Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to address you this afternoon as part of your continued study on Bill C-2.
As you mentioned, and as most of you know from my previous appearances before this committee, I have the privilege of currently serving as president of the Canadian Police Association, an organization that represents over 54,000 front-line police personnel, both civilian and sworn officers across Canada.
My opening remarks today will be brief. However, I have been closely following the testimony given by other witnesses before this committee. The term “evidence-based” seems to be used quite often, so I'd like to offer you the following today, which should give you an idea of my experience in the area and why I particularly appreciate having the opportunity to present to you today.
I served for 25 years as a constable with the Vancouver Police Department. Currently, along with my duties at the CPA, I am president of the Vancouver Police Union, where Canada's only supervised drug consumption site operates. I believe I can provide you today with an important and first-hand view around why public safety should be an important consideration when discussing supervised consumption sites.
From a front-line policing perspective, Bill C-2 is an important piece of legislation which our association wholeheartedly supports. We believe it strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of protecting community health while taking into account the very real concerns that have been raised by all levels of law enforcement and members of the community regarding supervised drug consumption sites.
I know that your committee has heard concerns raised by opponents to this legislation that the conditions imposed by the bill are onerous and will be difficult to meet for the organizations seeking to open new sites. As a police officer, I am somewhat sympathetic to concerns that paperwork and regulatory frameworks can be difficult and at times even next to impossible to work within. However, I can say that this is the environment that law enforcement professionals work within every day. We don't have the option to cut corners and take the easy way out. Our efforts must be meticulous to pass muster by judges, crown and defence attorneys, community stakeholders, as well as the myriad of oversight bodies that constantly police the police. I don't think it's asking too much of those who wish to work with illicit and dangerous drugs to meet that same standard.
I don't particularly want to use my appearance here today as a platform to re-litigate the merits or drawbacks of supervised consumption sites, but while I will certainly concede that proponents of these sites are passionate advocates who are sincere in their beliefs, I can say that as a police officer who has patrolled and worked in the downtown eastside, there is a significant public safety cost that absolutely must be considered when thoughts are given to opening new sites.
The simple fact is that drugs that are consumed at these sites are illegal substances. An individual doesn't walk to their local pharmacist to obtain their drug of choice. A criminal act takes place with the procurement of their drug. With the grey area that has been created around Insite in the downtown eastside, our officers are asked to exercise incredible discretion in their policing efforts, but the drug dealers are ready and particularly eager to exploit this discretion to the fullest extent possible.
Another unfortunate truth is that those who are using these drugs are not cashing in their RRSPs, selling their stock options, or using their discretionary income to buy their illicit drugs. They're resorting to often desperate, and most often, criminal behaviour in order to obtain the resources necessary to purchase the drugs. This leads to an increase in theft, assault, and prostitution in the immediate area around the site, and sometimes an attempt to inject drugs.
All of this comes at a cost. Very few unbiased observers would walk the downtown eastside of Vancouver and claim using only the eye test that Insite is an overwhelming success. I certainly wouldn't claim that everything in the neighbourhood would be rainbows and unicorns without the presence of Insite; it is an unfortunate and unavoidable byproduct of its continued operation.
This isn't to suggest that we should turn our backs on those who have fallen victim to addiction. It would be impossible for me to list all of the initiatives taken by police services and other agencies across this country to deal with drug consumption. I firmly believe we can build on those programs that have been found to be successful, but while drug initiatives vary widely in scope and in operation, the one constant is that public safety is never jeopardized and the protection of our communities' most vulnerable is always paramount.
Unfortunately, the debate around Insite and any other proposed consumption site has become extremely charged, and in a number of cases very personal. I have witnessed and been targeted by those who don't appreciate my advocacy on behalf of my members in opposition to these sites. While I do try to see the debate from their perspective, I hope today they might try to see it from mine. I have walked the downtown eastside. I've spoken regularly with police officers who are given the difficult and dangerous task of patrolling this area on a regular basis. I can say without a doubt that while studies may trumpet the health benefits of supervised drug consumption, those same studies always underestimate the public safety cost that comes as a result.
In our estimation, Bill C-2 is a reasonable response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision that allows Insite to continue operations.
This proposed legislation doesn't close the door on new consumption sites, but does set an appropriately high standard that needs to be met before these sites can open. It asks for input to be sought from a number of stakeholders, including law enforcement, and our association appreciates the steps taken by the government in this regard.
I would like to conclude by offering one suggestion for amendment within the legislation. Proposed subsection 56.1(3) specifies the consultation conditions that need to be met before the minister authorizes any new supervised drug consumption sites. Proposed paragraph 56.1(3)(e) says that a letter must be obtained from the head of the police force that is responsible for providing police services in the municipality in which the site seeks to operate.
While this is a good first step, I believe the legislation should go further. For instance, the act itself should also specifically designate the president of the local police association union or the staff relations representative as a key stakeholder in the process.
While police executives must have a role in determining conditions for any drug site, the reality is that many executive positions within the police service are determined by a police board that can often be beholden to local politics, whatever they might be. In many jurisdictions across Canada, a police chief's employment is determined by the police board, which is dominated by provincial and municipal political appointments. The president of the local association, however, is elected solely by the front-line civilian and sworn members that make up the police service. His or her views would be shaped by those he or she represents and they would be free to make those views known to the minister.
Aside from that small change, the Canadian Police Association is happy to offer our support for Bill C-2, as we believe that public safety concerns do need to be put on a par with community health concerns when it comes to supervised drug consumption sites.
Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear today and, as well, I thank you on behalf of my colleagues who were able to appear last week on this proposed legislation. I look forward to any questions you might have.