Debates of Nov. 21st, 2013

Respect for Communities Act

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and question.

To answer his question, I think it is clear that the government is not even making an effort to outline its position on many of its bills. This is not the first time we have seen that no members are prepared to take the floor or share their views on a bill. Is that because the Conservative MPs are scared that their views make no sense and they have a hard time explaining them to Canadians? It also demonstrates a lack of respect for a democratic institution like Parliament, which is a place for debate and for moving bills forward.

The government does not seem to care about the debates in the House of Commons. That is shameful. I agree with my colleague's comments.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to talk about Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. What we are actually discussing is supervised injection sites.

Do we live in a perfect world? In a perfect world, everyone is well educated, everyone lives well, everyone is happy and everything is fine. The reality, however, is that we do not live in a perfect world. Children do not to go to school as much as we would wish, people do not necessarily have the job they want, and in many cases, basic needs are not met. Unfortunately, some people descend into the hell of drug use.

Once that happens, and we find that people are descending into the hell of drug use generation after generation, what do we do? What do we do as a society? The bill compels us to ask that question. As a society, what do we do when the issue arises? How do we respond in a civilized and effective manner? This is important. Everything depends on it.

The bill is a response by the government to a 2011 Supreme Court decision. The court based its decision on fundamental principles of our society, namely the right to life, liberty and security of the person. I am not talking just about those living in the hell of drug use, but also about those who may be exposed to it indirectly or by misfortune. This is where we get to the crux of the issue.

A supervised injection site reduces the risk of death and disease. Public safety must also be taken into account, of course. This cannot be done just anyhow and anywhere. Such things must be regulated. Reducing the number of needle-borne diseases like hepatitis C or HIV, and reducing the number of overdoses, is no small thing. We know that supervised injection sites make results like this possible.

Our deliberations should be based essentially on the public interest. What do we mean by “the public interest”? Some demagogues will say that the NDP is just defending drug users, but that is not the case. The NDP wants to make sure that harm is reduced to a minimum and that as many people as possible can overcome their problems. That is what “the public interest” means. We do not want children and young people falling into that world. If they are caught up in it, we want them to get out as quickly as possible, so that they can make a positive contribution to society.

We cannot think that someone who has succumbed to drug use once or twice will never do anything worthwhile in life. We cannot think that way. We must be able to give such people a chance, so that they have a real opportunity to make something of their lives. The reason they turned to drugs in the first place is that they saw no way out, no opportunity. They did not think they had the resources to achieve some level of happiness.

To get back to supervised injection sites, if we think about it seriously, the concept for such sites is primarily one of a front-line health care service.

Let me explain. To take the Vancouver example: nurses and paramedics supervise activities. People using the injection site are assessed. They can also be treated if things go wrong. Detoxification services are available nearby. It is easier to reach addicts, and offer them a way out. In our society, it is not possible for workers to go into the streets and go up to people one by one and tell them that services are available and they are invited to make use of them. That is not how it works; we do not have the resources to do it. By bringing them into a safe place where they do as little harm to themselves as possible, and where they can then be offered a way out, I believe we are working in the public interest.

I would like to give an example of something that upsets parents. They believe it is unacceptable to find used syringes in the parks in some cities. As parents, we do not like finding traces of drug use scattered about where children may go to play. Nobody wants that. By moving the activity to a site, getting people to do it safely, concentrating our health care resources—which, as we know, are hard-pressed—and optimizing our health care services through this kind of response, I believe we are working in the public interest. We are thus able to offer a better society to many people, both those who are living through the hell of drug use, and people to whom the children should not be exposed unnecessarily. There are enough bad examples in our society. We do not need more, we need fewer.

That is why I fail to understand some aspects of this legislation. The application process for setting up such sites and the increased complexity may discourage more than one community from trying to take responsibility and resolve or at least address the problem. There is no magic remedy, but if we add to the paperwork, the requirements and so on, are we working in the public interest? Is that not, rather, a much more ideological position? Basically, they want to see no evil, they want to be repressive and hope that it solves the problem, but history tells us that such a strategy will never really succeed.

When they tried to prohibit alcohol nearly a century ago, we saw what happened and how people reacted. I do not mean that we have to put up with people injecting just anything, but in this 21st century, we should have 21st-century solutions. We should provide care based on the knowledge we have acquired about how to treat people. First and foremost, the debate should be about the public interest, and I call upon all parliamentarians present to think about the debate on the basis of the public interest.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way. As he brought out, it was the criteria from the Supreme Court decision that highlighted the importance of scientific evidence and proper consultation.

I have a question for him relating to that. Why would the NDP be opposed to scientific evidence and consultation? It seems as though New Democrats believe that the decisions have all been made and they do not want to hear any more scientific evidence, other than what their ideology is. They have heard it all and they do not want to hear anything more.

However, the courts clearly said that we need to have clear and scientific evidence. Why would New Democrats be opposed to that? Why are their ideologies getting in the way of current scientific evidence, and why would they be opposed to hearing from neighbourhoods?

We are talking about future supervised injection site considerations. Why would New Democrats not want to hear from the neighbourhoods where such sites are being considered? Why do they not want to hear from families and from health professionals and hear current scientific evidence? Why is ideology getting in their way of supporting the bill?

This is what the courts have said. These are the criteria. We have listened to the courts and put this into the bill. Why would they oppose even what the courts are asking for?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question, which raises two important issues. First of all, scientific knowledge is obviously something we believe in. There is no doubt about it. As a matter of fact, more than 30 scientific studies have shown that the approach used in Vancouver is effective.

The member also mentioned communities. Our role is not to force communities to support the bill, obviously. I believe that community acceptance will play a key role in each situation. It will be up to each community to assess whether this approach would be appropriate and helpful in their context. We can think about what is happening in Quebec City right now, where proposals for the grain elevators are considered unacceptable by the community. It shows what happens when one tries to implement a project without community support. We know how important that support is.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very reasonable and sensible speech. I also want to remind all parliamentarians that the Vancouver supervised injection site is a great success. It works; it saves lives. People who use these services are more likely to take steps to overcome their addiction. The Conservatives argue that it makes no sense to help people inject drugs in a safe way. Are we to conclude that letting addicts inject drugs in an unsafe way would be a better way to help them?

I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that, far from encouraging drug addiction, these centres help people recover from addiction, a very positive goal.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. His comments go to two issues at the very heart of my speech: public interest and effective interventions.

We are not living in the 19th century anymore. Treatments have evolved. Nowadays, professionals from various disciplines can work together to treat people who have fallen prey to drugs. Concerted action is key. Parliamentarians from all political stripes all want the same thing: to see fewer and fewer people fall prey to drugs. That is the end goal, the most important thing. It is a public interest issue. We must use all the treatment tools and knowledge at our disposal to curb that problem.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you have no idea how disappointed I am with this bill. One would think that over the years we would get used to these kinds of laws that do more harm to the public than anything else, but I cannot get used to it. Bill C-2 is a very important reminder of that reality.

There are several elements in this bill that remind us just what the Conservatives represent. They are ideologues, they ignore scientific evidence and they even disregard rulings from the highest court in the country. It is absurd. This bill is first and foremost a way to dismiss the idea of supervised injection sites, just like they tried to do with InSite in Vancouver.

We need to put this bill in context. This bill was introduced because the Supreme Court ruled that the only supervised injection site in Canada—InSite in Vancouver—was necessary and that the Minister of Health should continue to give the facility an exemption. The court based its decision on section 7 of the charter, which states:

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 Supreme Court decision states:

On future applications, 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, 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.

I have a lot of questions. The court recognized the positive impact that supervised injection sites have had in east Vancouver, and its ruling was unequivocal:

InSite has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.

I repeat, “without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area”. The court is not the only one to say this. The Canadian Nurses Association agrees:

In Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, where the Insite safe injection site is located, business owners, service providers and residents in the neighbourhood agree that the clinic has had a positive impact on the health of the people who use it and on the health of the community.

That is a fundamental aspect of this debate. While sites like InSite can improve the situation, the Conservatives want to ban them. The campaign of misinformation the Conservative Party launched just after the bill was introduced is proof enough.

As a health care professional, I find this bill mind-boggling. I want to add my voice to those of people in the field who have criticized this bill. The Canadian Nurses Association is concerned that:

...the conservative “tough on crime” ideology will overshadow evidence that demonstrates positive outcomes for communities with harm reduction programs.

The Canadian Medical Association had this to say:

The CMA fully endorses the existence of these harm-reduction tools, including supervised injection sites, and believes they should be included in a comprehensive national drug strategy. The CMA's position is founded upon clinical evidence. Bill [C-2], it would appear, is founded upon ideology that seeks to hinder initiatives to mitigate the very real challenges and great personal harm caused by drug abuse.

The CMA represents all of the doctors in the country. It added the following, which is even more critical of this government:

The unanimous decision [by the Supreme Court] was grounded in evidence, not ideology. The overwhelming clinical evidence is that centres like Insite save lives when it comes to some of our most vulnerable patient populations. In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that “…the evidence indicates that 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 are seeing today seems to contradict the essence of the ruling.

Harm reduction works. This method has proven to be effective. In Australia, a report on supervised injection sites found that one site had reduced the number of overdoses, reduced the spread of HIV and hepatitis C and alleviated safety concerns related to users shooting up in public places and the availability of clean needles. The report even indicated that the site served as a gateway to addiction treatment.

Mr. Speaker, if that is not improving safety in the community, I do not know what is.

Many countries now have supervised injection sites: Australia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, just to name a few. These sites work.

It is no wonder Montreal's director of public health recommended, in December 2011, that the city establish such a site in the greater Montreal area. He gave a number of reasons similar to the ones I just quoted concerning Australia's experience. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because they are based on conclusive data that the Conservatives and the Minister of Health have patently decided to ignore. I will quote Montreal's director of public health:

The reasons that justify implementing SIS in Montréal are very succinct: the epidemic of infections caused by HIV and HCV, and the excess mortality among IDU [injection drug users]. Cocaine use, the drug most often injected in Montréal, is a major determinant of HIV transmission, as is sharing used needles. HCV infection is also having devastating effects: 7 in 10 IDU have been exposed to the virus and its transmission does not appear to be slowing. As for excess mortality among IDU, the data on hand indicate that the problem in Montréal is alarming.

I urge the government for once to do its job in the health field. Since the Conservatives took power, we have seen the federal government disengage from files where Canadians expect it to play a role. I am referring to the government's refusal to negotiate a new health accord with the provinces, the shortage of prescription drugs, and diluted chemotherapy treatments.

It is unbelievable and completely unacceptable for a bill such as this, which flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling, to be introduced.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear that the previous speaker, at least in theory, did not oppose scientific evidence.

I would like to ask the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert whether the NDP supports supervised drug consumption sites being approved for every drug that could be asked for, regardless of scientific evidence or community input. That is what we are asking for here, on a case-by-case basis: scientific evidence and community input. It is not some carte blanche, which is what the NDP is asking for.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer my colleague's question. Where does scientific evidence come from? From statistics and conclusive data. That is what the NDP is talking about. On your side of the House, however, you focus on ideology and not scientific evidence.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I remind the member that she must address her comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I am very passionate about this.

The member mentioned scientific evidence. I am a scientist. I am a health care professional. You have to have collected conclusive data to be able to talk about scientific evidence. I am no better than my Canadian medical colleagues or the Supreme Court, which has examined this issue.

If the member is claiming that the NDP does not believe in science, I have to think that she did not understand my speech.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate speech.

I know that she is a professional who truly cares about her constituents' lives and health. She shows that every day in her work as a parliamentarian.

The government seems to be confusing the notions of “scientific studies” and “community acceptance” of specific projects.

Could my colleague talk about the methods used in the 21st century to allow people to work on rehabilitation and reducing problems in our society? She touched on this briefly in her speech, but I would like to hear more.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his pertinent question.

As he said, this is the 21st century. Things have changed, as has our way of viewing this societal problem of drug use. The problem is there. We cannot put our heads in the sand. The NDP wants to help people who have drug addictions. We want to offer them a safe place and avoid the transmission of infectious diseases. We also want these centres to be a gateway for directing vulnerable persons to withdrawal treatment so they can receive guidance from nurses and specialized physicians. We want to offer them good health practices so they can live in dignity.

I have visited Vancouver East, and I can say that it left me devastated. What I saw there were human wrecks, people wandering the street. Is that what we want for our fellow citizens? We want a medical framework that can help these vulnerable people get out of their situation, but that is contrary to the ideology of the Conservative government.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

It is my privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I would like to begin by firmly stating that our caucus and our party are opposed to this bill, which has now come to second reading. Our caucus feels that decisions about programs that could be beneficial to public health must be given serious consideration and must be essentially based on facts. When we talk about facts, we are of course talking about tangible, solid, quantifiable evidence, not hypotheses and qualitative methods, or indeed ideological positions.

Not so long ago, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the InSite organization was providing essential services and should remain open under the exemption provided for in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Once again the Conservative government is proposing a very imperfect bill, based on a very conservative and openly anti-drug ideology. To justify itself it is fearmongering about public safety.

However, at present there is only one supervised injection site operating in Canada. This is InSite, and it is in Vancouver. Since it opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% reduction in deaths by overdose. Furthermore, it has been established that InSite has brought about a decrease in crime, in communicable disease infection rates and in relapse rates for drug abusers.

This site has become such a model that big cities like Toronto and Montreal are thinking of creating their own. We in the NDP feel that decisions about programs that could be beneficial to public health have to be maintained. We must reject any intervention based on unjustified reasoning.

The position of our party is supported by three major institutions in Canada. Those institutions issued a statement regarding the former Bill C-65, which is now Bill C-2. That statement speaks of a flagrant lack of judgment. It goes even further, describing this initiative as irresponsible and unethical.

Other institutions have also spoken out against this bill as proposed by the government, including the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association. Both have criticized the approach being taken by the government.

I would also like to mention the attitude of the Conservative caucus, of our colleagues opposite. Since this morning, I have noticed that there are only seven to 11 Conservative members in the House.

That is evidence of blatant disinterest on their part. The members who have spoken—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order.

I would remind the member that it is inappropriate to speak of members who are not here. I do not know if he intended to name them specifically, but I would advise him to tread lightly.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

I understand, Mr. Speaker.

What I wanted to say, really, is that our colleagues should be here to defend their own bill, but they are not. They are not doing their job. I am sorry if that was interpreted as highlighting their absence. What is more, among those present, only three of them rose to ask questions.

On this side of the House, the hon. member for Québec quoted the Supreme Court decision, and then a member from the other side asked her an irrelevant question. Proof that the Conservatives do not listen.

Among other things, the hon. member for Churchill stated the evidence, contrasting it with ideology, but the Conservatives did not seem to get it. The hon. member for Sherbrooke very clearly described the importance of these sites that are set up safely to address the scourge the bill refers to, but his comments went unnoticed.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona asked an excellent question and made some wise observations about the importance of monitoring these activities, and the hon. member for Louis-Hébert did a great job underscoring the social impact that this represents.

Last but not least, my colleague for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert drew from her medical knowledge to explain the risks involved as well as the scientific underpinnings of the issue.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this is an impassioned debate and something that is very important to all of us. The opposition members continue to talk about it as having an ideological bent on behalf of the government, and clearly we are hearing just that from the opposition.

The Supreme Court ruled that the opinions of local communities must be considered when these sites are proposed. I ask what my colleague opposite objects to about informed decision-making processes, which the minister must go through by seeking consultation with the community and, importantly, determining where the community opinion rest on these issues. Clearly, it is a very emotional issue for a community, but I am hearing that the opposition members do not support community consultation. I wonder why not.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my hon. colleague because his question is the same as what his colleague from Langley was precisely talking about.

The point is that we are talking about a judgment coming from the Supreme Court, and it is clear because, as I said, it was read to them. They are trying to put their objective in the other way, about community. We all know what the orientation of the Conservative caucus is. The Conservatives are not for community, they are corporate, so what they are probably defending is not the health security of communities but the pockets of big corporations. That is the point.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his pertinent remarks.

We all know Conservatives always try to get what they want, and they intend to put their moral values ahead of the lives of the most vulnerable Canadians. My question is for my colleague.

Does this bill not fly in the face of the Supreme Court decision?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert once again.

Yes, the hon. members of the Conservative caucus are directly challenging the Supreme Court by proposing this bill in this way. I do not believe that the highest court in the land would accept that a majority in the House of Commons with somewhat peculiar orientations can contradict what the Supreme Court has already ruled on after deep analysis and thereby jeopardize the processes or procedures that must be followed to protect the health and safety of communities by maintaining these injection sites in Vancouver. It seems to me that the Supreme Court has said that these sites should be maintained, and I do not see why the Conservatives are now putting up as many obstacles and barriers as possible to prevent them from doing their work.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House and join my colleagues in the official opposition in opposing the bill. Normally I do not read a speech, but I find that it is very important on this bill to be clear that I am conveying the actual words of medical specialists, including those from my city of Edmonton, from the Canadian Medical Association, and from the Supreme Court of Canada.

In reintroducing Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the government is flying in the face of credible, strong evidence that safe injection sites lead to improvements in public health and public safety.

The specific objective of organized, supervised safe injection sites is widely recognized to improve health outcomes and to reduce impacts to communities where drug use is already occurring, and it is important to recognize that drug use is occurring.

Bill C-2, in imposing 24 conditions on the operation of any safe injection site and then completely giving the discretion to the minister to ignore that advice and impose her decision, rather than relying on the opinions of scientists and medical experts, has a clear intent of rendering it inoperative.

The intent of a safe injection program is to directly address the problem of addiction to dangerous and illegal substances by mitigating the negative effects of such addictions while ensuring that addicts have access to support when they are ready to begin treatment to get off drugs, and it is important to emphasize. That is clearly the path we support, and that is the path of the safe injection sites.

Safe injection sites have been proven to do both of these things. The Canadian Medical Association has expressed deep concern about this legislation. It has pointed out that there is overwhelming clinical evidence to show that safe injection sites save lives, and it has called for such facilities to be included in a national drug strategy. According to the CMA:

Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion. In a preliminary assessment based on initial review of the Bill, the CMA is deeply concerned that the proposed legislation may be creating unnecessary obstacles and burdens that could ultimately deter creation of more injection sites.

The CMA's Dr. Haggie, then president, in response to the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, said:

While for some this is an ideological issue, for physicians it's about the autonomy to make medical decisions based on evidence, and the evidence shows that supervised injection reduces the spread of infectious diseases and the incidence of overdose and death.

Dr. Stan Houston is a professor and specialist in infectious diseases at the University of Alberta, and he has extensive experience working with HIV patient care and organizations assisting such patients. Dr. Houston expressed support for the operation of safe injection sites for a number of important health-related reasons. According to Dr. Houston:

Although exact numbers are difficult to determine, hepatitis C infection rates run rampant through intravenous drug users. At one point, more than 80 per cent of those users were infected.

He has advised that due to needle exchanges and other social services provided by Streetworks, an Edmonton support program, the rates of HIV and hepatitis C have declined. According to Dr. Houston:

HIV cases are steadily going down in drug users in Edmonton. In fact that's our biggest HIV prevention success story. HIV rates are going up in other risk groups, but they are going down in injection drug users. And harm reduction practices should get a large part of the credit.

He said that by provision of a safe, supervised location for injection, staffed by medically qualified people, the probability of engaging drug users in drug treatment is substantially enhanced. He said that the preponderance of evidence from 25 peer-reviewed reports determines that programs such as InSite improve rates of further treatment for addictions.

Dr. Houston has advised me that, to his knowledge, not one case of drug overdose has occurred at InSite since 2003. That is a lot of lives saved, lives that can be redeemed and then supported to end addiction. Should that not be the health objective?

Dr. Houston has pointed out to me that those who operate safe injection sites are not pro drug use. It is quite the opposite. Surely it is better to have addicts injecting drugs in a clean, secure place instead of back alleys. Quite logically, it is a preferable alternative to ensure public safety. He has also called for more government funding of drug treatment facilities to help end their addictions.

Dr. Houston points out that the research supports his position. The obvious question, then, is this: why is the government not willing to take the advice of Canadian doctors when it comes to dealing with a serious health issue?

In September, a total of 87 organizations experienced at dealing with addictions signed a letter to the Minister of Health, urging her to not reintroduce this bill. They included a number of Edmonton organizations that assist the homeless, HIV-infected persons and addicted persons, such as the Boyle Street Community Services, the Bissell Centre, the George Spady Centre and Street Works. Their common request to the minister was for support for increased access to supervised consumption sites similar to the InSite program in Vancouver and those in other nations, including Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands, in order that lives could be saved.

These dedicated and highly respected community organizations point out that supervised consumption sites have been proven to decrease overdose, death, injury, and risk behaviours associated with HIV and hepatitis C infections; to increase access to health care for marginalized people; to save health care costs; and to decrease open drug use and publicly discarded drug use equipment, which is one of the issues communities usually raise.

I urge the minister to respond to their request to sit down with them to learn from their direct experience in dealing, on a daily basis, with people battling addictions and seek effective solutions to both assist those addicted and increase public safety.

There are obvious medical, social and psychological costs associated with a single HIV infection. If nothing else, one can appreciate the cost savings derived from preventing HIV infection. Directly because of the introduction of a needle exchange program in Edmonton, reduced rates of infection among drug addicts have been reported for both HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C, while in the same period rates have increased in other high-risk areas.

If we are truly serious about tackling the issue of drug addiction and the attendant health risks to the entire Canadian population, as parliamentarians we have an obligation to base our decisions on appropriate program or regulatory responses, sound science, and research results. Surely this should be the basis for all good public policy.

As the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network concluded from a detailed study, “many of the arguments against are ill-conceived or overstated, and are outweighed by the likely benefits of safe injection facilities”. It reports that there is an ethical imperative to at least support the trial facilities given the unacceptable harms currently experienced by drug users and the general community, and the potential for these sites to eliminate or reduce at least some of the harms. It advises that a refusal to establish these critical sites may be deemed to violate human rights obligations under international law or potentially subject governments to negligence suits. It is important to observe what they are advising us.

It is important to observe and respect as well the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of the continued operation of InSite and right of access to similar facilities.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court stated in that unanimous decision:

Where, as here, 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.

In closing, by shutting its eyes to the evidence and seeking to put as many barriers in the way of communities opening their own safe consumption sites, the government is risking the lives and health of Canadians. Let us not forget that if it were not for the Supreme Court, lnSite would have been closed.

I urge the Minister of Health to withdraw this bill and begin a serious consultation on how we can decrease addiction to illegal drugs in Canada and the attendant health and social costs.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite quite intently. There were a couple of things that popped out during her statement. One was with regard to those who were under the use of heroin. With respect to InSite she mentioned, “when they are ready to get off the drug”. Most heroin users who I have been around in my former life are dead scared to get off that drug because of what happens in the next 72 hours.

The other thing that I did not hear in her statement was that there has not been a decrease in the use of heroin. There may be a lot of things that InSite does, but one of the things it does not do is decrease the amount of heroin used not only in Vancouver but across Canada.

Therefore, could the member speak to the reduction in heroin use and how these sites would try to do that?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the time I spent with hon. member on a previous committee.

Those are two very interesting points. On the first one, absolutely, people who are addicted to serious drugs are terrified to stop that addiction. They are addicted. That is exactly what it means, and the more serious the drug, the more serious the addiction.

That is precisely why the medical specialists, including Dr. Houston, who is a very highly recognized doctor in Alberta, are saying that this is why we need the safe injection sites. If addicts are in a back alley taking those drugs, there are no people there saying to them they can help them get off the drug and refer them to a treatment centre. There is simply someone in that back alley saying that they can get another hit next week.

On the other matter, I do not believe I said these injection sites reduced the use of drugs. What I have said is it has reduced the incidence of related diseases.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona for her excellent speech. It was very well documented with quotes, evidence, and clear examples of the benefits that supervised injection sites can bring. These sites may not reduce the number of drug addicts, but, as we have seen, they definitely decrease the number of people who die from their addictions. This is a proven fact.

It was interesting to hear my NDP colleague talk about people who inject drugs in the streets. As a parent, I am worried about my children, because I live in a neighbourhood where children play in the streets and parks. If they fell on an infected syringe, they could get dangerously ill. The supervised injection site would ensure that there would be fewer syringes that could end up, just like that, in the hands of our children.

I do not understand why the Conservatives, who certainly must worry about the children playing in parks and streets, are not more responsive to this reality. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced the hon. member is a good father and wants to protect his children. I am convinced that any other member in this place who has children or grandchildren wants to do the best to protect them from both becoming addicted and from coming into contact with people who are addicted and might become HIV contaminated or into needles. I have found needles in my garden in my residence in Ottawa. That is deeply troubling.

This is exactly why we need to set up these safe injection sites: so there is not a possibility that anyone in our community can come in touch with contaminated items. However, there is also the chance that any of our family members, our children, could end up becoming infected with hepatitis C or HIV because we do not have those injection sites for using drugs.

We must remember that it is not simply people lying in alleys who are injecting these drugs. Drug users are across society. Everyone needs a place to go that is confidential, where they can get assistance. Clearly, evidence from around the world and Canada says that drug injection sites are the best mechanism to reduce disease and to get people off drugs.