Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2014

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Well, I look forward to looking at your brief on that, because I didn't know that. I hope no one else did either, because a lot of people hang a lot of their arguments on these studies.

Mr. Grinham, it seems to me that the real issue here is one of the minister needing enough information to make an informed decision about whether a facility like that should go ahead. In a sense, we're not arguing in this committee about the benefits versus the not-benefits, although obviously you're going to get into that. But it seems to me that the real issue is that none of us, and probably not many of our witnesses, has a reasonable apprehension that such a facility is going to be next door to the house where we and our families live. It seems to me that this puts a certain ivory tower distance between some of us as decision-makers—and, if I can say so, police officers—and the people who actually would be personally impacted by such a facility. But a lot of these individuals are not highly educated or not connected, I guess, to the levers of power, you might say. I think Ms. Davies represents such an area. That's why I think the minister feels there needs to be the kind of consultation that she's putting forward in this bill.

You seem to be the only witness so far that we've heard who has an on-the-ground insight into the sort of people who are reasonably likely to be impacted by a facility like this. I'm just curious as to why you think the minister would need to hear from such individuals, and how we can make sure that their input is in fact garnered.

[Chris Grinham]

Thank you.

I think it's very important to have a broad range of consultation. I don't think consultation should be limited to people with Ph.D.s. I think there are people from all walks of life who have valuable input and valuable information who can help us sculpt and build a proper response to a drug problem in a neighbourhood.

My wife and I live very close to the area that would be impacted. In fact, and people may not be aware, Dr. Tyndall has actually already built a supervised injection site in the city of Ottawa. It is on Murray Street. It is fully functional. It is not in use officially, but it is there and it is two blocks from my home.

That being said, this isn't a NIMBY thing where I don't want a supervised injection site in my backyard. I have all sorts of places that dispense needles. I have five or six homeless shelters within walking distance of my house. We live at the epicentre of the problem here in Ottawa.

The people who live in Lower Town, Sandy Hill, and the ByWard Market are a little bit more seasoned and understanding as to the complexity of these problems. I think that those people can bring a lot of valuable insight not only to the effects that this would have on the community. A lot of us happen to know and get familiar with the people who are on the streets and the effects that these issues would have with them.

It is an unfortunate comment that we have heard many times over the last eight years that the wealthy get treatment and the poor get harm reduction. We have always seen that to be true. The reality is that what we're really lacking in this city is treatment, and everybody you'll speak to from any side of this point in Ottawa....

You can open up a supervised injection site if you wish, but it is not going to do anything in any way to deal with the root cause of the problem, which is addiction. The people who live here know that. It is those people that the minister needs to hear from, not just people who have a vested interest, not just people who have written the studies, but everybody from all walks of live who are able to say, “This is what I know, and this is the one piece of information that I can provide to you to help you make that decision.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

I guess my question is this: do any of you witnesses feel that there are just too many hoops, I guess, in this legislation? That's been the objection we've heard, that there's too much consultation, too much input, too much research needed.

You all seem to be in favour of this, but does anybody feel that this is too much?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, but we're out of time. We'll have others questioning now.

We will now go to Ms. Fry.

You have seven minutes.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is a specific one. It's a yes-or-no answer, and it's for Ms. Landolt.

I would like to ask Ms. Landolt if she is accusing the University of British Columbia, the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, and the researchers of professional misconduct.

Yes or no, please, Ms. Landolt.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

We have raised this issue with the government—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Yes or no, Ms. Landolt.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Excuse me, Mrs. Fry, a response from the witness cannot be directed. It can be asked for and requested. At that point the witness has an opportunity to respond as they so choose. You have every right to ask whatever question you wish. The witness can respond accordingly.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

But I can interrupt the witness if she goes on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes, you can.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

We have raised this with the government, with the Minister of Health, and we have also raised it with the other government authorities because of the ethical considerations involved, and also because of the fact that so much concern is raised by these flawed studies that it has to be investigated.

We are undergoing, and hopefully there will be a response—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Landolt.

Chief Larkin, you mentioned that you support the bill. I don't think anyone around this table is deciding there is no need for a legislative framework. It's obviously clear from the Supreme Court that there is need for a legislative framework. But I want to also congratulate you for pointing out the need for this to be specific with regard to the region, the city, the town, etc., which is really important.

I belong to the group of people who are saying that this bill just goes a little too far and is a little too intrusive on cities, municipalities, etc., and what they did.

I would like to tell you I was a minister responsible for the downtown eastside and the Vancouver agreement when this was brought in. One of the key issues we looked at when we were looking at this research project was crime rates, so we had to bring in the police on it; the need for a supervised injection site based on the number of addicts and the deaths that had occurred; the regulatory structures in place to support the facility, which came from the province, which came from the municipalities, which came from the Vancouver Police Department; and of course, the other resources such as money, etc., available. In doing so, we also had two years of extensive public consultations with the people who live in the area, with the people who didn't even live in the area, with Vancouverites in general.

So all of the requirements that the Supreme Court put down, which are those five broad requirements, were in place when we brought in the supervised injection site.

At the end of the day, there was clear evidence from the Vancouver police, who still support it, that crime rates went down, that public disorder went down, etc. I won't go over that. We agree, the minister needs to hear from the provincial minister of health, from the municipalities, etc. But the point is that if you're going to get all these answers as a yes from the various people who the Supreme Court said you need to ask and that this bill says you need to ask, do you not think it's really very intrusive of the Minister of Health, who's the federal Minister of Health, to then question the people who are hired? It is obvious that this is part of the provincial jurisdiction, the police jurisdiction to get criminal checks, etc. That's kind of intrusive in provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

The big questions should be asked and the answers should be given, but that really in-depth intrusion is what many of us oppose and are concerned about.

[Chief Bryan Larkin]

I'll speak specifically on the policing perspective around whether or not a chief would feel it would be intrusive, because that's the area I represent. The reality is that oversight and accountability are all parts of what we deal with.

In short, no, I don't think there's an element of intrusion. In regard to that layer of accountability, that layer of responsibility amongst chiefs of police in reporting federally, because they do have control, the CDSA, I think there's value to that and it's something that we would support and partake in.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I agree with you. Obviously then the chief of police in the area would write a letter stating, we have done due diligence and here is what we think. That is what I'm hoping that this bill will eventually do, say that the chief of police has said we've done due diligence. The Minister of Health, the chief public health officer, the municipality—we have done due diligence in conformity with the five pieces that the Supreme Court asked for: here is what we present, including public consultation, and here is what we've found.

This is as opposed to the very in-depth question of the Minister of Health must need to know who is being hired, what's being hired. When InSite was brought in, the regulatory mechanisms came out of the province, the city, the chief of police. They all saw to it that all of those were met. So I think my concern is that this is a little too intrusive.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have a minute and half.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Grinham, this is just a short question. You make sense, obviously, because the consultation was done with many groups within the downtown eastside when this began. Many groups that actually opposed InSite now support it wholeheartedly, including business communities. The Chinatown business community, the Chinatown residents community, and many of the residents who lived in the area originally opposed it, but they were willing to see what the research project showed. They themselves found, as did the police, that in fact their streets were more livable. There was a decrease in traffic. People didn't come from elsewhere to shoot up in the downtown eastside.

I agree with you about public consultation, but I also wanted to point out that in the one place where it was done, these groups, that originally opposed it for the first year or two, after the third year suddenly became in full support of it.

I think we are all in agreement with what you're looking for with regard to public safety, but the balancing is that in fact InSite did increase the number of beds for treatment by its existence. So your argument about treatment is well taken, and this was shown to work in InSite.

[Chris Grinham]

Is there a question?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

The question is, were you aware of that?

[Chris Grinham]

I'm aware of all sorts of different information that's come out of InSite from treatment, from drug use, and from overdose and whatnot.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Communities as well.

[Chris Grinham]

Community support, community non-support; I think you can find people who support InSite. I think you can find people who don't support InSite. Our concern has always been to make sure that those people are consulted before a site is developed, not after.

I know it is sometimes considered easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. What we're asking for—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Are you aware that this happened in Vancouver?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Your time is up, Ms. Fry.