Evidence of meeting #34 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was suicide.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jane Philpott Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Well, I'd like to expand, and not give you just a yes or no on that.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jane Philpott Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
We are currently looking at the legislation around what's required in order to get a section 56 exemption to open a supervised consumption site. I've made it clear that for communities that need them, where they're appropriate and where there's a community desire to have those programs, we need to find mechanisms to make them more available as one of a range of tools.
Of course, this is the kind of thing where there would be collaboration with the community and with provincial health authorities.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I believe there are places and times, with proper consultation, obviously, where safe injection sites play a critical role in a number of dimensions.
Again, for a quick yes or no, should local government have the ability to have some input into whether and where? They have input into zoning. Is it appropriate for them to have input? As I said, I have a list. Is this appropriate?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jane Philpott Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
I have always said when we talk about the availability of supervised consumption sites that they are a good tool available in the communities where communities have indicated that there is a need and there is an appropriate demand for it.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
So the requirement for a municipality is appropriate.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Should the local police force have any input?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jane Philpott Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
I'll go through the whole list with you, if you like. What I can tell you that might shorten things off is that there are different ways in which you can get these types of required inputs. There was a Supreme Court decision associated with supervised consumption sites that made clear a certain number of criteria that are absolutely essential. There are multiple ways to get that kind of input.
The goal here is to be reasonable. The kinds of things you're suggesting, such as whether local police should be involved, is a perfectly reasonable expectation, and certainly, no matter what the rules are, the Minister of Health has to sign off on a section 56 exemption in order to make these sites available. I can't imagine any Minister of Health who would see that it would make sense to give that exemption if there wasn't community consultation.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I do believe that if we went through the list, you would probably agree that we have a reasonable consultation process and that you ultimately can use that information to make a decision. Therefore, I would be very concerned if, as some of the ministers are asking, we were to remove that very critical engagement with communities, municipalities, and police forces as we make decisions. Again, there is a role, absolutely. We have some good checks and balances in place.
Tthank you.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jane Philpott Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
There are things about the current legislation that are problematic, partly in the sheer volume of work that's required on behalf of communities to document a number of these matters. One of the other challenges that's been raised with me is the fact that I can't even comment and my department can't even respond until this big long list of regulations is addressed.
We need to work with communities. People are dying, and these sites save people's lives.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Andy Fillmore
Thank you.
We're going to repeat what we just did here, because the bells are ringing again, so we'll keep on going until 10 minutes before the vote. I'll suspend at the appropriate time.
Let's proceed. The next question is from Charlie Angus, please.
November 16th, 2016 / 4:30 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Madam Minister. We're very pleased that you're here today.
I only have seven minutes. There's so much I want to talk about, so I don't want to sound terse, and I don't think it's an issue of talking about what's happened in the past: it's what's under your control that we can change.
We lost a young man today. We lost a 13-year-old boy two weeks ago. We've had 99 suicide attempts in Manitoba in one community, Shamattawa, and every time I talk to people they tell me that they don't have the front-line workers, and they don't have the ability to track to see if children are being protected.
On November 1, you and all of us voted to flow that $155-million shortfall immediately. What does “immediate” look like to get it to those front-line agencies?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jane Philpott Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
First of all, thank you for the question, and I'll thank you, as I have before, for your very important work and advocacy around these issues. I look forward to your further input and good advice.
You've mentioned a couple of things together. One is around mental health resources and the human resources to support that. You've also talked about the response to the human rights tribunal, because that was—
4:35 p.m.
NDP
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jane Philpott Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
“Immediate” obviously is as soon as the money can get out the door. You've heard some of the responses from my colleague, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, but I want to say that on the matter of Jordan's principle, which was one of the features that the human rights tribunal spoke about, I'm very pleased that we were able to get funding to be able to fully enact Jordan's principle in the order of $382 million. That has actually been very effectively used by my department. Sony can give you details, but at last count, we know that 900 children have been assessed.
The money is flowing, the work is being done, and kids are getting the care they need.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
According to Cindy Blackstock, she's frustrated and is saying that she may take you to court because you haven't implemented the full Jordan's principle. You've implemented your interpretation of Jordan's principle, which is short-term crisis help for children with emergency needs.
We have had doctors who came here last year and said that children were dying. They said they were “falling through the cracks” every single day because of racist and discriminatory—their terms—policies by Health Canada against children. They wrote to you in September and said that your policies were racist and discriminatory, yet those policies are still in place. You might help 900 kids who have special emergency needs, but these doctors are saying that your policies are hurting kids, so why have those policies not been changed?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jane Philpott Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
I think it's important to note that there have been changes in the approach, and I think the work that's been done to date has been helpful. I am not going to say that within health care systems across this country racism/discrimination does not exist—
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
—this is about your department.
Let me give you an example. We have a two-year-old boy. The doctor says that boy needs an audiology test and one of your officials says it's not necessary. That wouldn't happen in any medical system in this country, except under Health Canada. Do you think that's acceptable? Why is that policy still there such that one of your bureaucrats can override a doctor's prescription?