Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and join this debate. The record will show that my colleague who just spoke, although he had some important and thoughtful comments in response to my question, did not address my specific question about the evidence. I will come back to that later in my speech.
Let me just start with a brief overview of the context of what we are debating. Certainly, we all appreciate the critical importance of this discussion. We agree throughout the House on the critical importance of action in response to the crisis that we see. It is a crisis indeed of public health, a crisis around drug use in Canada. The government has come forward with legislation with a number of different components to it, some of which we agree with, some of which we think could be done right away even without legislation. We certainly have a concern around the government's view with respect to supervised injection, with respect to the consultation process in particular envisioned by this new legislation.
I want to say at the outset that it is unfortunate that we are confronted with a piece of legislation that seeks to combine, in my view, a number of disparate and unconnected elements. They are not wholly unconnected of course. They deal with, broadly speaking, the same subject but they move in a different direction from each other. Our view of the need to move quickly on this would certainly be around some of the provisions but not around others.
The parliamentary secretary earlier in the debate alluded to the fact that there was an effort to get unanimous consent around this entire bill. In general, in almost every case I would be very concerned about proposals to give unanimous consent without debate to any legislation. Certainly it is up to the government to schedule that legislation in a way that reflects its priorities, but to ask for unanimous consent without debate raises some concerns. I am sure there would have been a willingness to move much faster had the government not intentionally combined in the same piece of legislation certain measures that are necessary for public safety and that we all support and certain measures that are much more controversial.
All of us are concerned about the crisis. All of us want to see action. That is why to see from the government this playing of politics, this fusing of disparate elements in one bill to try to obviously create a poison pill when we could be moving faster with action on which we agree is unfortunate, again given the urgency of the situation that we confront.
Let me now proceed to identify specifically the different sections of the bill and share my perspective on them.
This bill seeks to prohibit the importation of designated devices unless registered with the Minister of Health. We agree with that section. We think that makes sense.
The bill seeks to grant Canada Border Services Agency more powers to search packages if the CBSA has reasonable grounds to suspect that the mail contains goods that are prohibited, controlled, or regulated. This is a simple and sensible enforcement measure that again would limit the importation of certain things into Canada and we see that as a positive.
The bill seeks to expand the offence of possession, protection, sale, or importation of anything intended to be used to produce or traffic any controlled substance out of the legitimate supply chain by adding substances under schedule V. These are further changes again around the importation and enforcement area. Again, I am supportive of that.
The bill seeks to authorize the minister to quickly and temporarily add substances to a schedule under the act that the minister has reasonable grounds to believe pose a risk to the public's health and safety.
So far, there is a lot that we would find a consensus in this House around because these are measures oriented toward effective enforcement and certainly things that speak to an opportunity and an urgency of responding.
Then we have this problem that the bill calls for mechanisms that would significantly expedite the process for application to open a supervised injection site. It would limit the consultation. It would reduce the consultation window and would reduce the number of people who have to be involved in that consultation.
I do not support that change. It is not a helpful way of moving forward in response to this problem, and it raises other problems as well.
As much as there is the consultation piece that we need to discuss, I do not have a problem saying that I have broader concerns about the evidence around and the impact of supervised injection sites. There are legitimate questions about what actually is the most effective and compassionate response, the response most likely to save lives.
I had the opportunity to visit the safe injection site in Vancouver. I do not know how many members have had that opportunity, but it was before I was a member of Parliament. About 10 years ago, I was visiting Vancouver as a student. It might surprise members to know that even then I was very interested and engaged in public policy debates. I went to visit the area of the community where this injection site was. While I was walking in the area, I met a gentleman who was involved in the whole area of drugs. He offered to show me around the neighbourhood and to introduce me to some people. He then took me to see the supervised injection site. It was a really useful opportunity for me to get an understanding of an important public policy question and to talk directly to the people who were affected.
One question I recall specifically asking that gentleman was how he got into this, what things happened in his life that had led him down this path. I will not go into all the details, but he spoke about some of the challenges in his family, some of the ways in which drugs were normalized in the environment in which he grew up, and the kinds of relationships and interactions with his family.
It was striking to me that the most compassionate response to people in this situation was not to assume that the continuation of their use of drugs was inevitable. I do not think that is the most compassionate response. I know that those who believe in safe injection sites are motivated by compassion, but I would regard it in a certain sense as a rather pessimistic form of compassion. It assumes the response has to be one of providing access to something that is extremely dangerous and yet trying to reduce that danger as much as possible.
My honest view is that a better kind of compassion is a more optimistic sort of compassion, one that in every interaction with people suffering with the challenges of addiction and drug use seeks to provide them with opportunities and tools to stop using these dangerous substances. It is not, as one member of the government suggested, a choice between these supervised injection sites and doing nothing. There are many other alternatives. We need to work aggressively for those alternatives. Perhaps that means more investment in chemical detox facilities. Perhaps that means having a conversation about mandatory detox. I am not here to come out definitively in favour of that, but that is an option to be discussed. Perhaps it means enhancing education and early intervention. All of these are with the direction of saying that we are not going to develop a permissive attitude to something where the harm is so significant and so present.
We all have a shared motivation in what we want to see happen, but the kind of compassion that motivates my concerns around supervised injection sites is fundamentally more optimistic in what I believe is possible for people who are in these kinds of difficult situations. That is an important distinction to be drawn in this discussion.
With respect to drug policy, there is sometimes the implication from those who favour a more liberal regime with respect to drug laws that criminalization inherently entails some kind of moral judgment. I do not think that is true. The law should criminalize behaviour that is dangerous and that criminalization creates opportunities for the police to intervene. However, that does not in any way, necessarily, entail moral judgment.
That intervention, in fact, may be in the best interest of the person in terms of protecting his or her safety. It may create opportunities for legal intervention that would start the person on a road to greater awareness, greater support, and to access resources that, in the absence of this intervention, he or she might not access or know exists. I will not pretend that this happens in every case where there is a legal intervention, but I would like to believe that in a multi-pronged approach that emphasizes public health and dealing with root causes, we need to also recognize that legal intervention can play an important role in helping people go in a different direction.
I was speaking earlier about the opportunities I have had to have conversations with people who are struggling with these issues. I know one of the most important parts of this discussion is the way in which people's own families can engage with them and support them. This is an area that needs further discussion and perhaps further investment from government.
There is an organization in my community called Parents Empowering Parents. It works directly with the parents and families of those who are struggling with drug use issues. This organization is so effective because it empowers those who are necessarily right on the front lines of dealing with these problems, not because they are in some professional capacity but because they have close, intimate, personal relationships with those who are in this situation. So often family can be the critical support involved. Therefore, this is another area where further discussion and investigation is merited.
There are a few other comments I want to make with respect to the legislation. I have talked about the principles around having supervised injection sites, but what the legislation deals with specifically is the process of consultation for opening a supervised injection site. It is legitimate that the neighbourhoods, communities, and municipalities that will be affected profoundly by these decisions have a fair and full opportunity to be involved in the consultation and ensure not only that they are informed but that the consultation actually gives them the opportunity to have some say with respect to the outcome.
We should recognize that communities, neighbourhood groups, and municipalities are aware of these problems, are compassionate in their desire to respond, and to respond in a way that is most effective and appropriate for their communities. It is not reasonable to assume that we should somehow take away their power to influence the process and that this will make the situation better. Communities on the front lines of these issues are certainly made up of people who want to help, but they may also want to have input about what kind of strategy to respond to the challenge of drug use makes the most sense in the context of their communities. Community groups, mayors, and individuals would want to be part of that discussion.
I would ask members across the way to reflect on how they would feel if a supervised injection site were proposed within their immediate communities. I am sure there are some members who would be supportive of that. There are others who would perhaps not be supportive. However, I suspect that all members, if it were their families in the immediate area, would want to be aware of and given an opportunity to have some constructive input with respect to the form of response taken within that community. They might have ideas and insights that an external organization coming into the community would not have. They might know things or appreciate opportunities and resources that are not on the radar of some external organization.
If something like that were contemplated in my own community, I would want to ensure that I and others in my community had the fulsome opportunity to be part of the discussion.
With respect to the specific changes to the consultation framework for example, right now there is a requirement for support from the mayor of a city. Some mayors have raised concerns about the appropriateness of these supervised injection sites in their communities.
The bill would also change the consultation period, and this is an important point. When we talk about the development of a supervised injection site, something that is likely going to be in place for quite a long time, it is important to have the proper timeline for consultation upfront. The bill would change the current discretionary 90-day public consultation period to a period that is “not to exceed 90 days”.
In my previous career, I was involved in public opinion research and in that context also consultation. The window given for time is already not that large a window to create opportunities for meaningful debate and discussion that would give people the opportunity to have feedback, to ensure they engage with the information and to suggest and propose alternatives. We have to be concerned that there is no minimum in the proposed new legislation on what the public consultation will look like. There is nothing to suggest the community would have to give its approval either. The implication is that the community would be informed, but it would not necessarily have meaningful opportunities for feedback at all.
Obviously there will be some disagreements about overall drug policy and about the wisdom of these injection sites. Some members of the House favour the decriminalization wholesale of all different kinds of drugs, and I do not doubt with the best intentions, but ultimately that path would be misguided.
Could we at least all agree about the importance of better engaging communities? It seems that we cannot because this legislation involves changes that would just remove the capacity for effective community engagement, and it is unfortunate.
As I said before, many provisions in the legislation are supportable, but with something that would have such a significant impact on communities, it is difficult to suggest that it should be given a pass in spite of the fact that there are certain things in the bill that are worthwhile.
I would like to make a point with respect to the question of whether these supervised injection sites save lives. This has been said by members across the way, and it is an important point.
A lot of the data I have looked at with respect to these sites has looked at the number of overdose interventions and makes the assumption that the overdose interventions therefore necessarily show that there is a net benefit in lives saved. What the arguments do not consider is the possibility of a more permissive environment for drug use in general, the social signal sent by this, the ease of access without the possibility of intervention but also in comparison to other possible alternatives, other policy responses which are motivated by what I have called a more optimistic as opposed to more pessimistic compassion.
I have not heard data from members that show that overall we are talking about lives saved just in that very narrow and specific sense of overdose interventions. There may be other ways to have supports within communities that can be prepared to respond to overdoses that do not involve the kind of legal exceptions that exist in a supervised injection site model.
We need to look not just at this model or nothing. We need to look at alternatives that have as their goal minimizing the use of drugs and helping people to get off drugs completely, providing them with the supports and investments they need do it. That would provide a better alternative.
Certainly, if we cannot agree on that, let us at least agree on the importance of more effective consultation. If we cannot agree on the importance of more effective consultation, let us look at expediting the sections of this bill we can all agree on without getting bogged down in terms of the urgent need to respond or on the sections that do require time and sufficient debate.
