Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2014

[Chris Grinham]

Yes, I have heard that there have been studies in other cities. I've also heard that there have been lots of studies to the contrary, and studies that show.... We have the Swedish model that has shown that treatment and enforcement has worked extremely well. We have San Patrignano in Italy—

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

Sorry to interrupt you.

Am I to understand that you have not consulted the studies that lay out the benefits of supervised injection sites?

[Chris Grinham]

I have read several of the studies. I haven't read them all, of course.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Larkin, the Supreme Court declared that, if a supervised injection site meets the 26 criteria provided for in the current legislation, fulfills the criteria for decreasing the risk of death and has no negative impact on public safety, the minister should generally, and I quote, “grant an exemption”.

Do you agree with that?

[Chief Bryan Larkin]

Well, yes, the Canadian chiefs are supportive of Bill C-2 if it meets the 27—

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

I am not asking you whether you agree with the bill, but whether you agree with the Supreme Court's statement.

[Chief Bryan Larkin]

Yes, this is part of the process here. If the Minister of Health...and it meets the localized piece, police chiefs are saying that there is value to trying this and experimenting with it. I think that's the thrust.

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

Okay.

I want to complete my question. Do you think the terms that set out the exceptional circumstances included in the bill are in line with the judge's proposal?

[Chief Bryan Larkin]

That's a complex question. From a chief's perspective, yes and no. I guess there's an easy way out there, with some neutrality, but there are aspects that, yes, we believe it does meet, and other aspects that we still have concerns about.

I think our position is very clear. This is a public health issue. We're really focused on safety and security, but our message is always about transitioning, not the perpetual use of drugs. There has to be a transition.

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

Thank you.

I would like to yield the reminder of my time to my colleague.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I have just a minute and half, so very quickly, I think unfortunately a lot of misinformation has been put forward by a couple of the witnesses today.

Just to come back to the expert advisory committee from 2006, they do say clearly that there's no evidence of increases in drug-related loitering, drug dealing, or petty crime in areas surrounding InSite. They also said there was no evidence that supervised injection sites influenced rates of drug use in the community, or increased relapse rates among injection drug users. They also pointed out the cost-benefit studies that show that for every dollar spent, there is a saving between $0.97 and $2.90. That's from a very conservative review that was done by the minister.

So unfortunately, much of your information is very false, and I think, really, attacking peer-reviewed studies—

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

I object to that. It was what the report said. I don't say it's incorrect.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm not asking you a question.

I would like to ask Chief Larkin—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Excuse me, Ms. Davies. You can agree or you can disagree, but we don't need any accusation and we don't need any more comment; just please proceed.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Chief Larkin, this bill sets out very onerous legal requirements for an application to come in. A question was posed on whether or not there any other services that would cause disruption or concerns in the community. I could think, for example, of homeless shelters that sometimes are very controversial, or mental health drop-ins. Do you think they should be subject to legal requirements by the federal government? Obviously there are often municipal consultations, but would any of those kinds of services, in your opinion, require a federal legal requirement to be approved, which is what we are requiring here?

[Chief Bryan Larkin]

No. Those are localized issues, and in terms of the responsibility for those, from the chief's perspective, really they are funded either provincially or municipally, and hence the regulations and the pieces that work within that should be within that framework.

This is a significant piece. It's an amendment to a federal piece of legislation where affordable housing and mental health housing are not necessarily supported.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, but the minister's only—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

No, excuse me, your time is up. I'm sorry.

We will now go to Ms. Ablonczy, please.

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

Well, this has turned out to be a very exciting session.

I was just blown away, Ms. Landolt, when you said that all of these studies that are positive about the health benefits of InSite are done by the same individual. Is that really true? I'm sorry to sound doubtful, but....

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

Yes, that's exactly what under the Access to Information Act—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

One moment, please. There's a point of order.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, although members enjoy privilege for things they say here, I think we should give a warning to the witness, if she is alleging professional misconduct, that she does not enjoy that privilege in this committee and could be subject to a suit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. I'm sure the....

Your question is in order. Carry on.

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

Okay.

[Gwendolyn Landolt]

We applied under the Access to Information Act, and we found that $18 million was given to the same three individuals who lobbied for InSite in 2001-02. They were given this money to carry out studies, and without exception, every study showed that it was absolutely the most successful endeavour ever undertaken. They found nothing wrong with it. Other professionals, psychologists and researchers, have criticized their studies. The Australian team, and two out of Vancouver—Simon Fraser—also found these studies were very flawed and unacceptable.

Under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, an exception can be made for the use of drugs for research or medical reasons. The loophole to set up InSite was for research purposes, so for these activists who wanted InSite, it behooved them to be sure that everything was very successful...so the loophole would show, the research would show, that this was a wonderful idea and a great concept.

That's where every single one of the studies quoted was by the same three who had lobbied for InSite from the very beginning.