first mentioned to me some 20 years ago, I said that the idea would be terrible. I sounded just like the folks on the other side of the House. I did not understand it. I said that was not where we wanted to go. We did not want to do harm reduction; we wanted to do elimination altogether. Well, here we are 20 years after that.

I visited that site. I am very supportive of it. I visited with as much trepidation as our members there. I think if the members of the government actually went out and visited the site and spent a few hours there, they would realize that it is really about harm reduction. It is not just for everyone to go there. It is about helping people who need help.

I would like to hear some comments from the hon. member on that issue.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her comments. Certainly it takes courage to get up in the House and say that at one point she was wrong. I want to congratulate the member for maintaining an open mind and for being open to the possibility that other and new ideas could be useful, despite the initial trepidation.

I have been here as a member for over two years, and not once have I seen the government show an open mind or talk to the possibility that another idea could be good. We see it time and time again. That is why I am very concerned that when this does go back to committee, the Conservative members of the committee are going to slam and stop absolutely every single good and reasoned amendment the opposition is going to bring forward.

I thank the member again for her comments. We are all wrong from time to time, and it is wonderful to show that we have had a change of opinion and that we are on board with something that really is helpful to communities and to individuals.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-2.

The subject of drugs is not always easy to address because it is still taboo. We put people who have used drugs in prison. We get rid of them. However, how long have drugs been around?

I do not know how our great-grandparents managed to deal with it all at the time when distilled alcohol was illegal. Some tough speeches must have been made in Parliament before it was legalized.

Today we are talking about drugs. We are not talking about legalizing heroin, but about a site that was established in Vancouver East and that distributes needles to people with drug problems.

The government has introduced a bill providing for restrictions so tough it will be difficult for that site to renew its licence and for other sites to open in Canada. This bill is a thinly veiled way of preventing supervised injection sites from carrying on their activities, which defies the Supreme Court's decision.

It establishes a long list of restrictive criteria that supervised injection sites will have to meet for the minister to grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Those criteria will make it much more difficult for organizations to open a supervised injection site. That is the thrust of the bill.

The bill even comes in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling. We could consult that decision. It mentions, for example, that no one may prevent anything that may save lives.

In 2003, InSite was granted an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That exemption was issued for medical and scientific reasons so that InSite could offer its services and the effectiveness of supervised injection sites could be assessed.

Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act gives the minister the power to authorize the use of drugs for medical or scientific purposes or if it is in the public interest.

In 2007, InSite opened the OnSite detox centre. The number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver has fallen by 35% since that centre opened. The crime rate and the prevalence of communicable diseases and relapses have declined as well.

Earlier the member for Cariboo—Prince George asked where the statistics were. However, I would ask the same question: where are the statistics that warrant changing the act? I would like the government to show us the statistics that explain why they want to amend the act.

For example, the government could tell us that the number of deaths has risen by 35% since needles have been distributed. It is time we thought about this. Has the crime rate risen by 35%? That is a statistic. Before amending the act, the government needs to prove the opposite of what doctors and authorities are saying. However, the Conservatives' ideology is front and centre today.

According to the right-wing Conservative ideology and Conservative supporters, we should put drug users in prison. Above all, we should not give them needles, do prevention work or make contact with people who are helplessly addicted to drugs so that we can direct them to an institution that can help them get off drugs.

If you tell someone that drugs are illegal and not right, that person will still break the law, but he will not talk about it and he will be stuck with his problem.

We will be unable to help these people. The statistics gathered in Vancouver have shown that overdoses have fallen by 35%. In addition, crime has dropped and the number of HIV infections has also declined. Is it not our responsibility to ensure that happens?

The member for Cariboo—Prince George asked where the statistics are and said he would like to see the numbers. I am going to repeat it. We are not supposed to say he was not in the House, but I see him now. I think I was just not looking his way, but he is there and I want him to hear this. When he stood and said he wanted to see the statistics, the statistics are that there was a 35% decrease. Crime went down. HIV went down.

That is why I said that it is the government that should come to us and be able to say it is proposing the bill because it has statistics. The government should give us the statistics to show that crime and HIV went up after people were given needles, but that is not what the statistics are saying.

Doctors and nurses disagree as well. Two days ago, there were nurses in my office saying they were hoping there would be amendments to this bill, as it does not make sense and goes against the health of people.

Let me cite an example from Bathurst. Earlier my colleague from Scarborough Southwest talked about people who collect garbage. Bathurst, the community where I live, has a law prohibiting people from putting their garbage bags out at the curb. They have to be put in plastic containers. Workers said that they were being pricked when they picked up garbage bags and that they had caught infections.

One population group has health problems as a result of heroin, but we are prepared to leave them on the street.

I went to Vancouver East and I felt pity for the people living on the street. My colleague from Vancouver East says she supports the idea of distributing needles to people with drug problems.

As an ordinary person, I initially did not understand why we should give needles to people who use drugs. When I went to Vancouver East, however, I realized that it was the right thing to do. My colleague made me understand that when we can receive them in our homes, talk to them and direct them to a medical centre that can help them, we will have done something good.

However, if we abandon them, we will have failed to get the job done and discharge our responsibilities as Canadians and as politicians. The members of this House have a responsibility to pass legislation that helps the men and women of this country. People who live on the street are someone's children. They are citizens. They are human beings. We would not even allow animals to be treated this way.

Today we have before us a government bill that defies a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada solely because of the ideology of the government and its supporters. I forgot that this is the same government that does not believe in the court, in the opposition or in Parliament.

I hope that one day Canadians will make the right decision and get rid of this government once and for all, since it is not working for the welfare of Canadians.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in one statement the member opposite made, he said that this bill “goes against the health of people”. I would like to suggest that nothing goes against the health of people like drugs. If the member thinks that keeping drug addicts happy and giving them a nice, safe, warm place to inject drugs into their arms or wherever is helpful to them and the health of our society, then I think he might want to reconsider.

Getting these people off drugs is what contributes to the health of our society. That is where the focus should be, not having happy addicts walking the streets because they can go to a nice, warm place to get a fix. I am sorry; he and I will always see this differently.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should talk to the Minister of Finance about how he should stop going on television and crying because Rob Ford bought some drugs, which he said publicly. The minister was saying “My friend, poor him”, with the tears coming down.

It is funny how the Conservatives are ready to protect their friends, but when it comes to the ordinary people on the street, they are ready to put them in jail. He should talk to his caucus about the way they are protecting Rob Ford in Toronto. He said publicly that he did buy drugs and he did take drugs. He said he did all of that, but the minister was still sorry, crying on television to support a guy who was on drugs.

The Conservatives are only good to protect their friends, but when it comes to ordinary Canadians, they are not ready to get up for ordinary Canadians and support them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a previous speech made by one of the member's colleagues in regard to the issue of how a community can benefit from having a safe injection site.

I am talking about how, whether it is in a community school or back lanes, there are many different spots where drug addicts leave their used needles. It brings a certain element into some of these communities, such as in community schools or clubs, that causes a great deal of concern.

One of the success stories that has come out of the injection site in Vancouver is the fact that the environment in which the site is located is a healthier, safer environment today because of the injection site. I wonder if the member might want to comment on the benefit to the community of having sites of this nature, which even go beyond assistance to individuals.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is what it is all about.

It is about dealing with the community, the provincial authority, the people working in health care, the nurses and doctors, and the police. It is about finding the right place to do it, a place away from schools.

That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that when we talk about drugs, it is not the most beautiful thing to talk about. It is taboo.

That is too bad. It is not taboo, because it is on our streets. We have to deal with it. We have to do it the right way, the proper way, and we have to trust the provinces.

The federal government is the type of government that does not speak to the provinces. The Prime Minister is the type who refuses to meet with the premiers of the provinces to discuss the issues that are happening in provinces. This is the Prime Minister who likes to go across the world instead of going across Canada to talk about the problems we have in our own communities. That is the type of government we have.

I hope Canadians turn around and say that this is not our Canada, this is not the vision of our country, and that they will make a change in the next election.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be very difficult for me to speak after my colleague's impassioned words. Today's debate has been very emotional because we believe that we can do better for Canadians. I am therefore honoured to comment on Bill C-2.

The government says that it would like to consult communities before opening supervised injection sites. Curiously however, on the very day that it introduced the bill, the Conservative Party posted a petition online entitled “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. The petition asks people whether they would like a supervised drug consumption site to be opened in their community. The government is doing everything it can to get in the way of those who would like to open a supervised injection centre.

According to the new rules, anyone wishing to open such a site would first have to ask how the communities in question and the police feel about it, and obtain support from the municipal and provincial authorities. However, they will have to do a lot more than that, in the form of a lot of evidence and documents, including documentation on the financial viability of the site, the need for it in the community and its potential impact on public safety. Furthermore, the Minister of Health would have the last word on applications.

And yet, evidence has shown that supervised injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading communicable diseases through blood, as is the case with HIV and hepatitis C, as well as the risk of dying from an overdose. It has also been demonstrated that they are not a threat to public safety and that in some instances, they promote public safety by reducing the number of people injecting drugs in public, and the violence associated with drug use. Safe injection sites strike a proper balance between health and public safety goals. They also direct people with an urgent need for assistance to the appropriate health services, such as primary care and addiction treatment.

Injection sites are beneficial to communities. However, for a number of ideological reasons—which have been properly demonstrated by my colleague—the government has chosen yet again to put on blinkers and pretend that drug and addiction problems simply do not exist. Rather than attempt to mitigate the harm, they would rather say that everything is fine and dandy. Things are not fine. The work done by these organizations saves lives. A centre like InSite helps to reduce the number of deaths caused by drug overdoses, and directs people who use drugs to the essential social services that can help them.

There is at the moment only one supervised injection site in Canada. Its name is InSite and it is located in Vancouver. Since it was opened, Vancouver has experienced a 35% decrease in overdose fatalities. It has been established that the InSite organization has led to a decrease in crime, communicable disease infections and addiction relapse rates.

The bill goes against the Supreme Court decision. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that InSite was providing essential services and should remain open under the exemption provided in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court ruled that the charter authorized users to have access to InSite's services and that similar services should be authorized under an exemption.

What message is the government sending if it fails to respect the Supreme Court's decision? The Supreme Court of Canada clearly asked the federal government to stop interfering with the InSite injection site in Vancouver. The highest court in the land is of the opinion that the government's decision to stop exempting centres from criminal prosecution is arbitrary and infringes the rights of addicts to life and safety as provided under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What more will it take? Why is the government proposing such a bill? It is doing so to impede the work of organizations that help addicts. The Canadian Nurses Association 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 NDP believes that any legislation introduced by the Conservative government must comply with the Supreme Court ruling and strike a balance between public health and public safety.

The Supreme Court ruling also gave various organizations the go-ahead to open supervised injection sites in other areas of the country. That is why this bill should not be passed. Not only is it based on a regressive ideology, but it is also flawed. This bill shows just how out of touch the Conservatives are with reality and just how much they ignore the opinions of experts and scientists.

Supervised injection sites are essential resources for improving the safety of our communities. The Conservative campaign with regard to this bill was called "Keep heroin out of our backyards”. Precisely the opposite will happen. Passing this bill will do nothing to address the problem of drug use on the streets. This bill will not stop people from using drugs on the streets. On the contrary, it will now be almost impossible to open safe injection sites, which will bring heroin back into our neighbourhoods.

People will continue to find dirty needles on the ground. Drug users will still not have access to clean, safe equipment, and the rates of HIV and hepatitis will continue to climb. It is obvious that safe injection sites have been proven to work, and the Conservative government needs to face the facts and listen to what health experts have to say.

When researching this bill, I found a statistic that I thought was quite striking: people who used InSite's services at least once a week were 1.7 times more likely to enter a detox program than those who visited infrequently.

This statistic clearly shows that supervised injection sites can help people into detox programs. Facilities such as InSite play a vital role in reducing harm and getting people off drugs.

One argument that I often hear made against programs such as InSite is that people prefer to allocate resources to initiatives that help people overcome their addiction instead of opening additional safe injection sites. That is only natural; I can understand that argument.

However, that statistic clearly indicates that safe injection sites are a step towards getting off drugs. People who use drugs in the street will not wake up one morning and decide to stop using. However, by going to a safe injection site, users have the opportunity to speak with medical professionals, receive advice and learn more about how to access treatment centres.

InSite administrators clearly saw those benefits and opened OnSite in 2007. Users can be sent on OnSite, located directly above InSite, which provides detox and rehab services. There, users who are ready to take control of their addiction can undergo detox treatment under the supervision of social workers, nurses, mental health specialists and doctors. Those specialists can also help users plan their next steps and provide counselling to avoid a relapse.

I touched on the benefits of safe injection sites, and now I would like to speak to Bill C-2 and how it makes it nearly impossible to set up a new safe injection site.

Preparing an application for a new supervised injection site will be such a cumbersome process that it may dissuade applicants from even opening a file. If an applicant mistakenly forgets to include certain documents, the application could be automatically denied. Even if an applicant manages to obtain all of the documents needed for the application and has the community's full support, the minister can still deny it. Some applications may also take forever for no good reason, which means groups could be kept waiting for months or even years.

This bill is a serious obstacle to opening safe injection sites that can really help drug users and improve safety in our communities.

It is clear that safe injection sites have proven their worth.

They are a sound and effective solution to the problem of addiction in Canada.

I am ready to answer questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague's speech, it seems to me that these sites have very clearly and demonstrably received worldwide recognition. There are sites like these in 70 cities around the world, particularly in Australia.

As a health professional, I am thoroughly familiar with the beneficial aspects of these sites, particularly for a vulnerable drug-addicted population. These sites build bridges and help these people.

There is also an office above InSite that helps these people fight their addiction and that, sooner or later, will direct them to the kind of care that could ultimately eliminate blood-borne diseases like HIV/AIDS.

I am puzzled about something, and have a question for my colleague.

Would this bill not run counter to the Supreme Court's ruling?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would also like to congratulate her on her work as the deputy health critic. She has done a remarkable job and it is always a pleasure to work with her.

Indeed, it is really important. The facts have shown that the InSite centre is successful because it helps people with a drug problem. Sometimes, it can be a mental health problem. It is clear that the site is working.

It is therefore difficult to understand such a bill, which runs counter to the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling. I can only imagine that the Conservatives decided to introduce this bill for political reasons.

When you can help people, you have to do so. It is not as if the whole community around the InSite centre is demanding that it be closed. The need is real. I think that it should be kept and that we should support the people who run it. It is a good thing.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting for me to try to wrap my head around the ideas of the Conservatives with the bill.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health says, “Supervised Injection Services are another public health approach that can reduce harms associated with injection drug use”.

Since InSite opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. We are saving lives. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable diseases, infection rates and relapse rates for drug users.

These individuals are going to InSite and have an opportunity to safely do what they need to and at the same time, find a place where they can get help. There is a nurse there, so if they have finally hit their bottom, they can turn to someone and ask for help.

I do not understand why the Conservatives want to see these places shut down. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments relating to this.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, other countries have safe injection sites. Having a safe injection site does not mean there will be more people using drugs. We are not going to have people saying, “There's a place where I can do it, so I am going to start using drugs”. It means people will have access to clean needles, doctors and a referral service to get treatment.

All the statistics show that it is working, it is helping people and it is saving lives. There is no reason to have the bill. I just do not understand where the government is going on this. It is saving lives. It is a very important site in Vancouver.

Maybe other communities might decide that they have a problem. Maybe everybody works together. Maybe safe injection sites will be used in other communities. I have worked in Ottawa. I know there are a lot of drugs in the downtown core. Maybe something like that would help people here and save lives.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak again on Bill C-2. I did speak previously on the amendment that was proposed to Bill C-2 and gave a broader speech on my opposition to the bill then. Today, I want to focus on HIV/AIDS and Bill C-2.

Today I am wearing an AIDS ribbon as a reminder of World AIDS Day this December 1. I want to restate the AIDS Society's message this year, which is, “If you think the fight against HIV/AIDS has been won... Think again. It's not over”.

I think that's a very important message for all of us in the House of Commons, particularly when we are debating a bill such as Bill C-2.

I am from a generation of men who lost many, in fact, most of my closest friends to HIV/AIDS. When this was being ignored as a gay disease, gay men had to organize and fight back against prejudice and ignorance. Society responded, in particular, the medical community responded quite strongly. We have made great progress, but we have not cured AIDS.

Now an HIV/AIDS diagnosis is no longer a death sentence, but it is still a very serious medical condition. It is one which has great costs, and the Conservatives are always worried about costs. In financial terms, it has been estimated at about $500,000 per new case of HIV/AIDS, but it also takes a great personal toll on our friends and families.

It is still a serious medical condition, but the success we have had has led to some unfortunate consequences.

One of those consequences is the rise of HIV/AIDS rates among young gay men, again. Some of the education we have been doing is obviously failing as a new generation of gay men are coming up and feeling invincible, as all young people do, but also feeling that somehow HIV/AIDS medical progress means it is something they do not have to worry about. We have to recommit ourselves to doing that education in the gay community so that people are aware of the seriousness that HIV/AIDS still represents.

However, another thing has happened, which is that the main population being affected by AIDS has shifted. While AIDS was highly prevalent in most cases in the 1980s and 1990s among gay men, we have had a change and now over half the new cases of HIV/AIDS are among injection drug users.

This is a population, again, for which there is a great deal of prejudice. I was very disturbed by the comments from the member for Prince George—Peace River when he talked about “happy addicts”. There is no such thing as a happy addict. It is indicative of the ignorance that some members have about addiction as a serious medical problem. We are talking about how we deal with this medical problem. Injection drug users are now, in most parts of the country, the largest number of HIV/AIDS infections, and this has been true for much of the past decade.

Therefore, both the idea that HIV/AIDS is a manageable medical condition and the moral opprobrium that we heap on injection drug users means that we are now tending to ignore this problem in an important part of our society. We treat HIV drug users as if they have some kind of moral failing, as if somehow they have not understood how they have to act, instead of thinking about the reality of the situation, which is that addiction is a medical problem.

What does this have to do directly with Bill C-2?

I want to speak about a policy paper from the Canadian AIDS Society on injection drug use and HIV/AIDS. It refers to what it calls a health crisis caused by an epidemic of injection drug use. I think the use of the term “epidemic” is quite apt. This is a medical condition. This is not a moral condition of our society.

According to the Canadian AIDS Society, starting in 1996, over half of the new HIV/AIDS infections in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver were as a result of injection drug use. Starting as early as 1996, we have seen the shift in the population most seriously affected by HIV/AIDS. Now, the AIDS Society reports, that trend has extended across the entire country to smaller cities and rural areas. The focus of new infections is the injection drug user community.

There are obvious reasons, and one of those is sharing needles and other drug paraphernalia and equipment. However, there is a secondary reason I do not think we like to face up to, which is that many injection drug users engage in unsafe sex while high on drugs, and this is a significant contributor to HIV/AIDS infections. In fact, in our major cities it is not uncommon among young male street youth to trade unprotected sex for injection drugs, again, putting themselves seriously at risk.

No one does this as a conscious choice of something fun to do. They do it out of circumstance and they do it out of an addiction condition, which is medical.

The solutions are to be found, obviously, in harm reduction and in particular in safe injection sites.

I want to refer to a backgrounder that was produced by the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition on supervised consumption sites. What it has done is it has tried to summarize the research. We hear the Conservatives asking, “Where are the facts? Where is the evidence?” I am actually going to take a moment to go, point by point, through the findings that are summarized in the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition backgrounder on what research, peer-tested research studies, have shown.

What the research has found is that safe injection sites are used by people who inject drugs, including those who are at the highest risk. Therefore, when I talked about young male street workers, these people who are at the highest risk will often end up at the safe injection site.

The second finding is that they reduce overdose deaths. No deaths have occurred at the InSite safe injection site since its inception.

Third, they reduce behaviour such as the use of shared needles, which can lead not only to HIV infections but also to hep C infections.

Fourth, they reduce other unsafe injection practices and encourage the use of sterile materials. Therefore, users of these services are more likely to report changes to their injection practices and more likely to consult health professionals for assistance in crises resulting from injection drug use.

Fifth, they also increase the use of detox and other treatment services. The other side likes to point to providing a safe and warm place to inject drugs. That is not really what it is about. It is about providing a safe place, yes, but a place where there are other services on site. Therefore, when vulnerable populations build a relationship at InSite, the research shows 30% are much more likely to use detoxification and counselling services. Thirty per cent are more likely to actually try to get help as a result of being at the safe injection site.

Sixth, they are cost-effective. Research shows InSite prevents 35 new cases of HIV and three deaths a year, providing a societal benefit, in monetary terms, of $6 million per year. Of course, I do not wish, at any time, to try to quantify the personal savings in saving three lives, because those are people's kids, people's brothers, people's sisters, people's parents.

Seventh, they reduce public drug use. I think the most disturbing thing that happened when the bill was being talked about by the government was that it sent out a fundraiser saying, “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. That is exactly what safe injection sites do. They reduce the public use of injection drugs. They reduce the incidents of finding needles on public streets. They reduce the amount of publicly discarded injection equipment.

Finally, they do not cause an increase in crime around safe injection sites. In fact, crime rates have gone down around safe injection sites.

Those are the facts. There is the research about safe injection sites.

I think it is very important, when Conservatives call for the facts, that we actually look at the facts about safe injection sites. We will find that they save lives, they prevent new HIV/AIDS infections, they save money, they reduce crime, they make our neighbourhoods safer, and finally, the most important one to me, they create community support for treating injection drug use as an addiction and public support for harm reduction measures.

When people in the Downtown Eastside were surveyed, it was found that over 80% of those who live and work in the Downtown Eastside support a safe injection site. Bill C-2 is called “respecting communities”. I would like to call it just ironic, but I think it is a cruel irony that when people are saying they need safe injection sites in their communities, the Conservatives introduce a bill that would frustrate that in every way possible and call it “respecting communities”. It is directly the opposite.

The bill aims to shut down the supervised injection site in east Vancouver and to prevent any other supervised injection sites from operating. Why else do we have 26 conditions, literally, (a) to (z), set out in the bill? Even if every one of those conditions were met, it would not require the minister to issue a licence. It only says the minister “may” issue a licence.

Once again, I believe the bill is actually a fraud on the House of Commons, a fraud on the public. It is designed to frustrate a very important public health measure. I will be doing everything I can to ensure the Conservatives see the harm they would be doing, rather than the harm they could be reducing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on the member's last point, I have been sitting in the chamber and I have had the opportunity to listen to many debates on this particular piece of legislation.

It was interesting. One of the Conservatives at the beginning was debating the bill somewhat, and a comment that came from one of the backbench Conservatives was, in essence, that he just does not believe in injection sites. To what degree does the member believe that ultimately that might be the hidden agenda with this particular piece of legislation; that, in fact, there is a contingency of members from the Conservative Party who just do not recognize any value in having safe injection sites, even if the facts that are there before us and the history of our one and only injection site in Vancouver show it to be a resounding success story for the community as a whole and for the individuals who are using the facility?

I wonder if the member might provide comment on that particular aspect, that there are some individuals within the chamber who would ultimately argue that there is no need for sites of this nature, period.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously all of us in this chamber hold different beliefs. There are some on the other side who, I know, have publicly said they do not believe in evolution. I am not concerned about that because that does not really affect my life.

However, when they say they do not believe in safe injection sites, that affects other people's lives. That affects their safety, their ability to get help. It affects their ability, literally, to survive. Therefore, it is not really a question of beliefs, because we have evidence that we can go on of the very positive contribution that safe injection sites make toward safer communities and better health for Canadians.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech on the positive impacts of centres like these was very eloquent.

There is another aspect, and it is extremely odd that the Conservatives never talk about it. I am referring to the economic benefits of facilities like these. Consider the people who would go to such sites. They are less likely to become infected or infect others. They would be in a healthier environment. If they need water to dilute their drugs, they will not get it from a puddle or somewhere dirty. They will have a healthy environment that provides them with resources nearby, whether human or physical, to help them overcome their problem one day, and also to ensure that there is less collateral damage in the surrounding population.

It is a straightforward matter of economics that would save money. Hospitals would have to take in fewer people from these areas and fewer people would be affected by collateral damage. The Conservatives do not talk about it, and yet they generally claim that they are better than the rest in matters of economics.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to reality here. In my previous speech on the bill, I referred to the B.C. coroner's report from October 2012, which showed that on Vancouver Island, where I am from, there were 44 deaths from illicit drug use in 2011, with 16 of those occurring in my community in greater Victoria. There is a real human cost here, which means there is a need in my community to have something like a safe injection site, and for those harm reduction measures that both save money and save lives.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was appalled earlier to hear a question coming from the Conservative side in which a member said that we have “happy addicts”. I do not know if he has ever met someone who has worked with people who have addictions or ever met someone who has an addiction, but no one is a happy addict. To hear that just shows where this is coming from.

The statistics that my colleague brought forward on reducing crime, saving lives and putting that importance on one life, and reducing communicable diseases, that was absolutely appalling. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, I heard the same comment and I think it betrays a very fundamental ignorance about the nature of addiction and in particular injection drug use on the streets in our cities. There is no such thing as a happy addict, and no easy way out of this medical condition. That is why we have the responsibility, as a society, to do everything we can to restore people with serious addictions back to being productive members of society and loving members of their families.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House for the second time to speak to Bill C-2, because this bill is very important to me. Unfortunately, I have known people suffering from addiction. I say “suffering from” because this is not a choice. These people need care.

To add some perspective, Bill C-2 is very dangerous. This is a Conservative attempt to deprive us of supervised injection sites such as InSite in Vancouver.

The Conservatives' bill adds a list of conditions for opening a supervised injection site in a community that are quite complex and difficult to meet. I find this quite unfortunate.

In my speech, I talked about safety on the streets, because our Conservative friends claim they are doing this for the sake of safety. However, I would much prefer seeing people who inject drugs do so in a specific place in the city rather than finding syringes everywhere. I also pointed to the absurdity of the Conservatives' decision to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, rather than the Standing Committee on Health. That is rich.

That proves that the Conservatives do not believe that supervised injection sites are a health issue. However, these sites are not just places where people go to get high together. These are places where health professionals provide supervision, prevention and guidance. The fact that the Conservatives are sending this bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security tells me, on one hand, that they want to scare people and confuse the facts about supervised injection sites, and on the other, that so many health professionals support supervised injection sites that the Conservatives are having trouble finding enough witnesses to support their views on health. This is what I said in my first speech.

At this time, Canada has one supervised injection site, InSite. It was created as part of a public health plan by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and its community partners following a dramatic increase in overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. At the time, the Vancouver area was also seeing a dramatic rise in the rates of communicable diseases spread by injection drug use, including hepatitis A, B and C and HIV/AIDS.

World AIDS Day is coming up in a few days, on December 1, so I would like to take a moment to talk about that. The Canadian AIDS Society, which was founded about 20 years ago, does excellent work. It is too bad that the Conservatives do not believe in the benefits of supervised injection sites, because sites such as InSite help reduce the number of people with AIDS every year.

The Conservatives like to talk about the economy. We can significantly reduce health care costs related to communicable diseases spread by injection drug use. For instance, AIDS can be transmitted sexually as well as by dirty needles. Supervised injection sites tackle this problem by distributing clean needles. Little things like that help. In my riding, an organization called À deux mains distributes clean needs to injection drug users.

I do not have the figures for hepatitis, but I have some pretty incredible figures for AIDS from a study done in 2008. I would like to share the total economic losses associated with each individual who is HIV-positive.

This was in 2009. If we factor in inflation, the numbers might be a bit higher today.

For every HIV-positive person, the estimated cost is $250,000 in health care, $670,000 in terms of productivity and $380,000 in terms of quality of life. I am not sure what, specifically, is meant by quality of life, but I imagine it has to do with everything that comes with daily life, such as productivity, food and morale, which must be at rock bottom.

These numbers from the Canadian AIDS Society add up to a total of $1,300,000 per person. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, roughly 69,000 people in Canada had AIDS in 2011, making the total cost $4,031,490,000. That is a lot of money. I am not saying that all those people were infected by dirty needles, but some of them were. We could save a lot of money.

It is unfortunate that most bills, especially Conservative bills, focus on healing instead of prevention. The Conservatives never consider prevention. The same is true when it comes to crime. There is no prevention, just healing. People are sent to prison where no one will look after them. It is sad.

No one chooses to be an addict. We rarely talk about the social determinants of health. If you go to Vancouver East you will see that the people who live there are not very rich. They did not get everything handed to them in life. I am very fortunate. I come from an educated family. My parents taught me the importance of staying away from drugs, going to school and getting a job.

Not everyone is lucky enough to be born into those circumstances. Through no fault of their own, people end up with rather serious addictions. They shoot up drugs. I imagine that no one plans to get to that stage. I doubt they woke up one morning and decided to become a heroin addict. We have a duty as a society to help them.

I would like to come back to the issue of discarded needles that turn up all over the place. When I found out that I was going to give a speech, I checked the websites of major Canadian cities. The Conservatives say that they do not want these needles in their backyards. However, the websites of Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver and Montreal indicate that all these cities have a program to retrieve used needles found on the streets.

The Ottawa website, for example, has an 11-step set of instructions for what to do with a needle found on the street. If the city puts this on its website, there must be a lot of discarded needles. Moreover, if on its site it says to be careful and that children should never touch used needles, that must be because needles can be found where they live. This is rather worrisome.

This is also the case for Montreal. Look at the website and this is one of the first things you will read: “In order to take collective action to reduce the problem of discarded needles...”. Therefore, the problem exists. We know that there are groups in Montreal that would like to establish supervised injection sites, but Bill C-2, which the Conservatives will unfortunately pass, will block them. Thus, people will keep discarding needles in the streets.

In closing, I would like to thank the Montreal organizations that pick up these needles. Thank you to À deux mains, located in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, which is in my riding, Cactus Montréal, Spectre de rue, Pacte de rue, L'Unité d'intervention mobile L'Anonyme, Dopamine and Le Préfixe, and also several CLSCs.

These are not establishments where you go to take drugs; their mandate is prevention. I urge my colleagues to vote against this government bill, because it will be detrimental to the health of our communities.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who so eloquently spoke about the collateral damage of drug use. When someone becomes addicted to drugs, which is terrible, it is not just that person who is affected. Everyone around them is as well: family, friends and even the community. The member began to talk about that, mentioning dirty needle pick-up programs. Dirty needles are a problem in large urban centres.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to speak some more about that collateral damage because when we are studying a bill, it is important to look at is what is best for the people.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In fact, there is a great deal of collateral damage.

In the government’s place, I would try to take the opportunity, knowing that InSite worked in Vancouver and that it is a good thing. Furthermore, studies have been done. We have seen 30 studies published in such journals as The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. They describe the benefits of InSite. It is thus recognized internationally, since studies have been published in such journals. They say that InSite is one of the most important public health breakthroughs in Canada.

Specifically, InSite has reduced the number of overdoses. Moreover, even though there are still people who do not go to InSite, injection drug users have gathered in one part of the city. There have thus been fewer needles in the streets. I would not like to learn that children in my community were walking in the streets, the schoolyards, or even the churchyards where people take drugs. That can have consequences for a young child.

In the government’s place, I would realize that this is a good opportunity to set up more such sites in other cities, instead of preventing those cities from getting them.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague expressed disappointment that the government placed this bill in a justice context, rather than a health context. I want to give my colleague the opportunity to talk more about this, because it is truly a health issue, not just a crime issue.

All this bill seems to do is pass judgment on people who have an addiction, instead of realizing that such people have problems and need help.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said in fact that I found this absurd, and I thank my colleague for giving me more time to talk about it.

The Standing Committee on Health hears from witnesses who work in health care. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security hears from witnesses from the public safety field. I hope that there will nevertheless be witnesses in that group able to argue that it is safer to have supervised injection sites than to have addicts wandering our streets.

That said, InSite has made its mark internationally. The facility is recognized as being good for public health. As I said, deaths by overdose have been reduced. There are also all the mental health aspects. People who inject themselves likely have mental health problems, so health care specialists are there to guide and treat them. Unfortunately, I do not know exactly where it is in my notes, but there is InSite and OnSite. People who come to InSite can be encouraged to go to the OnSite health care service upstairs. There they will find even more programs to help them.

If the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, unfortunately, it will not be possible to hear all those people from the health care field who can tell us what the benefits are. Ideologically speaking, we know the Conservatives are against such sites. They want to close them down. That is what they want to do with this bill. I hope that some of them will wake up and vote against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Once again I am struck by the title of the bill, but I am also confused as to where the bill would be going after we have finished with it in this House at second reading. It will be sent to the public safety committee. I am finding it hard to understand why it would be going there when we are looking specifically at a health issue. Controlled drugs and substance abuse fall under health issues.

Once again I am forced to ask myself the question of what this bill is really about. Is it really about tackling drugs and substance abuse in our community? Is that what the bill is really about? Is it about making sure that our young people are safe? Is it about making sure that there are rehabilitation programs to help young people, and those who are not so young, who have managed to become engaged in addictive behaviour?

There are addictive drugs, and often people end up being sufferers of substance abuse not because of choice but because circumstances have taken them there. However, once we have identified them as addicts, so to speak, then we also know that it is a health issue and we have to treat it as such. Instead of looking at ways to tackle the very complex issue of substance abuse, the government once again wants very simplistic, headline-grabbing kind of legislation.

A few days ago, we were debating a bill called drug-free prisons. That legislation had nothing to do with treatment or rehabilitation. All it had to do with was a urine test that was already being conducted and was already being taken into consideration by the Parole Board. That is the only part that was in the bill, yet according to the government across the aisle, it was all about drug-free prisons. We begin to wonder, when we see bills like this one and the other one, if it is not really about appealing to the base. Is it just a modus operandi to fill up the Conservative coffers? I am beginning to think that is what it is all about.

The reason is that as a teacher and a counsellor who worked for a long time in the public school system and has experience dealing with people who are engaged in substance abuse as well as those who live with those who are abusing drugs, I have seen the devastation it can have on people's lives. All the research that exists says that just telling people they cannot do something will not get rid of the problem; instead, what we need is a multi-pronged approach in order to take on an issue such as substance abuse.

I come from a riding very far from here, Newton—North Delta, in beautiful British Columbia. In my riding we are very concerned about community safety. We are very concerned about gangs and we are very concerned about substance abuse.

The community wants to find solutions to help our youth, but I do not see anything coming forward in this House from the other side that is a proactive, preventive, or rehabilitative program. I see just words on paper and more or less ideological positions that are not based on science, research, or anything else. The fact that addictions are a health issue is not even taken into consideration. They are a health issue, and as such, we must treat them as a health issue.

That does not mean we are saying that people involved in criminal activities should not have consequences, but surely, at the same time, we also have to realize that we live in a country where even through our penal system we absolutely believe in rehabilitation. We do not believe that we just put someone in prison, shut the door, and that is it, because we know those people, young and old, are going to come out and come back into our communities.

When I look at the bill, I see that it is really a not-so-veiled attempt to defy a Supreme Court ruling that ruled in favour of injection sites operating when a community assessment shows that community support is there and when there is value to it.

I note my colleagues across the way have an allergy to science. They also have an allergy to research, facts, and data. Their way of operating is to just appeal to their ideological base and not take into consideration what will work and what will make our communities safer. All they want are sound bites without any substance so that they can collect more money.

There are over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in respected journals, such as The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the British Medical Journal. They have all described the beneficial impacts of InSite.

Some may not be aware, but InSite is situated in British Columbia, on Vancouver's east side. Studies on over 70 safe injection sites in Europe and Australia have shown similar benefits, so InSite in Vancouver is not a one-off. Programs similar to InSite that operate throughout Europe have shown similar benefits.

InSite is one of the greatest public health achievements in Canada. I do not say that lightly. I have actually been on site and I have seen how it works. I have actually talked to the people who go in there, and the people who work there as well. We believe sites like this would benefit other cities where they are needed.

There is also this idea that InSite just opens the door and anybody can just walk in, that it is just a way of getting free drugs and free needles. That is very far from the truth. In order to use InSite, one has to be at least 16 years of age, sign a user agreement, adhere to a code of conduct, and not be accompanied by children.

Eighty per cent of the people living in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside support InSite. Also, overdose deaths in East Vancouver have dropped 35% since InSite has been in operation. Surely that is evidence that we need to allow InSite and other organizations like it to be established so that we can take on this problem.

Once again, I want to appeal to my colleagues across the way. Let us start looking at science. Let us start looking at the research. Let us start listening to health professionals, from nurses and doctors to associations. Let us start paying attention to the real professionals and take our guidance from them, and let us not make things worse and make our communities unsafe.

While ideologically you argue that you are fixing a problem, you are actually putting communities at risk.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments, I would like to remind this member and all others that you cannot reference in your speech, “You cannot do this and you cannot do that”. All remarks need to be addressed to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, having been involved in the health care field, I regularly dealt with people who were absolutely desperate for the support of detox services and rehabilitation services. To be quite frank, the services that were needed were not there.

To the member, how can she support spending money when we do not have enough detox or rehabilitation services for the people who are truly trying to get themselves off drugs and alcohol or other substances?

We need to look at opportunity, cost, and the challenges that we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is a cost-benefit analysis: 35% fewer overdose deaths.

Let me also say that the evidence shows, and not just from InSite but from other sites in Europe as well, that people who are using InSite and the services there are twice as likely to want to access the rehabilitation and treatment centres that we have to offer.

This aspect is an integral part of dealing with an issue that is of major concern. The government, at the very time it is cutting rehabilitation and support for substance abusers as well as for other people who need rehabilitation, then has the audacity to say that this is not an effective program when science tells us it is.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I referred to what I would classify as co-operative federalism.

In co-operative federalism, different levels of government work together. It is an issue that is important to me. Having formerly served in a provincial legislature, I come to the House of Commons understanding that there is a lot of crossover in many of the different issues facing our communities today. We need to be working hand in hand with the different levels of government and stakeholders to make things happen to improve the system.

In particular, the Vancouver injection site is just an example of one of the ways that co-operative federalism and working with the stakeholders can work. At the end of the day, we see a hugely successful program. The facts speak for themselves in terms of just how successful it has been.

We do not have the Province of B.C. or the Vancouver police calling for the dismissal of the program. In fact, it is quite the opposite: they are saying that the program is effective and that it works.

Would the member comment on the benefits of government working with stakeholders to make things happen and to make our communities a better place to live?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the key issues is that all levels of government want to tackle the drug issue. However, the federal government's way of tackling it is to tell people they cannot do drugs, believing that if it stops giving them rehabilitation and support, they are just going to stop doing drugs. That is not going to happen.

Let me just read some of the other benefits. The fact is that there are 35% fewer overdose deaths. If that does not cut it, the fact that there are fewer needles out on the streets makes our communities feel safer. Among the people who go to InSite, there is a 70% drop in people who are likely to share needles. I will leave the health implications to my colleagues across the way.

As well, InSite users, because all these other services are available on site, are far more able to make use of other health care support systems that they need. As I said before, drug treatment is not a simplistic solution. It needs a multi-pronged approach. InSite is a key component and a very successful program, so why would we want to dismantle a successful program?

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today and add my voice to those of my colleagues in the official opposition against Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Bill C-2 is designed to make it more difficult to grant an exemption for supervised injection sites. The problem here is that at this time, there is but one such site, in Vancouver. This site was rightly granted an exemption, because it offers proven benefits. This bill is merely a reflection of Conservative anti-drug ideology. Yet tabling such a bill, which would prevent the establishment of supervised injection sites, will not eliminate addicts from our society. Unfortunately, they are here to stay.

I would like to acquaint you with some scientific data showing that supervised injection sites benefit both drug users and public safety. I will shortly be providing some additional information on public safety.

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse concluded in 2008 that such establishments provided a clean, safe and above all supervised place in which to monitor addicts’ injections. As we know, a used syringe can be used by another drug user, and may transmit disease.

Next, the federal Minister of Health asked an advisory committee of experts to assess the impact of the InSite centre with respect to its objectives. The conclusions are persuasive. It was found that InSite encourages users to seek advice, detox and treatment, and this resulted in increased use of detox and treatment services. These successes were achieved because of the exemption they obtained, which the government wishes to restrict.

It should also be added that the establishment of such a site provides a connection to treatment and rehabilitation services. Such a site gives young people a chance to get off drugs and opens a door towards rehabilitation. This is very important, and we are all in favour of it.

The qualified staff working at this facility monitor drug users and give them options to overcome their addiction.

I am presenting published facts, which the Conservatives cannot deny. They base their bill on the notion that public safety will be threatened by the kind of site we are talking about. I would like to point out such sites were established in response to concerns on the part of the authorities about the spread of HIV and hepatitis C. Such sites met the needs of addicts who were unable to stop using drugs by providing them with hygienic facilities. Furthermore, they also meet the needs of all those who do not use drugs and who sometimes find a needle in the street. It was thus a way of preventing the spread of drugs and disease in the streets.

In drafting this bill, the Conservatives pointed to the unsafe nature of neighbourhoods surrounding such sites. By imposing cumbersome administrative procedures to impede the creation of such sites, however, the Conservatives are forcing addicts to use drugs in the streets, in the parks or anywhere where children will be playing the following morning.

I do not believe that the presence of contaminated waste such as syringes or the spread of infectious diseases through unsupervised injections is reassuring for the public. I would like to emphasize this point, because I have witnessed the consequences of drug use in the streets. I will provide a few examples. We are talking about addicts, people who are already struggling with drugs. Let us take the example of a couple strolling in the park with their child. The child is playing in the sandpit, and suddenly he finds a syringe. Day care centres have complained about this phenomenon in the past. Children are playing in the park, and suddenly they are pricked by one of these needles. Obviously, they have to go straight to hospital. It is serious when people do not feel safe.

I do not have to look much farther: I live in Ottawa, 15 minutes’ walk from the House of Commons. I still remember that last spring, when my co-tenant was clearing dead leaves from the property, she found a syringe in the front yard. Fortunately, she was wearing leather gloves.

We were afraid. We told ourselves it was serious, but we thought it was an exception.

A few months later, arriving home in the evening after my workday in Parliament, what do I see? A young man injecting himself with drugs in front of my home. We are not in a poor neighbourhood, after all. This man dropped his dirty needle outside a hotel. I was very afraid, so I told the police about the situation, and they arrived shortly after.

The next morning, before I went to work, what did I see? Two women picking up leaves with very thin rubber gloves. Since my English is not particularly good, I did not know how to tell them to be careful, because this is serious. I tried to tell them about the dangerous things on the ground. I do not know if they understood me, but I continued to feel concern.

These women are working mothers, and they may prick themselves inadvertently by touching needles thrown down in the street. Drug users, of course, are thinking only about satisfying their need, and do not realize that their actions have consequences.

In some ways, these sites can help us to manage the social problems related to drug addiction. These sites do not just help addicts; they can protect all of us.

Another thing that troubles me about this bill is that it goes against a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 2011. I would like to quote a key excerpt from that decision. It reads:

Where, as here, [the evidence shows that] a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, [quite the contrary,] the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

The court therefore ruled that InSite should remain open under the exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Although the court left the decisions regarding exemptions for future supervised injection sites to the minister's discretion, it indicated that:

...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.

It is important that any new bill pertaining to these sites take into account the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions.

In closing, throughout my speech, I presented arguments that show that supervised injection sites are safe, controlled environments that provide health and social services, and not just for drug users. They can also protect us and our families on the streets.

In light of such concrete evidence, the government must stop proposing bills designed only to satisfy its voter base and instead meet the needs of Canadians.

We are not living in an ideal, drug-free world. There are people who have problems that drive them to inject illegal substances.

It is our duty to offer them solutions. Preventing the establishment of the only services that can help them will not make their addictions disappear. It will even put us, our families and our children at risk of finding contaminated needles on the streets.

The House resumed from November 28 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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on Bill C-2, I would like to welcome you and all my colleagues back to the House of Commons from the weeks we had with our constituents and families. I hope everyone had an informative and restful time away from the House, because the debate about the future of the country begins again.

One always hopes, coming out of a time when politicians are separated by great distances and surrounded by friends and family, that we would return to find a new spirit from the government, a spirit in which we could start to renew and rebuild Canada and perhaps find some common ground in order to make our country a better place, which I believe we all begin our political careers hoping for.

Unfortunately, after a very productive debate we just had on a democratic motion from one of the New Democratic members about e-petitions and restoring and enhancing democracy in our Parliament, for which we hope to see some Conservative support, we now move over to an incredibly offensive piece of legislation. This is the first one the Conservatives felt they needed to call. They often have trouble naming their pieces of legislation accurately. We have seen them time and time again borrow from the worst aspects of our neighbours in the south, particularly the Republican Party, which uses the naming of bills to inappropriately stir up feelings and emotions within the public and inaccurately reflect what is actually being proposed in the legislation. We have that here with Bill C-2. An appropriate name for the bill would be “Bill C-2, shutting down InSite”. This is essentially what the bill is meant to do.

For those who are not familiar with InSite, it has become something that the Conservatives constantly and almost vehemently oppose. It is a program run out of the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, one of the most troubled communities in the entire country but also one of our most resilient communities. I spent some time working with people who have been positively affected by InSite, a program started a number of years ago in the nineties. It is a safe injection site and the only safe injection site in Canada.

I know some of my Conservative colleagues who choose ignorance over the facts will use this as some sort of culture war rallying cry, raising money and potentially securing votes by misinforming the people they represent. However, they cannot misinform themselves during the course of this debate, because the facts sit before us. They can choose to have their own opinions, but they cannot choose to have their own facts. What we see in this piece of legislation directly goes against science. It goes against the facts of the matter and the principles that we, at least in the New Democratic Party, think are important. Therefore, I am disappointed that this legislation continues to receive support from the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party. I am not surprised, unfortunately.

However, I am also encouraged because it allows us to talk about such important things as public safety and the health of Canadians. InSite was at the time, and remains, a cutting-edge program, a bold initiative to try to tackle a problem that has been plaguing a community for many years. It is one that has received support, at least in British Columbia and Vancouver, from both ends of the political spectrum. Very conservative mayors and more progressive mayors, like Mayor Robertson, have supported this initiative over the years. It forms one pillar of the four-pillar approach in Vancouver, which has taken on a challenge.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, being from Windsor and having spent some time in Toronto and other Canadian cities, within some of our neighbourhoods there can be a cycle in which crime leads to more crime, open drug use leads to more open drug use, and people stop fighting for their neighbourhoods. They leave. The people we want to move into the community will not do so because they do not feel safe, and communities spin almost out of control. The police are unable to regain a certain amount of public security, and the community ends up looking like one of those communities we fear.

Perhaps there are better examples across the border from your home, Mr. Speaker, in Detroit, where because of economics and social malaise, entire neighbourhoods are essentially being bulldozed because no one wants to live there.

It costs communities not only the hardship, but many millions and billions of dollars in the end. The Downtown Eastside has seen a renewal and revitalization owing not just in part to InSite and the good work the people there do, but also because of many programs that progressive governments have brought to bear in dealing with issues like housing. The Conservative government would perhaps take note that housing is one of the most affordable and most essential components. The renewal has not been complete, but there is certainly an incredible difference from even 15 years ago when I spent some time working in the Downtown Eastside. It is quite amazing.

Let us deal with the bill, because in Bill C-2 the government has found a new love for public consultation and community input. I look to my colleagues to see if they can think of anything else the government has ever done on which the public's opinion has actually mattered. Those of us dealing with the pipeline politics in northern B.C. and the Enbridge northern gateway would love to hear the Conservative government suddenly have some feeling and concern for the opinion of the public.

For those dealing in the Toronto waterfront, such as my friend from Trinity—Spadina, to hear that the Conservative government actually cares what the public thinks would be remarkable. Right across the country we have seen the government time and time again simply invoke measures, as happened when the Prime Minister changed the age of retirement from 65 to 67. I do not remember that he consulted with Canadians and asked for their opinion, but suddenly, when it comes to a safe injection site, the Conservatives ideologically oppose it. Their opposition is not based on any facts or evidence, even though Conservatives say from time to time they have a new-found love for science.

We asked them to help review with us the 30 peer-reviewed articles and medical journals that have studied the effectiveness of InSite. InSite is supported by the Police Association, by the Chiefs of Police, by the Nurses Association, and by the Canadian Medical Association. These must be some of those foreign-funded radical groups the Conservatives are always crying about, these well-respected institutions of our health and public safety in Canada, but each of these studies has shown time and again that this harm reduction strategy has lowered fatalities due to overdose by 35% since its inception.

A caring Conservative would say there are fewer people dying of drug overdose, and it seems like a good thing. A Conservative who is concerned about public safety would also note that crime has dropped precipitously in the same region over the same time. Therefore, the whole idea that safe injection sites in communities cause the crime rate to go through the roof has proven to be the opposite; in fact, the spread of communicable diseases in that community, a serious public safety and public health issue, has also dropped in that same community in which InSite exists.

Not only must we consider the pain and hardship of those who contract these communicable diseases, we must also consider the public purse and what it costs the already strained public system. It should be every government's intention and work to lower the amount of disease spreading in our communities, and drug relapse for those who have participated in this program is significantly lower than it is in any other program in this country. The addicts who go through the InSite program tend not to get back on drugs nearly as frequently as they do after any other detox or remediation program we have.

All those facts together—public safety, the lowering of crime, the lowering of health costs, the encouragement and support of people in Vancouver and British Columbia of all political persuasions for such a program—should open the eyes of the Conservatives just a little bit.

The medical doctors of Canada support this program, the nurses of Canada support this program, and the police in the city and the province support this program. One would think one of those groups would be of interest to Conservatives, but no, that is not the case. What is of interest is fundraising and ideological warfare. We know that when they introduced the bill, it had not even been debated for a minute in the House of Commons before the Conservative Party sent out a fundraiser to its membership asking them to send money for this great bill.

I remember that when the Prime Minister ran for election after being in a position of minority government, he said to give him a majority and not to worry about any agenda he had, because he would be restrained by the courts. In the case of the Supreme Court of Canada, after three trials at the B.C. Supreme Court, the government took the case to the B.C. Court of Appeal and finally to the Supreme Court. What was the cost to taxpayers? I do not know, but it was millions.

Even after the Supreme Court said that this bill violates charter rights, that it may well be unconstitutional, and that the government is arbitrarily undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which includes public health and safety, that is what the government is doing.

It is not a free and conscious clear-thinking government. It is one driven only by ideology, only by fundraising initiatives, and only by blind faith in some sort of world view that absolutely contradicts the facts in front of us.

We will be opposing this legislation at every step of the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, welcome back to all of my colleagues. Happy new year—

[An hon. member]

It is Groundhog Day.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not Groundhog Day, as one of my colleagues said.

This is a very important piece of legislation that we are discussing, because it addresses an issue that is very keen and close to a lot of people's hearts across Canada, which is how we help Canadians overcome addictions to these types of substances.

My colleague spoke very passionately about the need to help people overcome them and the best way to do so. That is a debate that is very worthy of the House. I think we all agree that it is an important issue, but what I did not hear my colleague talk about was the impact of these sites on the communities around them. One of the things that we have been talking about in debating this bill is the right of the communities in which these centres are located to have consultation and to talk about the impact on their households and their lives.

I ask my colleague a very honest question: How do we balance that? How do we balance the needs of the community with the needs of folks who are affected by substance abuse?

We have put a lot of policy in place in this government in terms of addressing some of the determinants of how people fall into that type of substance use. Does the member not agree that it is important for us to consult with our communities ahead of opening up one of these sites?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend back as well. I wonder if we could apply those very same principles to energy policy in this country. I am talking about consultation with the communities that are affected.

Communities that are affected by any government proposals—such as, say, a bitumen pipeline—should be consulted and listened to. That would be a curious thing, because in the consultations that the government has conducted with Canadians over one pipeline in northern British Columbia, if anybody opposed, the Minister of Natural Resources called them foreign-funded radicals.

With response to safe injection sites, let us understand the process of how these things come to be.

The initiative starts from a community that is facing an intractable problem like the one in the Downtown Eastside. The facts of the matter are that in terms of lowering the incidence of drug use in our communities, this works. The facts of the matter are that in terms of lowering crime associated with that same drug use in those same communities, this program works. It has been peer-reviewed by 30 different groups. It is supported by the police, by the nurses, and by the doctors. These groups are concerned with the same things that my friend just raised.

If she does not want to listen to me, that is fine, but she should listen to the groups that have studied this situation. I would also encourage my friend to do as I did and actually visit InSite and talk to the people who work there. She should talk to the clients who go there and to their families. They have seen the success that has happened in this program.

Is it perfect? No. Does it move us further along? Yes. Is there a better idea in this piece of legislation? Absolutely not. Let us not sacrifice the perfect as we seek the good.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his thoughtful and informed remarks about InSite.

During both the campaigns of 2008 and 2011, I had questions asked of me of InSite. People had this impression that it was like people walking into a Holiday Inn and walking up to a bar where they could order drugs and have a wonderful room in which to sit and relax and take their drugs. I had to inform these people that it is not at all what it is like.

I am taking my friend up on his last comments about visiting InSite and seeing what really goes on there. Perhaps he might tell Canadians the frame of mind that people are in when they go to InSite, what they meet, the welcoming that they have, the opportunities they have for rehabilitation, and all the other things that are afforded those who actually use InSite.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if we talk to the people who work on the street, the nurses and the social workers, one of the things that they will tell us, and this is clear across Canada, is that getting access to people who are addicted to harmful drugs is one of the most challenging aspects of their work. It is very difficult to access them and get them into those programs, such as the affordable housing programs or the other initiatives that may be coming from the federal government or some of the provincial governments providing health care.

They cannot get access to people, and one of the reasons InSite has been successful is that ability to at least have the initial conversation. Not everybody is ready at the first invitation to start to move off of a destructive lifestyle, but the conversation starts and the relationship starts.

There is not a better idea coming from government. It is not even close. All that we see is this, something that is likely unconstitutional and that breaks our charter. I think we can do better. I know we can do better. We can support InSite, not take it to court and spend millions of Canadians' dollars fighting good programs that save lives.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to pick up from where my colleague left off with his answer to a question about the perceived ideas of what a safe injection site is. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley talked about getting access to the addicts as being one of the most difficult things for people working in health care, for people working with folks on the street and for people who are trying to reach out to addicts and help them, whether to access health care or addiction services or housing. How do we actually find the addicts? How do we get to them so we can give them the supports they need?

That is very true in my home community in Halifax. We have this incredible program right now called MOSH, which stands for mobile outreach street health. It is a van with nurses that goes around to where people are. They go to homeless shelters, under bridges and to fields. They go with the van to where they know homeless people are and try to access them and give them some very basic, rough medical attention, and maybe talk to them about the next step. They may talk to them about treatment; there is a doctor down at the North End Community Health Centre. They may talk to them about housing and ask if they know how to access housing. They might connect them to Halifax Housing Help or to Direction 180, which is our methadone clinic in Halifax. Actually having access to people with addictions is a great thing because we can give them the supports they need. We need access to people who are looking to deal with their addiction or become housed or get the health care they need, and safe injection sites are a way to access people with addictions.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley cited some great statistics about how safe injection sites work, such as InSite in particular, and how people who want support—not everyone—can actually get addiction counselling and can transition to a healthier life where they tackle their addictions. That is something we should be doing as a country and as Canadians. We should be helping. We should be thinking about ways to actually help people with addictions instead of just further marginalizing them and making it harder for them.

So why are we here talking about Bill C-2? We are here because, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that InSite saves lives, that it offers life-saving services and therefore should be exempt from section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the CDSA. I really think judicial decisions are separate from who we are as legislators, but I read that decision and think it was a victory for evidence-based science over ideology. That was 2011. Here we are now at the beginning of 2014 and, unfortunately, I am standing here debating a bill that is a return of that ideology, and it makes me quite sad that we are actually moving backwards.

This bill is deeply flawed, and it is based on an anti-drug ideology and on fears about public safety that are not necessarily rooted in evidence. The fears are not necessarily real. They are false fears.

What are these fears? My colleague from Guelph was talking about some of these false fears: people think there are raging addicts going around our communities, who get to go into these posh sites and put their feet up and access drugs, and it is like one-stop shopping for addicts; people think that if there is a safe injection site there will be increased drug use; people think there will be more drug users on the street. When I say “people” I do not mean all people, but those are the false fears that exist. They are false fears that drug users are going to terrorize our children and our communities.

Why do I say these false fears are out there? It is because on the Conservative Party website we see that the Conservatives are trying to capitalize on these fears. There is this beautiful page, and I say “beautiful” with a heavy dose of sarcasm. It says, “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. It is a fundraising request. People can sign up, and the big donate button is there to donate to the Conservative Party of Canada. There is a picture of a couple of needles on the ground and people milling around. They are not people in fancy dress shoes or high-heeled shoes. It is apparent that these are the shoes of drug dealers; again there is a heavy dose of sarcasm there.

It is incredible; it is fearmongering. There is a Facebook site that goes with it. If members have some time and they want to get themselves quite exercised about what state the country is in, they should read those comments. They are comments filled with vitriol and more fearmongering. It is incredible. I pulled one comment that said, “Addiction is not a health problem. Addiction...is stupidity”. The vitriol extends bizarrely into saying the civil service should be gagged and put on the EI line. I do not really know where that comes from, but it is out there. That fearmongering is being fueled by the Conservatives.

People may say they do not want a safe injection site in their backyards, but I am going to talk about my backyard in Halifax. My office is on Gottingen Street. Gottingen is a beautiful, strong, vibrant street full of community action and community togetherness. I love the street my office is on, but Gottingen Street has its share of social problems. It is a historically poor neighbourhood. There is drug use and sex work in my community. There is a lot of poverty in this community.

The last time this legislation was up in the House I spoke to it as well. The week before was a riding week and MPs were at home in our constituencies. Just purely by chance that it happened that week, I rode my bike to my office and right on the ground by my bike lock was a needle. I dutifully went inside, got something to pick it up with and took it three doors down to the community heath centre, which has a sharps bin. That is the reality of my community. If my community decides it is better to have a safe injection site, then why can my community not make that decision free of interference and fearmongering from the Conservatives?

I was chatting with some folks from the Metro Non-Profit Housing Association, which is located across the street from my office. I did not know this, but they told me that it and other community organizations had rallied together to put a sharps container on a street behind my office where there is not a lot of back and forth traffic nor a lot of people, so it turns out to be a place where people do use intravenous drugs. Bushes provide privacy. It is ideal if someone is looking for a place to do something outside the eyes of the public. The association rallied together and said it would put a sharps container behind these buildings because there is so much drug use. At the very least, kids would not be walking around in the midst of needles and having an accident.

At first I thought that was a great idea. If there are needles, then let us give people a place to put those needles. Then I found out that people were breaking into the sharps container to steal dirty needles. What kind of desperation must one feel to break into a sharps container to steal dirty needles? What kind of low is that individual at? Where is that individual who thinks that is a good idea and acts on it? Where is that individual when he or she acts on that, when that is the reality?

That is not an awesome thing about my town, but it is real, it exists and it is not going to go away if we just ignore it and do not talk about it. My community says enough is enough. It does not want sharps containers in the café down the street anymore. It does not want sharps containers in all of the community organizations along Gottingen Street. We do not want people shooting up behind the office or behind the health centre. We want to take care of people and offer them the supports they may need. We want to help them if they want to transition away from addiction. Who is to say that we cannot do that?

I will finish with a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada. “Insite saves lives. Its benefits have been proven.” That speaks volumes.

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

Mr. Speaker, having been involved with drug investigations a number of times, I understand where people are coming from with regard to InSite. However, the problem with InSite is not the building per se, but rather that 1.1 grams of heroin cannot be purchased legally in this country. The problem is that it has to be brought to that site in an illegal form to inject it legally within that site. To say that there is no drug dealing going on in east Vancouver or Halifax is really not a fair statement to make because it is still happening. It is just a matter of where the people are injecting.

The question boils down to this. Within InSite or any of these sites, is there a way that your party would ensure that the drug being purchased is safe, because there is no way of proving that right now, and how would you do that?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would ask all members to direct their comments to the Chair and not to other members of Parliament, please.

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and it is complicated. This is not easy stuff. It is not black and white. There are a whole lot of shades of grey here, and so we figure it out.

Yes, there will still be people dealing in drugs if there are safe injection sites. Yes, there will be, but right now there are people dealing in drugs. We have a choice of having a community where there are drug transactions and people dying, or a community where there are drug transactions and maybe not as many people dying. Maybe one person will decide to take advantage of addiction services and will no longer be an addict. If there is just one, I consider that to be a victory.

It is not simple. I am not standing here saying that we have the magic bullet, that we know exactly how to do this and how it should roll out, but I do know in my heart that the first thing we have to do is try to save people's lives. If that is what safe injection sites do, I am all for them.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, parents often have concerns about safe injection sites.

Does my colleague think it is better for a child to see a building without really understanding what goes on inside or to come across an addict shooting up or even a person who died from an overdose in the park where that child plays? Does she think that such activities are better carried out inside a building or in front of a child in a place where parents have no control?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

I would like to give an example of what is happening here in Ottawa. Perhaps that will help alleviate some of the concerns people in our communities have.

In Ottawa, Campaign for Safer Consumption Sites and the Drug Users Advocacy League came together and opened a mock injection site, where people from the community could see what it was all about. Instead of fearmongering, with pictures of needles rolling around, they said, “This is what it is. Come and talk to our nurses, health experts and people who think this is a good idea. Come on in and see what it is that happens in here”. People get to see the little kits that would be given to people who access the site. It's a mock site, which helps demystify and dispel the myths, where people can ask questions. We are afraid sometimes, and that is okay. People can go there to ask questions and get educated on the issue instead of just being told that we should live our lives in fear.

We should get educated on these issues, and the Campaign for Safer Consumption Sites has done a really remarkable thing. Not everybody in Ottawa agrees, but it has created a safe space for debate and discussion, and that is a far cry from what the Conservatives are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and Halifax for speaking to this issue. I am honoured to join them in talking about this bill, which will have a major and very worrisome impact.

I will begin with a fact about what happened in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. The number of overdose-related deaths at the end of that six-year period was 12 times higher than at the beginning.

That is a spectacular increase over a period of six years. Even if that number had merely doubled, it would still have been a very serious problem.

However, given the Conservatives' attitude toward this bill, the way they want to deal with the problem of hard drug use, and their attempts to undermine the amazing work done by Vancouver's InSite, it is obvious that they are refusing to face the facts.

I would like to mention another significant statistic. Since InSite opened, there has been a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. That is a huge success. Of course it is not enough, but it is a big step forward in dealing with a problem that is beyond the control, and against the will, of drug addicts.

Those are the indisputable facts. They are widely available for anyone to consult. Now, the real debate is about the respect that needs to be shown for the work and the rulings of our courts.

I would like to remind the House that the B.C. Supreme Court, the B.C. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada all supported the idea of keeping InSite open because it addresses the dangers related to drug abuse.

The Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite was in violation of the clients' charter rights and that the decision was:

...arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety.

The government’s lack of respect for the country’s courts, a pillar of our society, is a very serious issue. It is troubling because it begs the question of how the public can maintain the same respect for, and especially the same confidence in, one of Canada’s fundamental authorities.

However, this attitude on the part of the Conservatives comes as no great surprise. In fact, it is very much in keeping with their desire to appeal to their base, as illustrated so clearly in their “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign. This approach promotes fear and prejudice and denies reality. All this sorry campaign puts forward as a possible solution is to tell people that in order to guarantee their children’s safety on the streets, it is important to keep drug users out of their neighbourhoods. This is an approach worthy of the Far West.

At least the Conservatives have not gone so far as to encourage people to get out the tar and feathers to chase away individuals who are much more in need of assistance than stigmatization to free themselves from their drug addiction.

The Conservatives refuse to address the problems and face reality. Above all, they refuse to support the people and the organizations that are not afraid to be on the ground and take steps to reach out to people and tackle the root cause of the problems. That is what is truly most important.

The NDP believes that any legislation must be based on facts, on empirical and objective data. Above all, it must respect the spirit of the courts’ decisions and their interpretation of our fundamental laws.

Of course, the Canadian Human Rights Act is not perfect. Any piece of legislation, anything created by man, can be made better and can be improved upon. However, when this legislation is used as a frame of reference, especially given that it was passed after major debate and that it is based on experiences in countries around the world, then it serves as a foundational text that puts basic principles to paper.

If some elected members of this Parliament lack respect, either for the amazing results of this work or especially for the decisions made in the course of interpreting these laws, then in which direction are we heading?

To cite the Supreme Court decision again, the approach that the government is planning to take with Bill C-2 puts too much arbitrary decision-making power in the hands of the minister. Furthermore, Bill C-2 does not even provide time limits for making a decision on a proposed safe injection site. So, in addition to the minister’s disinclination and the onerous procedures that the organizations wanting to open a safe injection site will have to contend with, they are also going to be facing a wall of silence. This decision will be one that is hidden, arbitrary and hypocritical, because neither Health Canada nor the Minister of Health will be subject to any time limits. They will not have to defend their decisions or justify their point of view about any proposal to establish a safe injection site.

This is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable for any of our institutions or any government representatives to subject a single one of our citizens to arbitrary decisions, inaction or silence.

In conclusion, I would also like to speak briefly about the terms and conditions that would allow the minister to withhold approval of an application to open a safe injection site. They are found in clause 5 of the bill, which is a long list of criteria for refusing the exemption. They are so extraordinary that, taken to the extreme, they could even be yet another way to kill these proposals and put an end to such initiatives.

It is not even a downstream evaluation of the project, that is, after the proponents and those who have decided to set up these kinds of sites have fulfilled all of the requirements; it is something that happens beforehand. It is tantamount to telling people that they can go ahead and do everything in their power and be as professional as possible, but the government will have made up its mind right from the outset. The six principles mentioned, that I will not take the time to read out loud, go so far that they will stop any proposal in its tracks long before anyone can even start working out the details.

I hope that the government members will listen to reason and that for the public good, in the interest of Canadians and for public health in general, the Conservative members will vote against this bill.