Debates of Nov. 18th, 2013

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Respect for Communities Act

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to debate Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The bill before us today brings into sharper focus what is happening under this Conservative government. This bill is driven solely by ideology and completely ignores the facts. That is nothing new for the Conservatives. Bill C-2 is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites.

As we have seen routinely for some time, this government has no qualms about introducing bills that disregard recent rulings by the highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that InSite provided essential services and had to remain open under the exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Court also ruled that the charter authorized users to access InSite services and that the provision of similar services should also be authorized under the same exemption.

In addition, a number of studies published in major scientific journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal, describe the benefits of the InSite supervised injection facility.

We have noticed over the past few years that the Conservatives are not fond of scientists who express their opinions, particularly when those opinions are critical of the Conservatives or when they go against the Conservatives’ ideology.

A government’s mission is not to muzzle scientists or to gag members of the House of Commons a record number of times. The government’s role is to take note of the facts and, on the basis of those facts, make the best decisions for Canadians. With Bill C-2, the government is again falling into the embarrassing trap of grandstanding and ignoring facts that clearly prove that supervised injection facilities like InSite have a wide range of benefits for the general public.

Just a few hours after introducing Bill C-2, the Conservatives launched a campaign called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”, designed to rally grassroots support and, once again, to fuel the public’s unfounded fears about safety. I am really looking forward to hearing the arguments they make to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Let us just take a few moments to think about this seriously. Are the Conservatives really so keen on magical thinking that they believe that, if InSite were closed, heroin use would automatically disappear? I hope their cognitive reasoning is a little more advanced than that. The reality is that, after the closure of supervised injection facilities, heroin use would not disappear but would once again be widespread in neighbourhoods and could at that point become a real danger for the general public. This is the exact opposite of what the Conservatives are claiming.

This is a fact. Let us forget the Conservatives’ ideological inflexibility that results in the exact opposite of what they claim, and talk about the facts, the real facts, about InSite and the positive benefits of supervised injection facilities.

The InSite project was set up as part of a public health initiative by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and a number of other community partners following a 12-fold increase in the number of overdose deaths in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. Over that seven-year period, the Vancouver area also saw a disturbing increase in the rate of blood-borne diseases, such as hepatitis A, B and C and HIV/AIDS, among injection drug users.

In 2003, InSite secured an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with medical and scientific applications, in order to provide services and conduct research into the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities.

In 2007, the Onsite Detox Centre was added at the same location.

In 2008, InSite's exemption expired. The Minister of Health denied its application for renewal, in a portent of the bill now before this House.

The Minister of Health's decision triggered a series of court cases, following which the British Columbia Supreme Court found that InSite had to be given a further exemption. The Conservative government appealed that decision, but lost its appeal in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which also found that InSite should remain open.

Finally, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Minister’s decision to close InSite violated its clients’ charter rights, was arbitrary, and was contrary to the very purpose of the Public Health and Safety Act. In the NDP, we believe that government decisions should be made in the best interests of the public, and not in accordance with an ideological stance.

Evidence has shown that supervised injection sites are effective in reducing the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases and overdose-related deaths. It has also shown that such sites are not bad for public safety and that in many cases, on the contrary, they promote it by reducing drug injection in public places, the associated violence, and the waste materials that result from drug use. They also make it possible to strike a fair balance between public safety and public health and to connect users with the health care and drug treatment services they need in order to escape the hell of drug use.

In this case, the facts are clear and unequivocal. Between 1987 and 1993, before InSite opened, the number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver rose from 16 to 200 a year. Since it opened, the number of overdose-related deaths in east Vancouver has fallen 35%.

For our Conservative friends who believe that InSite is a dangerous place that poses a threat to the public, here are some more facts. Over a one-year period, 2,171 InSite users were referred to addiction counselling and other support services. People using InSite's services at least once a week are almost twice as likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visit only occasionally.

There was a very significant drop in the number of discarded needles, injection-related waste materials and people injecting themselves with drugs, just in the year following the opening of InSite. It was found that 80% of respondents living or working in Vancouver's downtown east side support InSite. A number of studies have looked at the possible negative impact of InSite. Not one produced any evidence of harm to the community.

The facts are clear. An initiative like InSite is a step in the right direction in terms of public health and public safety. In contrast to what the Conservatives claim, it gets drugs off our streets and moves them to supervised sites where people are attended to and strongly encouraged to explore the possibilities for drug treatment and social reintegration.

That is why we will be voting against Bill C-2, which is based—as is all too often the case on the other side of the House—on magical thinking, rather than facts.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Laval—Les Îles for his excellent speech. He explained very clearly why we should all vote against this bill.

The bill is based on nothing but ideology. Its only goal is to get money from the Conservative base by using scare tactics, even though scientific research and health studies have shown the benefits of InSite, as my colleague explained. I would like to ask him a question, so that he can offer more details and examples.

Does he think the Conservatives should step back from this bill, given the positive impact programs like InSite can have on health? For example, users are referred to addiction treatment options, at some point, so that they can control their drug use and improve their health.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his excellent question.

I come from an area where there are a lot of drug addicts and there is no facility like InSite. I see people from day to day, and it is clear just from looking at them that they have a lot of problems. I even know some people who died from an overdose. If there had been a place like InSite, they would probably still be alive today.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find particularly appalling in this whole thing is that the Conservatives are using this InSite situation to raise campaign money. They launched a “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign.

It is disgusting that they would try to profit from this and that they are sensationalizing the issue. That is petty politics.

Could my colleague talk about the evidence that supports our position? Could he give us some figures, such as the number of people InSite has helped, to illustrate why we have taken this position?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her question. I would have to look at my notes, because I do not have the exact figures. However, I agree that it is disgusting that the Conservatives are using this issue to raise money and that they launched a campaign with a title like “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. That is the exact opposite of what will happen.

I live across from a park and I sometimes see people there at two in the morning. I do not need to go over there to know what teens and other people are doing at that hour. Contrary to what the Conservatives claim, I think that having a place like InSite in my neighbourhood would keep heroin out of my backyard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member is finding the same thing that I am finding. Many people in my community who are very concerned about harm reduction would like to get the message through to the House of Commons. There are many people who have expressed interest in appearing at committee when the bill gets to committee. With a Conservative majority I am expecting it will. I am committed to making sure that as many of those people as possible are heard because the evidence in favour of safe injection sites is so overwhelming. I am wondering if the member is finding the same kind of interest in Montreal that we are finding on the west coast.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I will not say the name of his riding, since it is even more complicated than mine.

As I was saying, that is a concern in my community. We would really like to have a place like InSite. Many people would be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which I have been a member of for a few months.

Indeed, I know many people who would be willing to come and tell the committee how beneficial it would be to have a place like InSite in their community.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making it clear that the NDP and I oppose Bill C-2. The bill is a thinly veiled attempt to arbitrarily shut down InSite. Beyond Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, Bill C-2 would make it next to impossible to open a safe injection site anywhere, no matter how desperately a community may need one, no matter how much suffering exists.

It is not pleasant to think about intravenous drug use. However, it exists, and it is happening on a scale that makes it a public problem in need of a public solution. Bill C-2 is a move in the wrong direction and will only exacerbate the problem further.

There are approximately 100,000 Canadians who say they have injected themselves with drugs like cocaine, heroin, OxyContin, and crystal meth. Bill C-2 does nothing to help Canadian drug addicts. It does nothing to address this as a public health issue.

Though the short title of the bill is “respect for communities act”, we must make no mistake that this legislation will hurt our communities. The title is the usual Conservative Orwellian newspeak, meant to pretend that the government is acting positively. If Bill C-2 is passed and communities that need supervised injection sites cannot build them, where does the government want drug users to go? There certainly has not been any real answer articulated on that question.

Let me tell members about the impact that Bill C-2 will have. It will push drug users into our communities, into the alleyways, on to our town streets, and into our neighbourhood parks. There will be nowhere else for addicts to go but to the public spaces in our communities.

One year after InSite opened, there was a significant drop in the number of people injecting on the streets and much less injection-related litter, such as discarded syringes. If for no other reason than to keep intravenous drug users off the streets of our communities, we need supervised injection sites like InSite. The element of protection that these sites provide is not just for the drug users but for the community at large.

We must also remember that supervised injection sites facilitate contact between drug users and those specialists who can help them to get off drugs or become sober. InSite has proven that its frequent patrons are one and a half times more likely to eventually enrol in detox programs.

Standing in the way of supervised drug injection sites means standing in the way of helping people to get sober and kick dangerous habits. Therefore, I wonder why the government is so hostile to supervised drug injection sites. Does it want an increase of unsupervised drug users? Perversely, could it be that the government wants to fill its prisons with drug addicts? For those who mindlessly support the prospect of more prisons, the prospect of more full prisons must be quite satisfying.

Bill C-2 does nothing to stop drug use or encourage sobriety. It does not deter Canadians from injecting themselves with drugs. Denying Canadian drug addicts access to supervised injection sites unfortunately denies the people who use drugs a safe and clean way of doing so. We do not have to condone drug use to see the benefit of supervised injection sites. We must face reality. Drug addicts use drugs. The least we can do is to reduce the harm around this activity and try to steer addicts toward help. They deserve this offer of help. There is no such thing as a throwaway human being.

It is not an exaggeration to say that access to facilities such as InSite is a matter of health and safety, life and death. Let me remind members that in 2011 the Supreme Court ruled in support of InSite. The Supreme Court told the federal government that it could not inhibit safe injection sites from operating. The ruling was based on section 7 of the charter. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, legislation such as Bill C-2 is against the fundamental right to life, liberty, and security. The people in this chamber demand those rights for themselves. Why on earth would they deny these rights to others?

Elsewhere in the world, safe injection sites operate in 70 cities in six different European countries and Australia. Safe injection sites reduce harm. They improve a community's public health, reduce disease and have absolutely no negative impact on public safety. In fact, they enhance public safety, all the while preserving human lives. These are the lives of people who are someone's brother or sister. They are people who were once beloved children, cherished family members. They were not always drug addicts. These are the lives of people who deserve to be saved and respected and who deserve to be healthy and safe.

Vancouver's Downtown Eastside has been described as home to as many as 5,000 injection drug users. Despite being drug users, these 5,000 people remain Canadians, much to the chagrin of the current government. Even if we do not agree with their life choices and drug use, the government must not abandon them. They are Canadians. They are human lives, and they are vulnerable. If their government is able to help, it is morally obligated to do so. However, Bill C-2 does not help; in fact, it hinders.

In Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, InSite has made a positive difference. Human lives have been saved since InSite first opened. The number of accidental drug overdose deaths has been reduced by 35. Those who use InSite once a week have been shown to be 1.7 times more likely to enrol in detox programs than those who visit infrequently. Injection drug users who use InSite are 70% less likely to share needles. Reduced needle sharing is an internationally recognized best practice to reduce the rate of HIV-AIDS and various other diseases. Finally, InSite patrons are more likely to seek medical care through the program, which results in fewer emergency room visits and improved health outcomes. It might also be of interest to the Conservative government that fewer emergency room visits equal cost savings to our health care system.

This is just a smattering of InSite's positive impact. This impact has been proven in over 30 peer-reviewed studies, published in journals like the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal. Further, the experts at the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association are also against Bill C-2.

I implore the government to listen to the science, to Canadian doctors and nurses, and abandon Bill C-2.

InSite does good work. It must be allowed to continue to operate. More than 80% of people surveyed in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside want it to continue to operate. Will the Conservative government listen to the only community in Canada that currently has a supervised injection site? Will it listen to the people of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and respect what they want because they support InSite?

We can only ask why the government refuses to respect the scientific and medical communities that support safe injection sites. Why does the government want to abandon those who have been so vulnerable and unfortunate as to become drug addicts? Why does the government not understand that safe injections sites are part of a community harm reduction strategy? Such sites improve the community for everyone who lives alongside drug users.

Bill C-2 goes against all scientific evidence and experts who show that supervised injection sites reduce harm. The bill goes against the charter and the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Conservative government goes against the moral obligation to reduce harm to drug users.

We must not give up on people, even if they seem to have given up on themselves. Without solutions to address substance abuse, we must at least try to implement harm reduction strategies.

We must not abandon people, particularly when they are in despair. Without a solution to drug addiction, we must, at the very least, try to implement harm reduction.

For these reasons, the New Democratic Party and I oppose Bill C-2.

As a sideline, the Heinz company just announced the closure of its plant in Leamington. U.S. Steel is shutting down in Hamilton. In my town of London, Ontario, we have lost far too many good-paying jobs. Despite all that, the Conservative government chooses to assault the vulnerable instead of focusing on the economy and the good jobs that we need to support families and communities.

I rest my case.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the wonderful speech she gave and for laying out the facts. I know the Conservatives do not believe in facts, but she laid them out very nicely.

We have talked about Conservatives, but let us talk about Liberals. Liberals claim to respect Parliament and to stand up for the democratic process, and this is a quote from their platform in 2011. It stated, “Canadians expect their leaders to respect our democracy between elections, not just when we vote”. I do not hear Liberals speaking up on this issue. They claim they are against this bill, yet Liberal members are not coming forward to speak on this very deep issue.

I want to ask a question of my hon. colleague. Does the hon. member find it strange that during elections Liberals say one thing and yet practise something completely different when they get into the House?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. As members may tell from my vintage, I am a veteran of Liberal campaigns. I remember all the red books. There was a red book in 1993, and then again in 1997 and 2000. There was one red book after another. In each and every one of those red books, there were promises for child care, pharmacare, and improving the lives of Canadians. I ran in a couple of those elections when the Liberals won, and strangely enough none of those promises were kept. They talk a good game and are very persuasive. They have the name recognition and the coiffure to influence. However, when it comes to substance and to standing up and effecting change when they have power, it is not there.

I thank my colleague for the question. I can only say that we should judge them by what they do, because they do not do much.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy is unparliamentary, so I will not use that word in describing what I just witnessed. Not only has the Liberal Party been putting members forward, the very site she referenced was the creation of the Liberal government working hand in hand with the many different stakeholders to make it come into being. Not only have I spoken on the issue, but others from within the Liberal caucus have spoken on the issue.

When we talk about commitment, in Manitoba there is the big lie. The NDP premier of Manitoba said he was not going to increase the PST when he was on TV, but in government he increased the PST. The Liberal Party does not have to take any lessons on the issue of hypocrisy from the New Democrats.

My question to the member is this. Will she at the very least acknowledge with some honesty that it was the Liberal Party working in co-operation with stakeholders in Vancouver that ultimately put in place the one that is in Canada today?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we touched a nerve.

I am very happy to reply. It is very important for a community to have safe injection sites like InSite. Given all of the promises of all of the Liberal governments, if it came through once, that is not such a bad thing.

However, I also remember no child care. I also remember their promises to help first nations. I also remember that when it came to the most vulnerable of Canadians, those who had lost their jobs, it was the Liberal government and then the subsequent Conservative government that took—and I use the word “took”—$57 billion out of the employment insurance account and then said it was so sad that they could not support the families and people who were unemployed.

I do think there is perhaps hypocrisy in the air, but I will not name it.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the bill, I just want to comment on a couple of activities in my community that took place over the last week.

I had an opportunity to visit the Surrey Traditional School's grade 5 and 6 students. They were about 12 years old. It was part of a UN program, where their MP is brought to the school. I am glad to have had the opportunity to visit this school. I want to assure the House that we have a bright future because of these young people. They are very bright and asked very thoughtful questions. These students were very engaged in Canadian politics. Not only that, we discussed lowering the age limit for voting to 12 years old. We had a lively discussion about that.

They are wonderful young people, and I think Canada has a bright future with young people like those in the Surrey Traditional School.

I also want to give a shout out to a fundraiser that went on in my community. I am so happy to say to the House that I am from Surrey. The entire community came together to raise funds for the Philippines typhoon. It was standing room only in the banquet hall.

I want to give a special shout out to the organizers who brought this function together in a very short period of time. Sukhi Bath, along with Kultar Thiara of the Grand Taj, and also Narima Dela Cruz, were the main organizers for this. They raised over $100,000 for the Philippines disaster that happened last week. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of those who were caught in this terrible tragedy. Also RED FM, another radio station, held a radiothon to raise money for the victims of the Philippines typhoon.

I want to thank everyone in my community who came together and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to help out folks in the Philippines. I thank all of those people. I made a small donation, and I encourage all Canadians to make a small donation to the Canadian Red Cross. I encourage all members of the House to make a contribution directly to the Red Cross, which is helping the people who are affected by this typhoon.

I have heard a number of speeches today. I have not heard many from the Liberals, as the member claims. They seem to be missing. I have not heard anything from the Conservatives. The government is bringing forward a bill, yet it is not telling us why it is bringing it forward.

The rumour is, as always, that ideology triumphs over facts and figures. I believe the Conservatives are not standing up because we are going to be asking them questions, and it is pretty difficult to defend ideology over facts and figures. The facts and figures show that InSite has been operational in the Vancouver area for many years. It started operating in 2003. In 2008, the five-year certificate expired, and they reapplied to get the exemption under the Health Act.

However, the Conservatives fought this. They did not want to renew the licence for this particular facility, which actually helps people. It has been shown to reduce crime in the area. It has brought down the number of people dying because of drug overdoses. It has helped to clean up downtown neighbourhoods where people were shooting up and doing drugs in the streets. They can now get this service in a secure place.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada directed the Conservative government not to interfere. It ruled in favour of having InSite in Vancouver. Research and medical professionals had input in putting this site together. They have shown facts and figures on why it is working. Yet the Conservatives want to put in obstacles in the way so scientifically and medically proven techniques for harm reduction are not realized in our communities.

We have a role to play as parliamentarians and that role is to make sure that we take into consideration all the facts and figures to come up with policies that reduce harm in our communities. That is our role, yet the Conservatives are trying to put roadblocks in place so that people cannot have this. Whether it is public safety or harm reduction or public health, that is the case with the legislation.

We often hear about a policy coming down from Ottawa that does not take into consideration the local interests. I believe the bill does that. Basically Ottawa is telling communities what they need to do. I believe it is better left for communities at the local level, with their law enforcement agencies, police, health care professionals, to decide. The community decided to have this facility available in Vancouver. Yet now Ottawa is telling communities across this country what they need to do and what they need not do. I think that is wrong.

Communities will make better decisions, localized decisions. They can do this on their own. They do not need Ottawa coming up with obstacles, rules, regulations or laws to have this implemented at the ground level. Basically, the Conservatives are telling our communities what they can or cannot do in their backyards. I believe that is fundamentally flawed.

When we talk about ideology and evidence, we should be making decisions based on evidence, research and input from professionals, yet this is not the case. There have been over 30 peer reviewed studies that have shown the benefits of these kinds of sites in preventing harm to people. Conservatives are ignoring all of those facts, figures and research in coming up with this legislation.

Facts from InSite are that it has reduced crime in the area. It helps people who come to the site. There is another facility located above it where the users have access to rehabilitation services. One year there were over 2,000 referrals made to this on-site facility, which provided counselling and rehab services to people who were using drugs. It is another way to capture an audience and maybe help them get off drugs.

In my community in the Fraser health region we had over 100 deaths in 2001 due to overdose. When people overdose they also put a burden on our medical emergency services. It is fair to say that this sort of policy, this sort of law, will not reduce that burden on our health care. In fact, it will make it worse, because of the ideological approach that the government is taking. We need to take a practical approach that leaves these decisions to local bodies and let the professionals and facts decide how we want to deal with these situations.

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

Mr. Speaker, if anyone is ideological on this issue, it is the NDP. In listening to the debate today, New Democrats have not talked about the safety of society as a whole. They are focused solely on the drug user, and they are advocating something that is bad for a drug user, which is drugs, obviously.

The bill is for the protection of public health and the protection of public safety. It prohibits certain activities associated with harmful substances and allows access to those substances. These substances are frequently used in the production of illicit drugs. It is a worldwide problem that has a significant impact on Canada.

I wish I could read the whole bill. Anyone who has read the bill would say, yes, let us pass it for the sake of the children.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Conservatives come up with their facts. On this side of the House we rely on research, on medical professionals, on community workers, on health authorities, and on law enforcement agencies. All of them have said that having a site similar to InSite actually reduces crime. It takes drug users off our streets.

How can the hon. member justify that this somehow pushes drugs on to our children? It is beyond me. This is clearly an ideological position of the Conservatives. There are no facts at all behind the legislation.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise spontaneously after hearing the arguments from our friends across the floor. I feel as though I am listening to a sixth-grader who has not done his homework before speaking to the class. This is incredible. Their argument is black and white and borders on the absurd. It makes no sense. This is Conservative magical thinking, pure and simple. According to them, we just have to say to people who are unfortunately addicted to hard, intravenous drugs that that is bad. Then they will stop using drugs immediately. If we do not agree with the Conservatives, it means we support drug use. It is ridiculous. I cannot believe this. We are not in the sixth grade, and the committee is not made up of twelve-year-olds. In fact, my twelve-and-a-half-year-old son is capable of taking a longer-term view.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about how ridiculous this is.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, prior to my speech, I talked about 12-year-olds in grade 6 at the Surrey Traditional School I visited. I can assure my colleague that they certainly came prepared to ask the right questions.

I can see what the hon. member is trying to say in regard to the Conservatives. The Canadian Medical Association approved having InSite facilities available that reduce harm. It is good for public safety and it is good for public health. The Canadian nurses' union endorses the position of having these facilities open for people to use.

If we are to be making laws in this place, they should be based on facts, research, and science, not on ideology. Unfortunately, the Conservatives do not respect the decision that was made by the Supreme Court, and they need to rethink that.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues and apologize first off: I am really going to try my very best to freshen up the debate by presenting the same facts in a new light.

It is now clear that we have been discussing Bill C-2 for three or four hours, and I am the 12th or the 13th speaker for the NDP. Obviously, we have a shared vision of the whole thing, because that is what we have been talking about.

In the House of Commons, the place where all debates to enhance draft legislation should be held, the Conservatives are using one of two strategies: they either systematically gag the opposition, to reduce members’ speaking time in the House, or else they give us what we are getting today, nothing but silence from the Conservative members, who are probably now well aware that they have introduced a bill that is completely indefensible.

This government has lost the basic quality that allows any ruling class to claim that it is working on behalf of the people it represents. That quality is the ability to listen. I would even go so far as to say that it is especially the ability to listen.

Encased in its guiding ideology, the Conservative government is showing once again, with Bill C-2, that the Conservative way of thinking overrides reflection, analysis, any empirical findings, the desire of the majority of Canadians to do things differently, and even rulings handed down by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.

By way of introduction, I would like to remind members that in 2008, when InSite’s exemption was about to expire, the minister refused to renew it. The incident prompted a series of court cases that revealed how, even then, the Conservative government was on the sidelines of a society that was looking for solutions and ways to provide assistance to people who were dealing with many different issues.

To use a baseball metaphor, everyone would understand quite quickly that, after three strikes, the batter is out. However, in the Conservative ideology, that is not the case: either you believe or you die. After a defeat in the British Columbia Supreme Court, a second defeat in the B.C. Court of Appeal, and finally, a rejection of its case in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Conservatives are still ignoring the consensus among the majority of Canadians, to try to satisfy its voter base so that it will line the Conservative coffers again, I guess.

Do not forget that in 2011, this same government—elected with just 39% of the vote from the 60% of the population that voted—claimed to have been given a strong mandate. We can see that the government does not really understand what it means to consult a majority.

However, I feel it is crucial to remind the House that in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated the rights guaranteed by the charter and that it was arbitrary, going against the very objectives of the act, particularly with regard to health and public safety.

The court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which states that:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person...

That means that even if someone uses drugs, they have the right to life, liberty and security of their person.

Continuing with the quotation:

...and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

No matter, if the law does not allow the Conservatives to do as they see fit, they will change the law. That is basically what Bill C-2 is doing. This is not the first example of this style of governance, which has practically become a trademark of this government. It seems to think that democracy and democratic institutions are a hindrance and a burden to be contended with.

While the NDP recognizes the sensitive nature of the permits granted to organizations such as InSite, we firmly believe that these decisions need to be based on proven facts and expertise.

How can the Conservatives scrap the results of no fewer than 30 studies published in journals with recognized credibility, including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal?

How can they ignore the studies of sites similar to InSite in European countries and in Australia, which are not exactly developing countries? How can they push under the carpet the very telling results obtained by InSite? There is only one answer to all these questions: you have to see things in absolute terms and reduce complex problems to a simplistic black and white. For the Conservatives—I have said this about numerous bills, and it remains applicable today—everything is black and white. The good guys are on one side and the bad guys on the other; white on one side and black on the other; drug users on one side and sober people on the other; better still, the Conservatives on one side and the rest of the world on the other.

The campaign launched a few hours after Bill C-2 was introduced is a wonderful illustration of this narrowness of mind. When a slogan like “Keep heroin out of our backyards” is used, you quickly understand that for those opposite, the ability to offer a measured response to a many-sided problem is completely non-existent. It is the not-in-my-backyard argument to the power of 10.

If my remarks were designed to convert my friends opposite, it would be rather like a voice crying in the wilderness. However, through the media, I know that some people are trying to gain a clearer idea about this bill and the pros and cons associated with a facility like InSite. The silence of the Conservatives with regard to their own bill readily demonstrates the paucity of facts underlying their position.

I will take the liberty of quoting a few statistics to show the benefits of an approach like InSite's to public and individual health and the impact on public safety, which is often the blockbuster argument.

Between 1987 and 1993, the number of deaths by overdose in Vancouver rose from 16 to 200 a year. If that is not enough to indicate a problem requiring a solution, I have to wonder what it would take. In Vancouver East, however, since InSite opened, the rate of deaths from drug overdose has fallen by 35%. A reduction of 35% from 200 deaths means some 70 deaths avoided in a few short years.

Over a one-year period, moreover, 2,171 users of InSite’s services were referred to addiction counselling. That means a similar number of people who may get off the streets and resolve their problems, because they have been taken in hand by community resources.

While we cannot quantify it, there has been a significant drop in the number of discarded needles on the streets or in parks. This contributes to the safety of all citizens, particularly children who often play in parks.

A number of studies have focused on the negative impact of injection sites such as InSite, but none was able to show evidence of harmful effects on neighbouring communities.

Moreover, studies conducted by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction show that supervised injection sites have significant benefits. For example, they reach out to vulnerable groups and they are accepted by communities. That is indeed the case. Of course, some educational efforts are necessary, but it is possible.These sites also help improve the health of people who use them and they reduce drug use in public places. If that is not a major component of public safety, I wonder what we are talking about. As I mentioned, these sites also reduce overdose deaths.

However, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the Conservative logic puts in place procedures aimed at deterring the individual or the organization from fulfilling the stated mission or objective, if they want to open such a centre.

In this regard, Bill C-2 is no exception to the methodology developed by the Conservatives, as in the case of employment insurance for example. Accessibility is cut back, controls border on the inquisition, and it is increasingly difficult to have individual rights recognized. The result is that people get discouraged by all these obstacles and they simply get out of the system. This may improve statistics, but it does not address the situation of workers or, in the case of this legislation, of people struggling with substance abuse.

Since I am running out of time, I will move on to the conclusion right away.

Obviously, I am adding my voice to those of my NDP colleagues to strongly oppose this government's approach and this foolish binary vision of the world.

While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that all people are born equal, we know that we cannot hide behind such a declaration to avoid seeing our reality.

Our society is made up of individuals with very diverse life experiences, and our ability to live together harmoniously rests on being able to extend our hand to those who suffer, without passing judgment on the events that led them to this situation.

I will be voting against Bill C-2.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the NDP shows no regard for public safety or the greater community. I am going to read three clauses in the bill. They state:

Whereas the money that is used to purchase controlled substances that are obtained from illicit sources often originates from criminal activity such as theft, and that money, in turn, often funds organized crime in our communities;

Whereas the substances that are subject to the Act may pose serious risks to the health of individuals and those risks are exacerbated when those substances are unregulated, untested and obtained from illicit sources;

Whereas the negative consequences associated with the use of illicit substances can have significant impacts on vulnerable subsets of the Canadian population;...

Why would the member possibly have anything against such a well-written bill?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I probably spoke too quickly for the translation to keep up with me. It seems that my esteemed colleague missed out on several pages of my presentation, because I indeed talked about public safety. However, instead of speaking theoretically, I spoke to concrete facts.

When a place like InSite reduces the number of drug users because they get support from organizations that work to meet addiction needs, it is serving the interests of public safety. When I say that a place like InSite makes it possible for parks and streets to be clear of dirty needles that could infect others who do not use drugs, I am also talking about public safety. I have done so many times.

My colleague brings up completely theoretical points. He does make some sense. I would like to see him rise to defend his party's bill, rather than trying to impose his views with questions that are just too far-fetched.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières for his excellent speech and impressive presentation.

Indeed, as he mentioned, New Democrats have risen in the House all day to explain their position and provide facts. Unfortunately, throughout the day, the Conservatives have not even had the decency to rise to present and defend their own bill and to make their arguments.

This really bothers me and leads me to believe, as my colleague does, that perhaps they do not believe in it that much, and they realize that, as all the courts have previously mentioned, this bill does not hold water. In this regard, I would like to ask my colleague the following question.

Places like InSite are there to help people. They work to protect public health and to promote prevention and detox. This therefore helps ensure public safety. It does not compromise public safety. On the contrary, a place like InSite promotes public safety, and it is a place that can even help prevent crime.

I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that a place like InSite does not work against people's safety or crime prevention and that, on the contrary, it works precisely to help prevent crime.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question and preamble.

In response to the preamble, I will engage in some political science fiction and imagine that I am a Conservative for a few seconds. I believe that I would also find it hard to rise today in the House to defend a bill that is quite simply indefensible.

With respect to InSite or any such facility, what I find to be most perverse about the bill before us is that it completely ignores the humanity of addicts. Only by visiting an addiction centre or a shelter for homeless people, who often have multiple problems, do we come to realize that they are people who need help. Drug addicts are not second-class citizens.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Fisheries and Oceans.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise to speak to Bill C-2, which I believe bears the short name of safer communities act, or something along those lines.

Once we get to committee, we will likely be wanting to move an amendment at the clause-by-clause stage. I think a more appropriate new name for the bill might be “an act to make it look like communities will be made safer by spreading drug users to the alleys, parks, and backyards of our cities while simultaneously undermining public health and individuals' rights to security of the person and life itself”. To me, that would be a much better title for this bill.