Debates of Nov. 18th, 2013

Respect for Communities Act

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not like science or science-based facts much. However, let us talk about Dr. Evan Wood, a renowned scientist, who works for the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He points out that one of the important aspects of a safe injection site is that, given that each HIV infection costs an average of approximately $500,000 in medical costs, InSite has contributed to a 90% reduction in new HIV cases caused by intravenous drug use in British Columbia. That is why the B.C. government has been such a strong supporter of the program.

That underlines some of the very important reasons we need to take this seriously. We need a complex and comprehensive conversation. It has already happened. Those debates and those studies have already taken place. We have the stats that show the great success of this facility.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate my colleague on his intervention. It was a balanced and thoughtful presentation.

I want to pick up on this point. He talked about the fact that there are members of our society who are not being served by programs that now exist to provide services to Canadians. He talked about people in health care receiving services from nurses who are volunteering their services and receiving donated drugs and so on in order to keep them alive. He speaks very much to the generosity of spirit of many Canadians.

Would the member agree that some of the suggestions made by members opposite as they relate to this particular group of Canadians, who the Supreme Court says have rights, and the way the government is responding to this very much show a lack of generosity toward these Canadians?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in many different ways we see this kind of narrowing of focus, expanse, and breadth by the government of the definition of who we are as Canadians. Are we a compassionate country? Do we care for one another? Do we try to find the most balanced way to move forward on complex issues? Time and time again the government has shown that it is not interested in that definition of Canada and who we are as Canadians. It is trying to narrowcast that. In truth, there are times when the government is trying to appeal to some of the worst in us, to the fear in us, as opposed to showing Canadians where we can go as a country and a community.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-2, which was introduced by the Conservative government. I would like to start by saying that, like all my NDP colleagues in the House, I will vote against Bill C-2.

My speech will primarily rely on a very informative document that includes many scientific studies. It was authored by Richard Lessard and Carole Morissette in 2011 and concerns a request from the Montreal metropolitan area to establish a supervised injection site. The document is entitled “Toward supervised injection services - Report of a feasibility study on the implementation of regional supervised injection services in Montréal.” This document is very interesting. It discusses, among other things, what is happening in the world. More than 80 countries around the world have supervised injection sites. They are funded sometimes by the proceeds of crime that have been seized by the government and sometimes directly by the government itself. This document is therefore very interesting.

I would like to quote from this paper, as follows:

Supervised injection services (SIS) are medical and nursing services provided in response to addiction, which is a disease

Indeed the dual objective of a supervised injection site is:

...to help prevent diseases and deaths among people who inject drugs and reduce social inequalities in health that affect one of society's most vulnerable groups.

This really sums up why issues related to supervised injection sites used to be addressed by the Standing Committee on Health and why they are still presented by the Minister of Health. However, for some reason that is completely unknown to me, this bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The Conservatives need to give us a little more information in that regard, because all the answers they give us have more to do with health, and that is the minister in charge of this file.

I would like to point out the documented benefits of a service such as a supervised injection site. In addition to InSite, whose results formed the basis of the Supreme Court ruling, there are over 90 supervised injections sites around the world, including in several European countries as well as Australia.

Although there is a wide range of models, it is generally recognized that the service offers the following benefits: it reaches the most marginalized, high-risk people; it helps prevent overdoses and related deaths; it acts as a protective factor by providing sterile injection equipment and a safe place to inject and teaching safer injection practices, thereby helping to reduce the HIV and hepatitis C epidemics; it does not promote initiation into injection, as some members opposite claim; it helps stabilize the health status of users by providing other services such as HIV and hepatitis C screening, vaccination, primary care and referral to detox, addiction treatment and substitution programs; it relieves pressure on emergency services including ambulance transportation and hospitals by promoting on-site overdose management; lastly, it alleviates the negative impacts on public order by reducing drug use in public places as well as associated nuisances such as discarded syringes; it does not increase drug-related crime.

That has been the case at more than 90 supervised injection sites around the world. Members opposite should not try to make us feel afraid and believe certain things.

I represent a rather unique area, the Island of Laval in the Montreal Urban Community. There is a lot of urban sprawl. Montreal is very urban; Laval, which is right next door, is becoming quite urban. In the past few years, the subway from the Island of Montreal has reached our area. There are several poor neighbourhoods along the Rivière-des-Prairies and they are very close to the Island of Montreal.

One can just as easily travel from Laval to Montreal. According to Laval's public health agency, approximately 4,000 people inject drugs on Île Jésus in Laval. That is a lot of people.

At the time, it was thought that people were shooting up in the privacy of their homes. Over the years, this has changed mainly because of urban sprawl. People shoot up in public places on the Island of Laval.

I decided to consult various community organizations in Laval that have experience with supervised injections, among other things. I contacted outreach groups including TRIL, Travail de rue de l'île de Laval, and Sida-Vie Laval, which have done a lot of work in this area.

I would like to quote one of these two organizations in my speech. I recently spoke to Sida-Vie Laval. This organization agrees with the New Democrats and is strongly opposed to Bill C-2. I would like to read from an email the organization sent me yesterday:

...the impact on the health of the people who visit these centres reduces the risk of transmitting HIV and/or [hepatitis C], having another person there lowers the risk of overdose and/or cotton fever.... [W]e know that over the medium and long terms, people improve their quality of life and decrease or stop drug use. Furthermore, injection sites provide a safe and healthy place for people to inject, in the presence of doctors, nurses and qualified professionals. Drug users often become isolated and surround themselves with people who have a negative influence on them. The supervised injection site helps users take the first step towards reintegrating into society by learning to trust the professionals supporting them and to trust the health care network.

I think the organization touched on a very important aspect of supervised injection sites. The people who visit these facilities do not simply go for injections. There are nurses, doctors and other community workers there. They may go the first time for an injection and then leave, but they will return. Each time they have to see a nurse and a social worker. They will start to build relationships with these people. As they slowly build trust with these community workers, they will be able to find a way out. This is an extremely important resource for getting people off the street, getting them back on the job market and helping them reintegrate into society.

People may be aware that I am the NDP deputy critic for public safety. Public safety on our streets is extremely important to me.

I would like to point out that the Montreal police force has been quite involved in the study to set up a supervised injection site in Montreal. It is prepared to work hand in hand with all medical and community stakeholders to ensure that these locations are safe. The police force stands behind the stakeholders, the NDP, and medical services when it comes to the need for a supervised injection site and agrees that the government must not put up any obstacles for cities that want to have such a site.

It is very important to provide a location for using drugs and disposing of syringes away from the public eye. Supervised injection sites have had positive or neutral effects in terms of reducing the nuisances associated with public injection drug use.

Cites with supervised injection sites do not seem to have experienced an increase in crime or crime displacement.

There are many points I wanted to address, including the positive impact on violence against women, comments by correctional services officers, and the fact that the bill is before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security instead of the Standing Committee on Health.

Most of all, I would like to mention that the closure of sites like Canada's InSite makes our communities less safe. Ever since I was little, whenever I go to Montreal I look at the ground when I walk in the parks and on city lawns because I have found used needles on the ground.

Now that I am the mother of a little girl, I can assure my colleagues that as long as the Conservatives' policy does not change I will not be taking my daughter to play in Montreal's parks and if I have to walk on the grass in Montreal's parks, I will be looking at the ground and holding my daughter in my arms.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here this afternoon to listen to this discussion. I have become more concerned as the day has gone on that it is the willingness of the opposition to allow people to continue to live in the misery of addiction.

We heard talk about abandoning people, about public health safety, and about freedom of expression. It seems to me it is a justification for what we hear coming from the other side, which is putting people in a situation where the best they can expect is to be given a room where they can inject street drugs polluted with who knows what contaminants and then leaving them alone until they overdose in some situations and then finally getting them medical help.

It seems to me the opposition could come up with something better than that. Certainly we think it is more important that we do not condemn people to a miserable twilight existence of addiction and that there are other solutions that can be brought in. A couple of our people have already brought those forward.

Instead of giving people the opportunity to live the rest of their lives as free people, why do members opposite seem to be willing to condemn them to lives of the misery of addiction?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I had 10 minutes, I would read my whole speech again, since it looks like the parliamentary secretary was not paying attention to most of it, I am sad to say.

We do agree on one thing: we cannot leave people in distress. It will not help them, however, if we shut down safe injection sites staffed by trained community field workers and health professionals who can help those in need. The city police, community organizations and health services are working together to help people in need. There is a solution already, a solution that is getting people off the streets. Everyone but the Conservatives sees how well that system works.

I could lend the parliamentary secretary a whole pile of scientific documents and data, if he were inclined to read them. The fact remains, however, that our friends across the way do not care at all for scientific facts in this debate, and that does not come as a great surprise.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that 4% of Quebeckers have an addiction problem, whether it involves drugs, alcohol or gambling. With all due respect to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, this is a public health issue. I have a hard time understanding how enforcement will solve a problem that affects 4% of the population. Billy clubs and prison sentences will not make these problems go away. People use drugs in prison.

I would like to know how we can develop a solution to help that 4% of the population through a public health program.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. It is always a pleasure to work with him. We represent the same populations in Laval. He knows full well the issues that we are facing with urban sprawl and with the drug abuse we witness in our area and in public spaces.

He touched on an important issue. We are using this debate to try and find a solution. It is a broad debate. Addiction is a very serious problem. My colleagues from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and Drummond, along with all of my NDP colleagues who spoke before me and gave passionate speeches about Bill C-2, are trying, as I am, to prove that we need to trust science and the stakeholders involved. We need to listen to experts who have tried to drive home the point that forcing sites such as InSite to close, keeping other cities from having safe injection sites, keeping those sites from functioning, keeping experts from doing their work is really—and I do not know what word to use that would be parliamentary—a serious mistake.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for a few moments to Bill C-2. I have listened to my colleagues most of the day, and they have presented some very personal explanations and descriptions of why the government needs to rethink Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 deals with a public health issue. We believe that decisions about programs that may benefit public health must be based on fact. That is at the heart of this issue. All Canadians, regardless, must have the opportunity to gain the benefit of those programs.

This all stems from a program called InSite. It was opened as part of a public health plan by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and its community partners following a 12-fold increase in overdose death in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. As a result of the efforts of this site, there was a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable diseases, infection rates, and relapse rates for drug users.

In 2008, the government began to take action to close InSite. It took action in British Columbia. The minister of health at that time denied InSite's application to renew an exemption that existed under section 56. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that InSite should be granted a new extension. The federal government then took it to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which ruled again that InSite should remain open. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated its patrons' charter rights and that the minister's decision was “arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act”, which includes public health and safety.

The decision by the Supreme Court hinges on section 7 of the charter, which says that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The court found that section 56 exemptions must be granted where they decreased the risk of death and disease and there was little or no evidence that it would have a negative impact on public safety.

I have heard members opposite say that if we poll our community and our community decides that it does not want to have that facility, then why should it have to have it there? The Supreme Court of Canada actually dealt with that question by saying that the government was not able to show that it undermined public safety and, in some instances, had proven to promote it.

We have heard members talk about the problems that result in the injection of drugs in areas that are not safe, with contaminated needles on the ground in parks and with people being exposed to those kinds of health risks. It reduces those health and safety hazards, reduces public drug injections, reduces violence associated with drugs, and reduces drug-related litter.

This is key. Safe injection sites, therefore, strike the balance between public health and public safety. They connect people in dire need of assistance to needed health services such as primary care and addiction treatment.

The point here is this. How do we deliver the services that Canadians need to make them safe? How do we ensure that our communities are safe and healthy? We need to base that not only on facts but on the understanding that every Canadian, every human being in this country, has the right to live life and to liberty and to have access to life-saving drugs and programs.

In relation to further exemptions for additional programs, this is what the Supreme Court said. It directed the following:

...the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. In accordance with the Charter, the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Where, as here, [referring to InSite] a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

What we have in Bill C-2 is something completely different. It ignores the direction that was provided by the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been cited by my colleague, who knows much of the constitutional law in this country. Bill C-2 will probably be deemed unconstitutional, which does not seem to bother members opposite. The point is that it not only flies in the face of the recommendations of the direction provided by the Supreme Court decision but goes against the spirit, I would suggest, of what makes us Canadian, what makes us special in the world in our ability to be generous and humane and to show compassion to our sisters and brothers regardless of their circumstances.

If we determine, as has been determined in the case of InSite, that in fact this program saves lives, reduces crime and ensures that the public is safer, then these are the types of programs that we need to make available to people. Some have suggested that New Democrats do not care about addictions, that we just want to make sure people get the opportunity to shoot up. We want to make sure that Canadians are made safe and healthy. This is the safe part and the healthy part is the supervision. Now we have to make sure that the government opposite backs up its words about commitment to addiction to ensure there is follow-up, that there are beds in detox programs and other addiction-related programs, and that there is the support to allow people, when they are ready and able, to kick whatever their addiction is, to turn their lives around and to be more healthy for themselves, their families and communities.

This is fundamental. It is a fundamental principle that has been outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the government is ignoring it. Bill C-2 flies in the face of this principle. The government is going to be told again, as it was in 2008 by the Supreme Court, the B.C. Supreme Court, and the B.C. appeal court, and again in 2011 by the Supreme Court of Canada, that it is on the wrong track, pitting one type of Canadian against another type of Canadian.

We are all Canadians. The Supreme Court will protect that to ensure that this kind of discrimination is not allowed to happen.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is very clear.

I am not sure why the member is opposed to the minister gathering the scientific evidence. The bill would provide the Minister of Health with the information needed to make informed decisions. Why does the member opposite not support organizations providing basic information on science, public safety and community views?

Obviously community views are going to be important in any decision. The opposition seems to brush that away, as if that is not important. Well, it is important, and this bill is important to protect Canadians. Why is the member opposed to community views?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the least opposed to community views. In fact, what we have seen as a result of the 30-plus peer-reviewed studies of communities like Vancouver East, and other communities around the world, is that these programs work at making communities safer.

The point, though, is that the bill would turn the onus of responsibility on its head. Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has said that when the evidence presents the fact that this is of value and that the values of safety and health are balanced, then it is up to the community to prove that it would not provide that balance of safety and health.

My concern with the authority that would be given to the minister in the bill is that it would make it that much more difficult for the applicants to achieve the bar that she would set.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that in terms of history in Canada in the last decade, there is one safe injection site.

What I liked about the approach to its coming into being is that it was one of co-operation. We had the federal government working with the provincial government, which in turn worked with the community leadership that had a wide spectrum of consultation. Professionals were engaged, and ultimately it came into being. This was done because of the need to meet the safety and health concerns of a community.

The question I have for the member is this: would he not agree that it has been a huge success? It has been clearly defined, facts and science have been brought to the table, and that particular community is better off today as a result of the InSite location.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The establishment of this or any site needs to be done in consultation with the community and the individuals involved.

The bottom line is that the facts will speak for themselves, on this and any other matter. It cannot be that the biases and prejudices of people within a community are allowed to prevent any other Canadian from exercising his or her right to life and liberty. That is what the Supreme Court has said.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present my views on Bill C-2. I believe this bill should be rejected.

This bill is bad for human rights. It will put the lives of many Canadians at risk. Furthermore, it flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling that stipulates, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that people have a right to medical services and to the security of the person. This bill seems to take us in the complete opposite direction.

Many members will recall when InSite first opened in Vancouver over 10 years ago. It was granted an exemption from the law in order to be able to offer addicts access to a service that they could not have otherwise received. This service means that people do not have to put their lives at risk, as it allows them to inject their drugs in a clean, safe place where medical services are available. It also provides the possibility of more involved medical services. Basically, it can open the door to detox services for some addicts.

The spirit of this bill does not seem to promote injection sites in Canada. On the contrary, it creates 26 conditions that must be met or they will be rejected. Canada currently has one site, InSite in Vancouver. There is talk of opening a site in Montreal, perhaps one in Toronto and one in Victoria. Other municipalities would like to do the same. I can say that in my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, officials are seriously considering the possibility of having open sites available to addicts. In my riding, people could benefit from having a site that is closer to home, in Montreal for example, instead of having to go all the way to Vancouver to obtain the services that are available to the people of that region.

InSite helps addicts not to risk their lives. I want to mention some facts that the government may have forgotten when it drafted the bill. In one year, 2,171 InSite users were referred to substance abuse counselling. That is a significant number. All these people will have access to a service they otherwise would probably not benefit from. This is about eliminating or reducing the number of people shooting up on the streets. The Conservatives would have us believe that initiatives such as InSite and other supervised injection sites could make our communities less safe, but we are saying just the opposite. These sites make communities even safer. In Vancouver, the benefits of InSite are clear: fewer people are on the streets and more are benefiting from medical services to treat their addictions. This is really the best and most effective way to make our communities safer.

In Bill C-2, the government proposes 26 conditions. The process is very cumbersome and onerous. Those interested in opening a supervised injection site are asked to meet 26 conditions in a relatively short time. However, even if these 26 conditions are met, the minister is still under no obligation to issue a licence for a supervised injection site. He or she may do so, but there is no obligation.

So, people must meet 26 conditions in a relatively short time. It is very difficult for them to meet all these requirements. However, even if they manage to fulfill these 26 conditions, the minister is under no obligation to issue a licence.

Moreover, the minister has no deadline to meet. She can take all the time in the world to issue a licence if she decides to extend the deadline.

These are very onerous conditions. If I were cynical, I would say that this is to avoid having to deliver a licence and authorize the opening of a supervised injection site. The police chief must also agree, as well as city council and the provincial minister of health. These authorities will not simply give their approval because they are asked to do so. They have responsibilities and requirements. They must respect their own process and they only have 90 days to do so.

If someone manages to meet the 26 conditions, the minister may deliver a licence. This is no way to respect those who work in this area. Moreover, it certainly does not promote the establishment of a new injection site in Canada. I think it ignores the will of the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that InSite in Vancouver should remain open. It cannot be closed.

Let us take a look back and remember that in Attorney General of Canada, et al. v. PHS Community Services Society, et al. the Supreme Court did not rule that public safety was the priority, but that the right to health and life was the basis for its decision.

Bill C-2 seems to express the opposite. The bill is immensely concerned with public safety, but makes no mention of the right to life. That is the aspect of the bill I find most surprising. It totally ignores the fact that the root of the debates on the bill is that the Supreme Court ruled that a person has the right to life and must have access to medical services. The bill would have Canadians believe that detoxification centres, such as the InSite supervised injection site, are a public safety issue.

According to the government, if the bill passes at second reading, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and not to the Standing Committee on Health. I do not understand what motivates a government that does not believe in a basic principle like the right to life that everyone has.

Public safety is important, but the facts have shown that a supervised injection site ensures public safety, since people are not in the streets and public parks, where our children play, are needle free. We want safety for everyone. The InSite location in Vancouver is proof that we can do it, that we have the capacity for it and that we must do it. It is a way of respecting people and respect is a Canadian value that is important to all of us. What is more, this is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling and does not ignore it or instill fear in the public. Some might think that a place like InSite increases risk, but the opposite is true.

I want to point out that we have seen the benefits of InSite time and again. For example, injection drug users who use InSite are 78% less likely to share needles. That is a public health issue. A centre such as InSite has tremendous benefits. It helps prevent emergency room visits, which are very expensive. We want to avoid situations in which people have to use costly emergency medical services. We want these people to have the use of a very inexpensive service that also benefits public safety and public health.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the Conservatives talking about going to the community and getting their views and that this is what this bill reflects.

Let me give members a little history. We had a site in Vancouver that was established in 2003. In 2008, the community wanted to renew their licence, but the Conservatives chose to take that to the courts. They wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers' money trying to oppress the views of the community.

Now the Conservatives are saying that they want to go to the community and consult them. Basically, they are putting roadblocks in place so that the community does not get its wishes.

Would the member agree that the Conservatives are basing this bill on ideology rather than on facts and figures?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and I congratulate him for all the work he is doing in his riding. I very much appreciate his great support for InSite, which is located in Vancouver, in the Surrey region, not far from his community.

It is obvious that this approach is rooted in ideology. The government is not looking at the facts and making a decision based on science. In fact, the Prime Minister's government seems to be incapable of examining the facts and moving forward on the basis of the studies done.

More than 300 studies have been published in journals such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, and in other very respected publications. They all report that supervised injection sites are very beneficial.

We have to get past the ideology and look at the facts. Decisions made in Canada must be based on the facts and public health, and not on Conservative ideology.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would simply provide a road map on how one would proceed in the future when it comes to supervised injection sites. I do not know why the member opposite does not support requiring organizations to provide basic information on signs and public safety or to consult the community. The community's views are very important.

Why does the member want to disregard all that? These are all good provisions in the bill. That is why he should support it, so support the bill.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his encouragement that I should support the bill. Unfortunately, I will not.

The problem with the bill is not that we are lacking in consultation. In fact, we could use InSite as a prime example of the public being consulted. Whether it be the local community, the business community, or the municipal councils, all those people were consulted. I never said in my discourse, and I do not know where he got that from, that I do not want the community to be consulted.

What I am saying is that after all 26 conditions are met, and many are new conditions that were never done in the past, they still do not have any guarantee that they are going to get their injection sites.

I would like the member to press his minister and ask the minister to actually make it binding. If we could actually get through those 26 conditions, I would like to see the member push for the idea that it be binding on the minister to supply the licence to open an injection site.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will be resuming debate. I would just let the member for Vancouver Kingsway know that we will not have the full 10 minutes. It will be approximately seven minutes , and I will give him the usual signal before the end of that time.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today to speak to this issue. It is a very important one, not only for the people of our country but in particular for the community that I represent in Vancouver Kingsway, and in Vancouver.

In many ways, the bill before us causes us to think about two things. The first is about the proper and appropriate way to make public policy in this chamber for the people of this country. Second, of course, is the specific issue of the proper policy approach to supervised injection sites. In summary, there has been a lot of talk on this, but in its essence Bill C-2 represents an attempt by the government members to make it very difficult to open up a supervised injection site in this country. We presently have one supervised injection site in Canada, and that operates in my hometown of Vancouver.

I want to start by sharing with the members in this House, and Canadians, some of the realities of what we are dealing with.

Again, I come from Vancouver. It is a port city, and it has one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in the country.

Let me tell members what Vancouver looked like before InSite was opened. I had people coming to my office asking me as a member of Parliament to do something about needles that were found in the alleys behind their houses where their children were playing. I have had parents and teachers come to me to tell me that they had to do a walkabout of their schools in the morning to pick up used needles in their schoolyards.

We had an epidemic of heroin overdose deaths in Vancouver, where for a period of time there were deaths from overdoses almost weekly. I have had business people, particularly in Chinatown where a lot of the drug market is in Vancouver, who complained to me that their customers were being chased away by the prospect of seeing heroin addicts openly shooting heroin outside the doors of their stores and in the alleys, never mind the ambulances and police sirens that inevitably come when people have had overdoses.

That is what Vancouver looked like before InSite opened.

I want to talk about facts, because we will put facts before this debate. Between 1987 and 1993, the rate of overdose deaths in Vancouver increased from 16 deaths per year to 200 deaths per year. The rate of overdose deaths in east Vancouver dropped by 35% after InSite opened in 2003.

Over one year, more than 2,171 referrals were made for InSite users to addiction counselling or other support services.Those who use InSite services at least once a week are 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visit infrequently.

Commencing one year after Insite opened, there was a significant drop in the number of discarded syringes, injection-related litter, and people injecting in the streets. Injection drug users who use InSite are 70% less likely to share needles. Reducing needle sharing has been listed as an international best practice in the reduction of the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.

InSite users are more likely to seek medical care through the site. This means fewer trips to the emergency room, an improvement in health outcomes, and a savings in taxpayer dollars.

Over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the British Medical Journal, the most respected medical journals in the world, have described the beneficial impacts of InSite. Conversely, multiple studies have looked for the negative impacts of InSite, but none of have come up with evidence demonstrating that it harms the community.

Safe injection sites operate in 70 cities and six European countries and Australia. A study by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in 2004 showed that supervised injection sites reach out to vulnerable groups. They are accepted by communities, help improve the health status of the users, and they reduce high-risk behaviour, overdose deaths, and drug use in open spaces.

Illicit drug use is an issue that all of us in this chamber regard as a problem. People from all parties across the country would like to look for strategies whereby we can assist people who are addicted to drugs get off the drugs. We share that goal.

The issue really is this. Where we have drug use, what is the appropriate way to achieve that goal? I am here to tell the House that in Vancouver, if members drive with me down to Hastings and Main Street any day of the week, at any time of day, they will see hundreds of people in the streets who are drug addicts. The question is not whether or not they will use drugs. The question is whether or not we will provide them with a safe, clean place where they can do drugs under the supervision of a nurse, where if they overdose or have a problem, they can get medical care, and most importantly, where if by any grace of God they want to access treatment, they have someone there.

Alternatively, we can ignore this and we can continue to let those people purchase and use their drugs in alleys and public spaces or in front of businesses in Vancouver with no medical attention, where they are sharing needles, spreading disease, harming business, costing taxpayers money and dying.

That is the reality of the debate before us. What we have here is an issue of science and evidence-based policy-making versus a moral, ideological one. We have a question of public policy where we ask whether we want to try to make it easier to provide these kinds of health services to Canadians or whether we want to set up roadblocks, as the bill would.

The bill would set up a set of criteria that would make it almost impossible for Canada to open a second supervised injection site. That is harmful for public policy. It is bad for the health of Canadians. It is bad for taxpayers. It is bad for business. I implore every member of the House to put science before ideology and stop the bill from going forward.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway will have three minutes remaining for his remarks should he wish to use that time at the next instance where the House resumes debate on the question, and of course, he will have the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Conservatives why they refuse to take protecting marine life seriously.

The changes to the Fisheries Act show that they do not understand and have no interest in how a marine ecosystem works. By restricting the act to protect only fish consumed by humans, the Conservative government is ignoring the vast majority of marine species. More than 80% of fresh water fish will no longer be protected.

This lack of habitat protection will have a disastrous effect on the quality of water in Canada and, as a result, its fisheries. Does the minister understand that the fish we consume depend on their entire ecosystem to survive?

Once again, the Conservatives are ignoring the recommendations made by experts and scientists. Their decisions are based only on ideological considerations. The Fisheries Act has been completely gutted. The big oil companies can now proceed with drilling for oil without any regard for the environmental effects. Once again, the Conservatives are letting the interests of their friends override environmental considerations and the interests of Canadians.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans will no longer even participate in the review of development applications. From now on, we must rely on scientific data provided by the big oil companies to determine whether a proposed development would have adverse effects on the ecosystem. Does the minister really believe that these data can be objective and unbiased?

The new legislation significantly limits the ability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to fulfill its mandate to protect marine life. The Conservatives are effectively abandoning the coastal communities that depend on marine life. How can the minister justify this abdication of her responsibilities?

The fishing industry does not just depend on fish that are caught and consumed. The fishing industry depends on a healthy marine ecosystem. It is the duty of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to protect this ecosystem. However, the new legislation is tying the department's hands behind its back.

The changes to the act limit the powers of the department and open the door to oil and gas development by the big companies, without any regard for the environmental consequences. Our oceans are precious and fragile. Why does the minister want to limit her own powers to ensure the continued survival of the industries, jobs and communities that depend on these oceans?

The economy of the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands depends on fishing and tourism. These two industries cannot survive without the security of a healthy marine ecosystem. Why are the Conservatives again abandoning our region?

The reform of the employment insurance program showed how much the Conservative government disregards seasonal industries in resource regions, such as the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands. The Conservatives accused decent Canadians who work tirelessly for their families of being dishonest and lazy. Now, with these amendments to the Fisheries Act, the government is washing its hands of the marine habitat protection upon which our fishing and tourism industries depend.

Will the Conservatives cancel these amendments so that all fish species can again be given the protection they need? Will they stop their assault on coastal communities that depend on fishing?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member opposite. His original question was based on some faulty premises, so I appreciate the opportunity to correct those.

The fact is that over the years we have had many discussions with our partners and stakeholders about the Fisheries Act. We have spoken with and heard from provinces and territories, conservation organizations, aboriginal groups, industry associations, municipalities and the general public.

These groups asked us to focus on the significant impacts to significant fisheries. They asked us to find ways to work more effectively and efficiently with other regulators. They asked us to develop productive partnerships with those working on the ground such as conservation groups. They asked us to apply our limited resources strategically to ensure that Canada's fisheries can benefit Canadians today and tomorrow.

We have heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that the rules protecting fish and fish habitat go beyond their intended goals. Concerns about the broad and even the unintended scope of the application of the regulatory regime have been raised by stakeholders across the country. For example, farmers and landowners have criticized the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for applying its mandate and resources to protect areas with minimal contribution to fisheries while sometimes insufficient attention is paid to the most significant threats.

The message we received was that the laws are indiscriminate, which means that all bodies of water where fish live or could live are subject to the same rules and evaluation, regardless of size, environment, or contribution to a fishery.

We know that there are better ways to protect important wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans. In addition, significant risks to fisheries have emerged that are not appropriately considered in the Fisheries Act before it was amended, such as those posed by aquatic invasive species. I know my colleague is familiar with this.

Recognizing the importance of Canada's fisheries across the country but also the need to concentrate our efforts and resources, our government introduced amendments to the Fisheries Act last spring to focus our fisheries protection regime on Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. By renewing and strengthening our approach to fisheries protection, the Government of Canada is responding to the current concerns and challenges raised by partners, stakeholders, and Canadians across the country.

Through the amended Fisheries Act, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is transforming its approach to fisheries protection in order to focus the act's regulatory regime on managing threats to the sustainability and ongoing productivity of Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. They will provide clarity, certainty, and consistency of regulatory requirements through the use of tools such as standards and regulations. They will enable enhanced partnerships with agencies and organizations that are best placed to provide fisheries protection services to Canadians.

Now that we have set the direction by making much needed changes to the Fisheries Act, we will continue working with stakeholders and partners to develop the regulations, policies, and other tools needed to effectively implement these changes. Through this process we will further define our new approach and develop the tools required to implement it in order to provide predictability and clarity for Canadians working on or near water.

The Government of Canada takes the protection of our country's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries very seriously. Given the extensive nature of the fisheries from coast to coast to coast, we must focus our efforts on the effective protection of these significant fisheries, and that is what we are doing.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his efforts. We work together on the fisheries committee and I know that he is a very diligent and effective speaker in the House.

When it comes to the modifications to the Fisheries Act that were introduced in Bill C-38, I would posit that the government went way too far. We saw it when we did our study for invasive species in the Great Lakes, as he mentioned.

We do not know what the consequences are of changing environmental conditions. We do not know which species are going to be best placed to survive in the future. We know that there is change. We know that we lose species all the time and we know that nature tries its best to compensate. It needs all the tools that can be had, and that includes protection of fisheries habitat.

I do not have a crystal ball. I do not know what the commercial fishery is going to be in 20, 50, or 100 years. However, I know that if we destroy the fisheries habitat today without any form of compensation, those fish that might be replacing today's commercial fish might not exist in the future. We are putting our future at risk.