Public Safety Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

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

I'm a former city councillor and we had a very severe problem with needles in our children's park. So what could we do as city councillors? We asked the police to move the people on because it was a children's park. The problem then reappeared in another park. If we had had a safe injection site, we would have had an alternative for public safety in our own community. I guess I really wonder whether either of you accepts the scientific evidence that there's a medical benefit from safe injection sites. If you do, why do you require every applicant to prove it again in their applications?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Why I'm here today is to fully support Minister Ambrose, who is abiding by the law and the court decision and also making sure that a community that could potentially be impacted by such a facility would be consulted. I think as a democrat you would certainly agree that it is more than obvious that, if I were to have the prospect of such a facility facing my neighbourhood, I would be involved in the process and it would not be left to others to decide what my neighbourhood would look like in five or ten years.

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

Every municipality does zoning, so they would conduct hearings.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

You know very well what the impact of that is, so this what this bill is all about, and that's why I support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You still have more time.

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

With respect, I think it also interferes with municipal powers. You're taking the decision yourselves about the site, when the scientific evidence is there and the Supreme Court has accepted it.

In the municipality when I was on council, we had a zoning and a procedure for all kinds of treatment facilities, including needle exchanges and safe injection sites, that allowed neighbourhoods to have input.

You're either duplicating that, or else you're taking the power for yourself, I would say, Minister Ambrose. Why don't you let municipalities deal with this siting question?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

I accept the ruling of the Supreme Court, and it's very clear. The Supreme Court, first, requires me to consider evidence, if any, on the impact of such a facility on crime rates. It also ruled that I must consider local conditions indicating the need for any such supervised injection site. It ordered that I consider the regulatory structure in place to support the facility. It also directs me to consider the resources available to support such a site, but perhaps most important, the Supreme Court was firm that expressions of community support or opposition need to be considered.

And the criteria, we hope, have fleshed out the direction from the Supreme Court.

I would just add that the court wrote this in its ruling, and that's why there's a cautious approach:

...[this] is not a licence for injection drug users to possess 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...[consumption] facility”.

So, yes, there are criteria both on the public health side and on the public safety side. We've taken seriously what the Supreme Court has directed. We're trying to flesh out the criteria with which we think we'll meet that, including consultations with municipalities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison. The time is up now.

Thank you, Minister Ambrose. We're a little over the time.

Mr. Falk, please, you have five minutes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister Blaney and also Minister Ambrose, for coming to committee this afternoon.

I represent a riding where just recently there was a facility opened up called Four Winds. I was able to give an SO31 earlier in the year on the benefits of this organization and its mandate.

Part of what it states is that it goes about helping people get free from their addictions, from the use of illegal drugs, and from the misuse of prescription drugs.

My community came out very strongly in support of that. Some of the local businesses participated in fundraising efforts, there was a lot of community support through volunteerism, and the organization is doing very well. It's helping people who have destroyed their lives and destroyed their families through the use of illegal drugs.

Also in the riding I represent, I know parents would want to have a say, would want to have a voice when there is a proposal for a supervised injection site that would be opened in their community or down their street. It's just common sense.

This bill before us here today is termed the respect for communities act, in which we're respecting the wishes of the communities, the wishes of our constituents. I understand there are actually a number of criteria in the bill that would assist the health ministers in making informed decisions on supervised injection sites.

This makes sense, as a completely informed decision should be based on more than just public opinion or the opinions of those who operate such a site. There should also be criteria.

I'm wondering if the Minister of Health could provide this committee with some of the details on those criteria and give us just a little bit more information on the criteria that are required to give permits.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.

Again, I go back to the very basics of what this is. This is the Minister of Health considering an exemption to allow an illicit drug to be used in a legal way within a particular establishment. It's very serious and I take the Supreme Court's direction very seriously. I think they dealt with the issue in a way that balances the public health impacts and, as well, the public safety impacts.

As I mentioned before, there are a number of ways in which stakeholders are going to be consulted. It is not just people in the community, which is most important, but law enforcement, municipal leaders, provincial leaders, and most importantly, like Minister Blaney said and as you said, Ted, local residents. But there's much more to this bill than simply consulting with the local community. I mentioned previously the criteria and I don't have an option in ignoring any of these factors. This idea that we would just put consumption sites across the country without following the Supreme Court ruling is obviously just a non-starter. The direction that was laid out by the court is what all health ministers must consider when they're looking at these applications. That is to assess whether or not such a site will have an impact on changes to the crime rate. Minister Blaney spoke to that. Also, it is to assess whether there are actual local conditions indicating that such a site is necessary, whether there's a regulatory structure in place to support the site, and whether there are resources available to actually support the maintenance of a site. And again—and you spoke to this—it means to assess the expressions within the community of support or opposition to a site.

All of these points are well represented in the bill. We think that we balance the criteria from the public safety side in terms of expressions of support from people like law enforcement. We also will obviously have an opportunity to hear directly from residents in the neighbourhood and municipalities in which this would be. This kind of information really needs to be provided. Along with the details of whether there are enough resources and there's evidence that this is the right place for this to be, it's also about whether the community will accept it and whether the community is opposed or in favour that this is the right place for this to be. That knowledge of the level of community opposition or support is important. It's important to me. It's important to Minister Blaney. And I guarantee you it's important to the local members of municipal council wherever this might be, the minister of health for that province, the chief public health officer, and more than likely the premier. There is a reason why the Supreme Court said that we should examine expressions of interest in opposition and support because everyone will have an interest in knowing what the local community thinks about putting something like this there. Obviously, in the event of an exemption, if an exemption like this is granted the site would also have to comply with clearly established terms and conditions and would be subject to compliance inspections. This is because, and again we go back to the basic issue, there is inherent danger in illegal substances. There are things that happen around illegal substances, and the fact that these are dangerous substances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

We will now go to Ms. Boutin-Sweet.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you as well, madam, sir.

Mr. Blaney, earlier you asked whether we would like to have a supervised injection site across the street from us. I too want to answer that question.

Both of you talked a lot about legal considerations, but now, let's talk about real things. I will tell you how things really happen on the ground.

I am the member for Hochelaga. There is a low-cost housing complex in my area. Every spring my team goes there to help clean up the park facing the low-cost housing complex, because syringes can sometimes be found there. There is a lot of drug addiction and drug-related prostitution in my riding, that is a fact. Even children help us clean up the park. We are told to be very careful because syringes are regularly found in that park.

Just across the way, the Dopamine organization distributes clean syringes to help prevent certain infections. Representatives of that organization go through the parks to help pick up syringes. We want to make sure that children won't prick themselves with these syringes and get an infection such as HIV or hepatitis C. That is what goes on in real life.

We want to see a supervised injection site in my riding because it would be helpful. Police services are favourable to this, as are community groups and the mayor of Montreal.

What would be the effects of such a supervised injection site? We know that people will continue to inject drugs and continue to take drugs; it is a disease. A bill like this one will not prevent people from consuming drugs, but if they do so in a supervised injection centre, the syringes will in large measure stay inside and won't wind up littering the parks where children can injure themselves with them.

You want to protect families. In my opinion, the bill does exactly the opposite, because the syringes would stay outside. Keeping the syringes inside these sites would help to better protect our children.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

I commend your team for cleaning needles out of parks. That is a very community-minded thing to do.

I want to be clear that now the Supreme Court has ruled that there is an approval path that's necessary for injection sites to be put in place. We cannot move forward until we have this framework, so it is important that this legislation be passed. There is no such process currently in place that meets what the Supreme Court has laid out, so the only legitimate method right now is for activities such as medical research or police training outside the Supreme Court's ruling. There's no law or framework that allows for injection sites or provides a process for them to operate.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam, earlier you talked about consultations. Were these people consulted?

The former director of public health in Montreal spoke out two years ago in favour of supervised injection sites. The mayor of Montreal and the community groups in my riding have come out in favour of these sites.

If this bill is passed, it will be much harder to open supervised injection sites because of all the criteria. It seems to me that the real purpose of the bill is to try to limit the number of supervised injection sites as much as possible.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

With all due respect, that doesn't make sense because before they wouldn't have had an opportunity to voice their support or opposition, and now they will, within this framework.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

There are already supervised injection sites in many locations.

Did you know that in Montreal, 68% of drug users have hepatitis C, and 18% of them are HIV carriers? Those are the facts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have 30 seconds left, if you have a question.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

The fact of not having to treat even one single infection—hepatitis C or HIV—would pay for the budget of a supervised injection site for one year. Don't you think that makes sense?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

That's a very good point, but it doesn't take away from the fact we need to have a legal framework to meet the criteria the Supreme Court has laid out. That's what this committee is doing, so when we pass this bill we will have that criteria set out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you.

Briefly, Minister.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Basically, opening a supervised injection site leads to an increase in criminality, an increase in police resources and an increase in social disorder. That has been proven and that is reality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much, and thank you, Minister Blaney and Minister Ambrose, for appearing here today.

While you leave, we will suspend briefly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We will resume now.

We again welcome our witnesses here. Obviously there will now be a different round of questioning coming through. We will go right back to the initial seven minutes per round, just as if we were starting all over again, just so you know where we are.

We will start off first with, from the government side, Mr. Norlock, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Through you to the witnesses, thank you for being here. I know it's your duty to be here, somewhat, but you are the most knowledgeable people, next to the ministers. It's on that knowledge that my questions will be based.

During the previous hour we heard questions and answers. Part of the questions or most of the ministers' responses carried with them the incredible importance of having the views of the people of any area contributed and counted, and that the minister is obliged by the Supreme Court to have these consultative processes.

One question that comes to my mind—and I think it was somewhat alluded to—was the timeframe that might be incorporated into this consultative process. Is there a timeframe you are contemplating? Is it at the discretion of the minister? Can the applicant or the people who are being consulted agree to a timeframe?

Would you discuss that? I'll leave that to anyone. Perhaps the folks from Health should answer that question because it is directly related.

[Hilary Geller, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health]

In terms of answering the question, it may be helpful to separate the two different kinds of consultation.

The first kind the minister referred to are the criteria in the act that require letters from various organizations: police chief, provincial ministers, records of community consultations. There's absolutely no timeframe on that; they just have to be made available in order for the application to be considered complete and for the minister to be able to begin the review of the application.

The other kind of consultation is the minister having the authority—it's a discretionary authority—to notify the public that an application has been received and to seek the views of the public. For that type of consultation, it would be a 90-day period. That's set out in the legislation.