Debates of Jan. 27th, 2014

Respect for Communities Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member mentioned about the darker side of society. In my previous profession, I worked for 20 years on that darker side of society, as he called it. I would not call it that. I would call it a place where people have slipped into something that I am sure none of us in this House would want them to. However, some do, and as a result of that we have created places such as InSite in east Vancouver. Arguably, whether it does any good is a question to anyone, but the reality of the situation is that it is called a “safe injection site”. And that is what it is: an injection site. There are other opportunities for those who want it.

My question is again for the member, and I have asked this every time. There is not one gram of heroin that is purchased legally in this country. What do the members of his party think they should do with regard to the safe injection of heroin for those who want it in InSite itself?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point of places like InSite is that, regardless of whether the purchase of heroin is legal, it will be consumed by some individuals because there is a thriving trade in drugs that we do not accept, and none of us like it, but it is there. Just as there is a trade in marijuana and a trade in crack cocaine, there is a trade in heroin, and the problem with the trade in heroin is that with it come some very unacceptable consequences of disease and death and the exposure of small children to very dangerous things. That is the type of thing that InSite is attempting to prevent, and that is the kind of thing for which these places need to exist.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada is now fundraising on this issue. The Conservatives are out there telling everybody that these InSite sites are going to sprout up like fast-food restaurants across Canada, alarming people into believing something that simply is not true. There are others who are now convinced that this is like going to a spa, where people go in and are given a cocktail of drugs and a syringe and are made to feel comfortable.

I am just asking if the member would describe the very unusual circumstances in which a site like this would actually be created, and how desperate people must be to go in and ask for a needle so they are not subjecting themselves to the risk of disease, but are actually inviting the prospect of rehabilitation by those who are at the site to offer that kind of relief.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the very core of this issue is the issue of addiction. There are probably several dozen, if not more, members of this very chamber who suffer from addiction problems to tobacco and, because they know it is unhealthy and they know it is something they should not be doing, they wish they could stop it, but they cannot because it is that powerful a force. The same is true of heroin, but on a much larger and more dangerous scale.

It is on a larger scale in the sense that an individual is more consumed by it than an individual is consumed by tobacco, although having to leave the chamber every couple of hours to go and have a smoke is perhaps being consumed by it. The point is that it is an addiction, and this is but one way to reduce the harm caused to individuals by an addiction. We have done it with tobacco. We have safe tobacco places all over Canada—called “the out of doors” generally. Yet we cannot seem to come to grips with another addiction.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2. Before I go any further, I would like to take some time to put everything in perspective.

First of all, we need to understand that any bill is a response to a problem. In this case, the problem is injection drug use. I would like to clarify that heroin is a drug that people inject. Unfortunately, there are several other drugs that people inject. For example, some people crush Dilaudid pills, a morphine derivative, and inject them. Heroin is one thing, but people sometimes inject other drugs, such as cocaine.

Injection drug use is a problem, but it is only part of the problem. There are other parts of the problem related to the sale and trafficking of drugs. There are the many risks related to public safety and the health of users, such as infection and bad lifestyle choices resulting from drug use. There is also an impact on the fabric of our society.

To tackle problems like this, we need to do several different things. The first is, of course, prevention. The provinces try to reduce drug use by taking preventive measures, identifying people who are at risk and taking action at the school level. They also fight drug trafficking. There are programs and houses where people can wean off drugs and get clean. There are also methadone programs to help people overcome their heroin addiction. There are strategically located needle drop boxes, and clean needles are given out to prevent infection. That practice is becoming more widespread and has its own logo. When we talk about distributing needles for injection drug use, it might seem like this is big-city problem, but what many people do not know is that, unfortunately, people use injection drugs in the regions too.

In my administrative region, that is, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, which is a little bit different from my riding, from April 2006 to March 2007, 1,333 users came to see the staff and 10,482 needles were distributed. These figures are quite surprising to people who probably did not think that there was so much drug use in Abitibi-Témiscamingue because there is not much talk about it. In the more rural areas, drug use is very localized. It is often apartments that are used for improvised injection sites. This may be less often the case in downtown cores, parks and backyards. Unfortunately, there is still injection drug use.

This is why action is needed. When we talk about rural areas such as mine and the high number of users there, resources like those in a safe injection site are not going to be effective. The most effective solution involves nurses who take their services to drug users on the ground.

However, when there are many users, such as in major centres where the problem is widespread, it is more useful to have supervised injection centres because of the volume of work for social workers, doctors and nurses.

Furthermore, a safe injection site is more than just a place to inject drugs.

Clean and sterile injection equipment is provided, and users are shown an injection technique that minimizes cross-contamination. Obviously, the drug itself is not sterile, but an attempt will at least be made to minimize the damage. Blood-borne infections such as hepatitis B and HIV are one thing, but people can also contract skin and soft tissue infections by using the wrong injection technique. The staff try to decrease the risk by showing users the proper technique.

In addition, action is taken in the event of an overdose. Emergency care is given. Staff connect with other agencies that can deal with other issues. Referrals are given and staff help make contact. For instance, if an addict is a victim of domestic violence and she wants to get out of the situation, she may receive help in resolving other issues with a referral to other health professionals. If a woman becomes a prostitute in order to pay for drugs, she can be referred to other agencies that help women who have turned to prostitution. The needs of the individual are paramount. Over time, the addicts are helped and encouraged to adopt healthier lifestyle choices.

Clearly, some users have a very long road ahead of them. In the beginning, no one will tell an addict to eat three square meals a day and exercise for 30 minutes. The staff try to give advice that will make a tangible improvement in the user’s situation. They will try to ensure a steady improvement. If the user says that he sometimes eats only every third day, he will be encouraged to have at least one meal a day. Centre staff try to minimize the damage as much as they can.

The centres also carry out social interventions. For instance, users can receive housing assistance. If someone has no home, he or she can be directed toward the appropriate resources.

The healthcare professionals at the centre conduct a brief appraisal simply by looking at the person. When they watch a person move around, they may realize that there is a problem. If a person has walked for two days on an ankle that is sprained or fractured, if he or she has an infection or yellow skin, they will be able to take action, provide advice and tell the person where he or she can receive care. This is not the case if a person remains solely on the street with his only contact being the network, if we can call it that, linked to his drug addiction.

If there were no supervised injection sites, these individuals would only come into contact with other drug addicts and dealers. That would be quite unfortunate. At least while they are at the site, they cross paths with people who are not part of their addict community and who can help them. Often these are the only people they come into contact with outside their network and the only people they can turn to for help.

Contraception advice is also given at the centres. People are encouraged to use condoms or another form of contraception. Being pregnant is not an ideal situation for a drug addict.

These centres therefore provide assistance on many different levels.

Normally, on seeing that such centres are beneficial as part of a comprehensive approach, a government should provide the tools these centres need to operate, all the while conducting reasonable evaluations to ensure that the location is appropriate.

However, this bill sets so many conditions that it is not even possible to establish these centres. Trying to meet all of these conditions makes no sense whatsoever. The list of conditions is endless. I think it goes as far as the letter “u”. It is truly incredible. Setting up a centre becomes virtually impossible.

Concretely, this bill provides for the establishment of a centre, provided all of the stated conditions are met. However, the list of conditions is so long that practically speaking, the government really wants no part of this. This is really not a responsible attitude for the government to adopt, given that it should be taking steps to improve people’s health.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a few things. She talked about technique. I have never met heroin users who needed to be taught technique. They could probably teach anyone in this House how to properly do it.

The member talked about sharps disposal units. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I agree with the fact that we need clean syringes. I agreed with all of that.

She hit the nail on the head with regard to talking about east Vancouver, which has the only safe injection site in all of Canada. Let us not have that construed to mean that they are spread across Canada. There is one.

The fact of the matter is that they have a lot of nurses who walk those alleys to ensure that those people who want to be taken care of can be taken care of. Not everyone does. Some just do not want to be taken care of.

There is not one gram of heroin that can be purchased legally in Canada, yet we set up an injection site that says, “Bring your illegal heroin into this safe injection site”.

My question is for the member's party and the member. What would the member's party do with regard to safe heroin in an injection site?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I would rather people not use heroin. The problem is that people use it anyway. That is why we are in favour of setting up a supervised injection site. The reality is that this type of drug is still being sold.

We are not telling people to come and sell their drugs at these centres. That is absolutely not the case. People will get their drugs elsewhere. It is not the role of health care professionals working at centres like this to find out where users got their drugs. Addicts are warned not to engage in buying or selling drugs near the facility. Addicts generally follow this rule to ensure that the supervised injection site remains open. I know that heroin is illegal, and I do not want to encourage people to use this drug, but I also know that people have health problems and may infect other people. Syringes are discarded on the ground. I also know that some people die as a result of this. In my opinion, supervised injection sites can benefit such individuals. For all of these reasons, I think we should support the establishment of such facilities.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question from the member for Kootenay—Columbia. We are kind of talking past each other, I believe, in the House.

In terms of InSite, this is not a question about legality or illegality. The fact is that these products are bought illegally on the streets, and they are going to be used. The real question is how we prevent the further spread of HIV-AIDS and how we protect people's health. The reality is that it is happening, and we need to address the problem.

In terms of InSite itself, I would say to the member that the real issue is protecting people's health, not just users but others as well, including those who might have sexual relations with somebody who is a drug addict.

It is about the health of society and preventing further damage to society. That is what InSite is all about, and that is why it should remain.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been talking about from the beginning.

The purpose of safe injection sites is to protect health and reduce harm. We know that people are using drugs. Now, we want to reduce harm. Can we at least ensure that these people do not contract HIV or hepatitis B? We do not want them to be compromised for the rest of their lives if they do succeed in breaking their habit. Can we ensure that people who have sex with these individuals will not be contaminated and get sick? Can we ensure that these addicts receive appropriate counselling and care? Can we ensure that they do not end up with an unwanted pregnancy while dealing with their addiction? We respond with the tools and resources available.

Now, the other things are still being done. The police continue to battle drugs and drug trafficking. We are not asking to set up these centres and stop doing all the other things I have just mentioned. It is a question of a comprehensive response. Safe injection sites must be part of that comprehensive response if we want to achieve real success in the fight against drugs.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on a subject as sensitive as Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. First, we should remember that the government introduced this bill before prorogation. Then, it was Bill C-65; now it is Bill C-2.

This bill is a clear demonstration of the Conservative government’s methods and intentions with respect to public health. It values ideological prejudice over Supreme Court decisions; cynicism over a search for the common good; and scorn over a helping hand for our fellow citizens in distress.

Before continuing, I would like to recall some facts that are essential to an impartial debate. The core of the issue concerns the effectiveness of supervised drug use, and the referral of addicts to appropriate care.

In order to assess effectiveness, let us look at the results achieved by the only safe injection site in Canada: InSite, located in Vancouver’s East Side. It opened in 2003, as part of a public health project undertaken by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and its community partners. The establishment of this safe injection site was a coordinated response to the wave of fatal overdoses hitting Vancouver.

The annual rate of fatal overdoses had increased 12 times between 1987 and 1993, to some 200 cases. Over the same period, the Vancouver area experienced spectacular increases in cases of communicable disease, such as hepatitis A, B and C, as well as HIV and AIDS. From the beginning, InSite has reported conclusive results in terms of public health and safety. The fatal overdose rate in the East Side district fell 35%, as shown in the study conducted by the prestigious medical journal The Lancet in 2001.

The main thing, however, is that the centre provides valuable help to addicts by referring them to detox programs. It has been shown that going to InSite increases by 70% the likelihood that an addict will take part in a detox program. Moreover, the benefits provided by the centre have a direct impact on safety and public order in Vancouver’s East Side. Since InSite opened, there has been a significant decrease in the number of needles left in the streets. Drug use in public places has decreased. The impact of the centre is so apparent that 80% of those surveyed who live or work in the neighbourhood support what InSite is doing. Even the local police recognizes its positive impact.

The success of this centre is recognized not only at the local level, but also at the international level. More than 30 medical journals, including The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, have studied the positive impact that InSite has had on health and public safety and published articles about it. This success is not random or accidental. In fact, 70 cities in Europe and Australia have opened similar centres to monitor drug use, and we are seeing the same positive impact.

Instead of helping InSite help drug addicts get clean, the Conservative government is creating more legal impediments and putting out more ideological propaganda. In 2008, the exemption under section 56 of the act expired. This exemption allowed the centre to exist and operate, but the government refused to renew it, which led to a serious legal battle. The Conservative government went as far as the Supreme Court to oppose InSite's right to provide its services. In 2011, the highest legal authority in Canada issued a very clear ruling on this matter. It called the Conservative government's decision arbitrary and even said, and I quote, “it undermines the very purposes of the CDSA...”.

The court declared that, in accordance with section 7 of the charter:

The infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them. The grave consequences that might result from a lapse in the current constitutional exemption for InSite cannot be ignored.

The court states that the minister must grant InSite in particular, and safe injection sites in general, the exemption provided for in section 56(d), when such a 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 Supreme Court decision completely repudiated the Conservative government's position. However, not content with having lost, the government is implementing a well-known strategy. Driven out through the door, it comes back in through the window. Having lost in court, it is coming back today with a bill that is contrary to the Supreme Court ruling.

Communities will now have to show the benefits of safe injection sites in order to obtain an exemption and be able to work. In order to do so, they will have to go through incredibly complicated administrative procedures and ultimately submit to the decision by the minister, who will do whatever he wants in the end. We are awash in arbitrariness.

The government’s action in the area of public health is based on prejudice, not on fact. The government cannot accept the existence of InSite, even though the benefits of the site have been proven. To support its action, the government is calling on Canadians to support the campaign it calls “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. However, this bill will bring heroin into our backyards, into our neighbourhoods, into our streets and in front of the eyes of our children, because it will be almost impossible to open safe injection centres.

The NDP has a clear standpoint on this issue. We are sensible and responsible people. We have a clear-eyed view of the situation, without preconceived notions. We can draw the necessary conclusions in order to manage it for everyone’s benefit. Desperate people take drugs. It is a fact. There are solutions that can help them recover from their addiction and preserve their health. These solutions work; let us implement them. We must never forget that the true test of a civilized society lies in how it treats its weakest members. Let us not turn a blind eye to them. Let us hold out a helping hand to our fellow citizens, who have stumbled on their path. Let us help them regain their dignity.

The NDP believes in these values. The NDP believes that any public health decision must be based on facts and on facts alone. The NDP believes that any bill put forward by government must abide by the rulings handed down by the Supreme Court. That is why I am calling on the honourable members of this Parliament to listen to what I am saying. We must work together to throw out this bill that will undermine public health and safety. Let us turn the page on ideological assumptions; let us look at reality full on and develop a constructive solution that will benefit all our fellow citizens and lead to a more just society.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her statement, the member said that InSite was created for effective monitoring of drug use. She said it was created because of a wave of drug overdoses, which is true. She also said that InSite has reduced deaths by overdose by 35%, which again is true.

The reality is that InSite was created to monitor those who inject heroin, and for no other reason. Some of the spinoff is the fact that we provide services to help those people get off of these drugs. We do not want anyone on drugs, but the reality is that InSite was created for the effective monitoring of drug use by those who inject illegal substances.

I will continue asking this question to each person in the opposition. Heroin is an illegal drug, which is normally approximately 65% to 70% pure. However, sometimes it can be 90% pure. That is when there is a problem, and yes, a person had better have someone there to help, because people die if they do not have someone there. How would the member's party control heroin being injected by someone who believes it should be safe?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what some of my colleagues have already noted: that this is a flawed bill based on a certain ideology.

As mentioned, we are not talking about legalizing certain drugs. That is not the issue here. The issue here is public health.

In that respect, I would like to quote from the statement on Bill C-2 issued by the Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, which reads:

The bill is an irresponsible initiative that ignores both the extensive evidence that such health services are needed and effective, and the human rights of Canadians with addictions....

It is unethical, unconstitutional and damaging to both public health and the public purse to block access to supervised consumption services...

This response contains all of the information needed and sums up this bill, which nothing like what we might expect when it comes to public health and safety.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservative member for Kootenay—Columbia asks these questions, and in his questions, he gives the very reasons we need a safe injection site: public safety, making sure there are safe needles, and access to help. The fourth, which was couched in his question, was what happens if people take a drug that may kill them. He said that it is a good thing and that they had better have someone there to help them. That is exactly what the site is about. There will be someone there who will help them.

The Conservatives' answer is to just say no. One cannot just say no to alcohol addiction. One cannot just say no to cigarette addiction. People need help, and they need help here.

I wonder if the member could offer the House some insight as to the desperation of people who actually go to a safe injection site, which is, by the way, not a spa. It is a place that has a little cubicle where a person gets a safe needle and gets help.

Could the member answer that question?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when people talk about drug addicts, it seems as though they lose sight of the fact that we are talking about human beings. We may have the impression that we are dealing with individuals who have been turned into robots. However, in reality, drug addicts are people who have led extremely difficult lives, which, unfortunately, as we know, have led them to use certain drugs.

I would like to come back to how these supervised injection sites benefit the community. In 2004, a study was conducted by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction that clearly demonstrated that centres like this reach out to the most vulnerable groups and are accepted by communities.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to take part in a debate that we began before the holidays, and are continuing now, on Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Let me recap. People usually cannot take drugs—in this case, we are talking about heroin—but an exception was made for a centre in British Columbia called InSite. People can go there and inject drugs under the supervision of health care professionals. That is why they are called supervised injection sites.

However, for this to happen, an exemption was needed, and the Conservatives decided to take the centre on. The Conservative government clearly intends to close the centre. As a result, it started lengthy legal proceedings that were costly for taxpayers. In the end, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision was unanimous: this kind of centre is permitted. Despite everything, the government is continuing its assault.

It is important to remember why these centres exist. Contrary to what we are hearing from the Conservatives, who ran a fundraising campaign to take on these centres, it is not a free-for-all, where people take drugs and have fun. No, the idea is to protect them. It is a matter of public health and safety. The goal is to ensure that people who use drugs like heroin do so safely. They rarely choose to take drugs; it is an addiction.

The idea is to ensure that they are not injecting drugs in the street and that they are supervised in order to prevent overdoses. Overdose deaths have dropped by 35% since the centre opened. In addition, needles no longer litter the streets. Cases of devastating illnesses like AIDS and hepatitis have also decreased.

Such centres already exist in a number of countries. There are 77 centres around the world: in Europe, in Australia and one in Vancouver. This initiative has also received support from professionals in the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have an ideological vision, illustrated by the slogan of their fundraising campaign, which says that they do not want such centres in their backyards. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, they are holding up the process and drafting legislation to make authorization from the minister a requirement.

Their intention is obvious. Clearly, the government is at odds with what 30 or so serious medical studies have shown: these centres save lives. This is a public health and safety issue. The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia will certainly ask me about the use of heroin in these centres since he has asked all my colleagues that same question. We are well aware that heroin is illegal in Canada. We do not want to promote heroin, quite the opposite. People bring their own heroin to the centre.

Unfortunately, some are addicted.

It is not a question of choice; it is an illness to be addicted to such drugs. What we are trying to do, and what people from InSite are trying to do, is to help people with addictions. They can make sure that their health issues are taken care of and that there are explanations on how to stop and how to get away from addiction.

Ignoring the problem does not work. We have seen it time and time again, with all the lives that were lost. The Conservatives are asking us to just go back, but it means that the lives that were saved might be lost again.

That is why the Supreme Court of Canada was very clear. I find it difficult to accept that the government and the Conservatives do not understand that the Supreme Court rendered a decision on the issue and that the scientific community supports this initiative.

The government is choosing to act based on ideology. We knew that the Conservatives do not believe in science. They are at odds with what scientists are saying. They are using prejudice and fear. That is most unfortunate.

I have tremendous respect for my colleague. I know that he worked in public safety before he became an MP. I do not understand why he is opposed to the centre when we know that the decisions are clear and that the centre saves lives, and we can see the whole process that was followed.

To come back to Quebec, since the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Montreal has decided to develop four injection sites. I know that the members opposite said that there was just one site. They are just trying to remove any possibility of setting up a site; they are trying to ignore the fact that the site works. That means that the Conservatives are not looking at what is actually happening. On the ground, people are still dying.

I am happy that there has been this support from the people of Vancouver. It was a step in the right direction, and unfortunately, instead of helping the site, the government put obstacles in its path. It took the case to court, even as far as the Supreme Court, let me say again. However, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court told the government that what it is doing makes no sense and is against the law, contrary to the charter and unconstitutional.

Sadly, the government is persisting in closing its eyes and, in a purely ideological approach, is continuing in a direction that really is contrary to public health and safety.

I am not the one saying this. If it were me alone, I could understand that the Conservatives might complain. Studies have been done by scientists. However, I am pretty sure that when the question is put to the Conservatives, they will not be able to denigrate that. The facts and the studies are there. Unfortunately, they are coming to us with a bill like this one. According to legal experts, this bill may once again be contrary to the Constitution and thus initiate another legal battle.

I know they are used to doing this, and it is an approach they follow. Having once been a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I know that the Conservatives tend to introduce bills without really studying their impact, despite the recommendations of the Canadian Bar and legal experts. They subsequently find themselves arguing before the Supreme Court. This costs money.

Speaking of saving money or cutting budgets, something the Conservatives are so good at, why do they not bring us more sensible decisions that begin by taking into consideration what is going on in the field, that is, do what is required to save lives, then abide by the Supreme Court’s decision? Why not just move in that direction?

We know that the heart of the problem is that the Conservatives say “not in my backyard”. They use that to stir people up, whereas in reality we know that this saves lives. Certainly, it is not a good thing, in the sense that we would all like to see no more heroin in the streets or in Canada. We would like people to stop using. The reality is different, though. What we are asking is that the Conservatives face facts, make sensible decisions and do, among other things, what the Supreme Court tells them.

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

Mr. Speaker, some of the points made by the member in his speech are true. We need to have these types of centres available to help those who choose to come off of any type of drug. However, they have to make that choice themselves; no one can force it upon them.

The member mentioned that there was an exception made for InSite, which there was. There was an exception made for InSite to continue to work. He talked as though the Conservative Party is attacking that site. There was a Supreme Court decision; it is not about attacking a site.

From the perspective of 20 years of policing, there is a big difference between attacking a site and condoning and enabling people to continue drug use. There is a big difference. I believe that with all of the valuable information that InSite provides for those who want to get off of drugs, there is also an enabling factor. Everyone who walks in there can inject heroin unfettered. There is not one person who will tell them not to do it.

Again, my question to the member is this. How would he control the type of heroin coming into an injection site so that it can be injected safely?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

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

When he asks his question and says that no one will tell users not to inject themselves, he is mistaken.

We know that InSite exists, and so does OnSite, which is there to try to help people to stop using. It would be wrong to say that the goal of InSite is for everyone to have fun injecting themselves. As I said at the start, it is not a free-for-all. The idea really is to do some prevention.

What the member is saying is equivalent to saying that it would be better not to let people inject themselves at a supervised site and let them do it outdoors. Unfortunately, we know that in that case, people will inject themselves outdoors. That does not solve the problem. We have to realize that there is a problem and determine how we are going to take action. Action includes making sure that the people who go to the site inject themselves safely, but it also includes helping them to get off drugs. That is what the member does not seem to understand.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is such an important issue. Clearly the member has visited the centre in Vancouver, as have I. I am well aware of the importance of helping people turn their lives around. One way to do that is by having these kinds of clinics. They not only provide a facility, but also education and any other health care that is needed.

Has the member had an opportunity to visit the centres? I would appreciate his comments.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to visit the site. On the other hand, I have read a great deal on the subject. As I explained, people are also talking about it in Montreal. There is interest in setting up four sites. Practical steps are being taken.

This is a debate that affects the whole of Canada. I admire those who struggled to set up the InSite clinic in Vancouver, but I believe that the progress that has been made in this area, and the lives that have been saved, can be beneficial for Canada as a whole.

I believe we have to learn from what has happened, from the experience acquired, and be aware of the problems that exist. We know that we are not going to solve the problem by merely saying, “Say no to drugs”, and everyone will suddenly be able to say no and be cured.

I am not a professional, but I trust those who are on the spot, I have confidence in the fact that there are people who have struggled and gained experience, and that all the experience gained will benefit Canada as a whole.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time that I am rising in the House in 2014, I would like to offer my constituents, all my colleagues in the House, and all Canadians my best wishes for happiness and especially for health.

I wish a happy new year and much health and happiness in 2014 for everybody.

I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-2. This is a very imperfect piece of legislation that is built on an anti-drug ideology and on unfounded fears about public safety. It is another attempt to rally the Conservative base, as demonstrated by the fundraising campaign called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”, launched only a few hours after Bill C-2 was introduced in Parliament.

However, by making it almost impossible to open supervised injection sites, the bill will actually bring heroin back into neighbourhoods.

Canadians should be concerned with the approach the Conservative government has taken to drugs. This bill is a prime example of how it refuses to deal with health problems it finds distasteful.

We are told this is a response aimed at shoring up public safety, but the facts do not bear out this claim. Instead, they point to an inevitable return to a situation that places more people at risk than under the current scheme, which actually minimizes the risk to users and society at the same time.

How do we know this? It is because of the outcomes that have been achieved by InSite, Vancouver's safe injection site, operating since 2003. InSite has allowed researchers to study first-hand what happens when heroin use is treated as a public health challenge, rather than a moral failure on the part of the users. The results must inform this debate.

Before InSite opened, Vancouver had been through a six-year period that saw a twelvefold increase in overdose deaths. At the same time, there were increases in communicable diseases among injection drug users, including hepatitis A, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, as well as HIV/AIDS. Since InSite opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% decrease in overdose deaths, along with a decrease in crime, communicable disease infection rates and relapse rates of drug users.

Surely we can all agree that these are beneficial outcomes, yet the government continues to rally against these benefits and prefers to fight for a system that punishes users and the communities they live in, in order to play a wedge politics fundraising game.

The Conservative government tried to close InSite in 2008, when it refused to extend an exemption to section 56 of the current Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which allowed the safe injection site to operate. That resulted in the Supreme Court ruling that called on the minister to consider exemptions for safe injection sites based on a balance between public health and safety. It called on the minister to consider all of the evidence on the benefits of safe injection sites, rather than setting out a lengthy list of principles by which to apply judgments. Despite the clear instructions from the highest court in the land, the Conservatives' fearmongering on the issues continues.

I agree with my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, who said that this bill has more to do with creating an environment of fear and division than with creating a system that helps our communities or concerns itself with the safety of users. What is troublesome is that this bill does not match the spirit and the intent of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Instead, it is designed to work against that ruling and create a situation where everything would run in the government's favour to not even consider applications or, if it does, to simply turn them down based on the principles it has outlined.

It is clear that the government wants this fight. One might even suggest it looks forward to the court challenges that would likely follow the enactment of Bill C-2. We have to remember that it is playing with taxpayers' dollars. The government should remember, while it is engaging in this propaganda exercise, that Vancouver's safe injection site has the support of the police, local businesses, the board of trade and municipal politicians.

While the government is creating a climate of fear based on misinformation, the outcome of Bill C-2 would actually increase the danger to our communities.

When we force addicts into the shadows, the outcomes are predictable: more needles on the streets, greater rates of infection as communicable diseases run rampant, broken lines of communication with addicts, as well as more deaths by overdose. Is that what Canadians want? I cannot imagine that we would.

To help us understand why, we have to ask ourselves who the addicts are who we are discussing. There seems to be a lot of discussion about addicts as if they are somehow second-class individuals. Perhaps we are more informed by television and movie portrayals than we should be, because it is easy to lose sight of the fact that when we talk about addicts we are talking about people. Perhaps it would help to remember that these are our children, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, not anonymous people. We have to cut through stereotypes and recognize that drug addicts come in all shapes and sizes and from all walks of life, and how we care for them says much about who we are as a society.

That begins with the admission that the choice we face with this bill is not between safe communities and safe injection sites; it is between legislating with the benefit of evidence or relying on the rose-coloured glasses of opinion. In fact, as they push this bill through, the Conservatives are disregarding the advice of the Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, along with the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association, all of whom have spoken against Bill C-2.

The Canadian Medical Association tells us that:

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.

The Canadian Nurses Association stated:

Evidence demonstrates that supervised injection sites and other harm reduction programs bring critical health and social services to vulnerable populations—especially those experiencing poverty, mental illness and homelessness.... A government truly committed to public health and safety would work to enhance access to prevention and treatment services—instead of building more barriers.

Despite having the benefit of those who work closest with the population at risk, it is clear the Conservatives want to continue with the failed and costly war-on-drugs mentality. This is at the same time as jurisdictions all around the globe are seeing the benefit of taking a different approach to dealing with drug addiction. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland are all working with some form of safe injection site and are seeing the same benefits as we have seen in Vancouver. In addition to the reduction in overdose deaths and communicable diseases, safe injection sites also allow for a stronger line of communication with addicts, through which to educate them about options that may be available for those who would like to break their addiction.

It is obvious what the Conservatives are doing with this piece of legislation. They are whipping up fear across the country at the expense of vulnerable individuals. They are further demonizing addicts to suit their own needs and raise money for political gain. They are dismissing the benefits of InSite and preparing to abandon the project without offering any alternative to deal with the health-related challenges of addiction. This speaks to a willingness on the government's part to see increases in the infection rates of HIV as well as hepatitis A, B and C, as a result of its initiative. The Conservatives are choosing to increase the money spent in our health system dealing with these preventable diseases in order to attack a progressive approach to dealing with addiction. If we were debating this from a purely economic viewpoint, the position of the government would make little sense. This is a case where the Conservatives are showing that their economic management is limited to a narrow band of issues and can take a back seat to the politics of opinion when it suits their needs.

As the world moves away from the belief that we can wipe out drugs with concentrated punitive efforts focused on users, the current government is moving in the opposite direction.

New Democrats would not do that. We believe that harm-reduction programs, including supervised injection sites, should be exempt, not for ideological reasons, but because of the evidence showing that these programs help to improve community health and save human lives.

To achieve that, we must defeat this bill and ensure that those communities that want to benefit from safe injection sites are provided with the process to do so—one that is not designed to frustrate them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to read what some of the services are that are provided at InSite. It has 12 injection booths where clients inject pre-obtained illegal drugs under the supervision of nurses and health care staff. InSite also supplies clean injection equipment such as syringes, cookers, filters, water and tourniquets. If an overdose occurs, a team led by a nurse is available to intervene immediately. I am happy to hear that if there is an overdose, they intervene immediately. I think that is a great thing because I have seen enough overdoses in my life to know that no one likes to get Narcan once. Do not get me wrong, but providing these things for the people who are very vulnerable is not about whether they think it is right or wrong. They are just trying to get a fix. That is what they are trying to do.

I truly believe that these types of sites condone and enable. We cannot do that. We have methadone clinics they can go to if they want to. It is an illegal drug and no one knows its purity. What is the party's take on trying to ensure that the heroin is safe?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague knows a little about law and justice. He is absolutely right: it is not about what is right or wrong; there is an addiction. How do we deal with that addiction? We know addicts are going to get a fix no matter what, so we need to make sure we protect the public. Protecting not only the users but the public is through these safe injection sites.

Let us look at the statistics. The rate of overdose deaths in east Vancouver has dropped by 35% since InSite opened. Those who used InSite services at least once a week were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program, and that is the whole goal. We know people are going to use, no matter what, but let us make it safe for the people who are on the streets as well as for the people who are off the streets.

For our children's sake and for our future, we need to make sure we do this right, and this is the right way to do it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague comment on some of the cost implications? In my home city of Ottawa, several years ago there was a very powerful debate about a site where we could deal with addiction. I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the House that being addicted is the antithesis of being free to make choices, because people are actually addicted.

In our hometown of Ottawa we realized that the cost of treating, for example, one HIV patient over a lifetime was somewhere around $600,000. Maybe my colleague could explain to Canadians why this is an important feature of having a harm-reduction site that minimizes infections and reduces health care costs for the country.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. Health care costs are extremely high. As we know, having this type of program in place has proven to alleviate the use of emergency services, and for overdoses, it has reduced deaths as well.

When we remove the ability to have such a service available, we actually increase the costs in health care, not to mention the costs in our justice system, as well, because we find a lot of people before the courts because of addiction, having been arrested for using.

We have to look at the global aspect: the costs of the courts and health care. Also, there has been a Supreme Court decision on this, and we wish the government would abide by it and not waste taxpayers' dollars on challenges to this type of legislation that it is trying to put in, which does not work, over and over again.

Situation in Ukraine

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some consultations with all parties in the House and I think, if you seek it, you will find unanimous support for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 later today, no quorum call, dilatory motion or request for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.