Debates of Dec. 1st, 2014

Motions in amendment

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech and for showing us that this bill does not make any sense.

I would like her to talk about her riding, which is in the heart of Montreal, as my colleague from Hochelaga did.

In her view, would the presence of a supervised injection site make the communities safer, including that of Laurier—Sainte-Marie?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Yes, absolutely. I just touched on it in my speech because there were so many things to cover.

In Laurier—Sainte-Marie, a very urban and very densely populated riding, community organizations work hard picking up needles that are lying all over the place. Children find them in their schoolyards. It is unbelievable.

Opening a supervised injection site would greatly reduce the number of needles lying about. That is one of my greatest concerns in Laurier—Sainte-Marie, although it may not be the most important one.

There are several other problems. In Laurier—Sainte-Marie people who shoot up in the streets are also a public safety problem. We rely on organizations that work with drug addicts, even if they are not supervised injection sites, to try to get people to willingly enter the system. Cactus Montréal is a good example.

Having these people enter the system immediately is not their objective. They try to reach out to these people and have them enter the system willingly so they can receive the appropriate care.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-2, the respect for communities act. This is a very important piece of legislation, and one that will further strengthen Canada's drug control statute, known as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The legislation before us today proposes to entrench this belief in the law with regard to supervised injection sites, and is guided by a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, in 2011. In this ruling, the court affirmed that it remains the Minister of Health's authority to exercise discretion in granting section 56 exemptions, which can allow supervised injection sites to operate. However, notably telling is that its decision was not an invitation for anyone who choses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a safe injection facility.

It is interesting to hear members of the opposition saying that it must be either no sites, or that every site that one might want to have can go ahead. The Supreme Court of Canada gave parameters around what might be involved, and ultimately said that it would be within the discretion of the minister, having due regard for the criteria that the court set out.

As all members in this House know, our government is committed to helping keep Canadian families and communities healthy and safe. I want to begin my remarks by telling this House about some of the ways that we are living up to this commitment.

Earlier in the year, our government announced $100,000 in funding for a project that will train front-line community workers and criminal justice personnel in New Brunswick on effective, efficient, and timely substance abuse treatment strategies for youth involved in the criminal justice system. The funding was part of a national anti-drug strategy, which focuses on preventing illegal drug use and providing treatment services for those with drug dependencies.

There is also some talk about the fact that we need to provide treatment services and that we need to look at preventing illicit drugs. Members have to keep that in the background when looking at this particular piece of legislation.

The national anti-drug strategy also allows this government to get tough on drug dealers and producers who threaten the health and safety of our youth and the viability of our communities.

In 2012, our government introduced the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which is making Canadian communities safer while extending greater protection to the most vulnerable members of society. As part of this act, the government implemented mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences carried out for organized crime purposes or that specifically targeted youth. In doing so, our government has further enhanced the ability of Canada's justice system to hold offenders accountable for their actions.

Another piece of legislation that is vital to the government's focus on safeguarding Canadians is the one we have been talking about throughout the debate here tonight on Bill C-2, which is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or the CDSA, for short. It controls substances that can alter mental processes and that may produce harm to health or society when diverted or misused. Again, it is in this context that this proposed legislation must be considered.

The act also includes measures to protect public health, by prohibiting activities with controlled substances unless they are authorized for specific legitimate purposes. The act also serves to maintain public safety by prohibiting the possession, trafficking, importing, exporting, and production of those substances unless otherwise authorized.

The act is a prohibitive piece of legislation. That is, it sets out all of the things that cannot be done with a controlled substance, along with identifying which substances are controlled. However, there are times when exceptions to the rules need to be made, and they are made. This is generally accomplished through the making of regulations, and it is also where section 56 of the act comes into play.

Section 56 of the act authorizes a minister of health to grant exemptions from the provisions of the act. While the act gives the minister discretion in determining whether or not to grant an exemption, any decision must strike a balance between public health and public safety. Therefore, it is not an either/or, but must be something that takes into account all of the factors, which the minister has to weigh and then make a decision.

For the most part, the exemptions granted under the act are routine. For example, an exemption may be granted for medical purposes or for scientific ones, such as university-based research or clinical trials, which goes without saying.

The bill we are debating today has no impact on these types of exemptions. The type of exemption that would be impacted by Bill C-2 is one with controlled substances that had been obtained through illicit sources or, as we might say, accessed on the street. They are illegal substances obtained on the street, and, again, that must be part of the context within which we review this legislation.

Currently there are two types of exemptions of this nature that are entrenched in the statute. The first is for law enforcement purposes, for example, to train sniffer dogs used in seizing drugs, and the second is for InSite, as ordered by the Supreme Court of Canada. Throughout the debate, we have heard reference to the Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning InSite. In that decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act's prohibition on possession and trafficking of controlled substances, and affirmed the minister's right to exercise discretion in granting an exemption under the act. It is not in every case that there will be an exemption. It must be exercised as a discretion based on a number of factors.

Bill C-2 was developed further to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, and the criteria included in it codified the five factors that the minister must and should consider when assessing an application as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. The opposition has said that we should not go into these factors. The Supreme Court said that these are the very factors that must be taken into consideration before a decision is made one way or another. Therefore, I think it is absolutely appropriate to codify those in the amended legislation that we have proposed.

In the respect for communities act, this government is putting in place a regime that would provide further clarity and transparency to the way in which an application would be made for exemptions to conduct activities with illicit substances in a supervised drug consumption site. It would also ensure that the Minister of Health is provided with the information that she needs to make an informed decision on supervised injection sites on a case-by-case basis, as mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The respect for communities act outlines the criteria that the applicant must address when seeking an exemption to undertake activities with illicit substances at a supervised consumption site before the Minister of Health could consider the application. What is wrong with that? There are certain criteria that would have to be met, and the applicant must indeed attempt to meet them.

As I have mentioned, the criteria included in the bill are consistent with the factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. They include, among other things, scientific evidence showing that there is a medical benefit to the proposed activities, letters of opinion from key stakeholders, and a demonstration of the financial sustainability of the site. Simply put, the respect for communities act would give local law enforcement, municipal leaders, and local residents a voice before a permit is granted for a supervised injection site. That seems very reasonable to me.

It is our government's belief that communities deserve to have a say if someone would like to build a drug injection site where illegal drugs are used in his or her neighbourhood. Our government is concerned about the potential risks that supervised drug consumption sites could pose for the surrounding communities and the families who live in them. That is only reasonable. For this reason, Bill C-2 would make it mandatory for applicants to solicit the opinions of surrounding communities and relevant stakeholders, including letters of opinion from law enforcement, public health, and municipal leaders.

Further, the applicant would have to consult with a broad spectrum of local community groups and provide a report on those consultations. The applicant would also have to provide an indication of what measures would be taken to address any relevant concerns that are identified in the process. Again, I would say that is very reasonable.

The minister would also be authorized to publicly post a notice of application to seek broad community input for any proposed supervised drug consumption site. A supervised drug injection site should not be created in a residential community without consultation, and that gives the community an opportunity to pose any concerns and have input. It is also an opportunity for those applying for the licence to address any potential concerns. If they have gone through those steps that have been set in advance, then the minister may issue a licence, if she chooses, based on the evidence before her.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question that I have asked before because I think that it is important.

The bill we are debating in the House was introduced in response to a Supreme Court decision concerning the government's intention to close a supervised injection site. However, this site has been successful for 10 years because it has improved safety in Vancouver and also saved lives. That cannot be denied. That has been the case for 10 years. There is evidence and facts attesting to its success.

Does the member believe that the bill clearly responds to the Supreme Court of Canada decision?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course they do. The government has said that it does and has taken great pains to ensure that those issues are addressed.

Again, I would like to quote the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who said:

The factors considered in making the decision on an exemption must include evidence, if any, of the impact of such a facility on crime rates....

It must obviously mean that there are things that we must consider with that in mind. To that was added:

...indicating a need for such a supervised injection site...

We must then have some input and some facts to say that it should be needed here, or that it may not be needed in downtown Vancouver. That might be different somewhere else. She continued by adding:

....the regulatory structure in place to support the facility...

Is it there, or is it not? She also included the following:

...the resources available to support its maintenance, and expression of community support or opposition.

These are the words of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who said that we must consider these things when we are coming to some conclusion. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the legislation would deal with each of those aspects and say here is the framework, and here is the codification of how we might do that.

I find that very reasonable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very closely to a number of the Conservative members of Parliament as they have addressed this issue, not only at this stage, but also at the second reading stage.

I have a fairly clear question for the member. Does he see any value to the InSite that we currently have in Vancouver? I am sure he would acknowledge that many different stakeholders were involved in the creation of that particular site. In fact, many would say that it was a great example of federal co-operation with the different levels of government and different stakeholder that ultimately brought it into being.

As a member, does he see any value to that particular site?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my view is that the value of that site has little to do with the legislation before us. The legislation before us attempts to deal with what the Supreme Court of Canada said we had to take into consideration. If that site passes all of the criteria, it is entitled to be there as much as any other site.

However, in terms of co-operation with the community, the legislation talks about letters of opinion from provincial and territorial ministers responsible for health and public safety, local government, lead public health officials in the province, and the heads of the local police forces. If we are asking all of these people and they come to the conclusion that this is something we need and should have, after that consultation, and in addition to having public input, we will come to a consensus and say that in this case we should have the facility.

If that site had qualified under these circumstances, then it would. It obviously did once before with the consultation that it did. The minister would then look at giving it an exemption.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful that my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain has pointed out this section of the Supreme Court's decision. I actually took those words and put them into an amendment, which I attempted to get before the committee. That is because what is in the bill does not represent a codification of what the Supreme Court said. It represents a bastardization of what the Supreme Court said. It would put forward conditions, ideas, and notions that are obstacles to creating a site that the Supreme Court has found is in the interest of public health and safety.

The conditions from the court's decision are exactly what should have been in the bill, not a to z, and then z plus one, to confound the efforts to establish harm reduction. I wonder if my hon. friend can explain to me why they did a to z point one, instead of using the words of the court?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a most unfortunate characterization by the hon. member. It is unfortunate, and it is incorrect.

I do not know what the member would find offensive about the fact that she would consult people who are most affected in the area. I wonder what she would find difficult about accepting the fact that we might consult those who have some knowledge and who deal with this issue.

I wonder if she would look at the fact that this would be in the context of people dealing with illicit drugs, and they would be trying to administer them with immunity from prosecution. When doing all of that, one needs to take things into consideration along the lines of this bill.

Ultimately, the test will be when the Supreme Court of Canada has a look at issues such as this. This is an attempt to address those very issues. It may not be in the precise line and form, but it deals with all of those issues in a particular form.

The member, simply put, is wrong on this one.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to this important piece of legislation. I recall speaking to it at a previous stage, and sadly, I continue to be dismayed by the points raised by government members and the ongoing desire of the government to stifle what is important policy. It continues to disrespect the decision made by the Supreme Court, and more fundamentally, to actively remove some of the safeguards that would allow people, to put it as simply as possible, to stay alive.

This is an issue of life and death. Sadly, some of the rhetoric we are hearing from the government side, rhetoric that is not evidence based, does not take into account the difference safe injection sites make, whether it is here in Canada on the Vancouver east side or around the world. It is truly ideological rather than in the best interest of people living with addictions or in the best interest of people in our communities across the country.

We in the NDP have supported amendments to this bill, amendments that were not supported by the government. We oppose the main motion at report stage. The amendments proposed by the member for Vancouver East were to delete every clause of this bill.

We know that this is a thinly veiled effort to stop supervised injection sites from operating, which is in direct defiance of a Supreme Court ruling on these sites.

This legislation sets out a lengthy and arduous list of criteria that supervised injection sites would need to meet before the minister would grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These criteria would make it much harder for organizations to open safe injection sites in Canada.

We in the NDP believe that decisions about programs that may benefit public health must be based on facts, not ideology. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that InSite provided lifesaving services and should remain open with a section 56 exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court ruled that it was within InSite users' charter rights to access the service and that similar services should also be allowed to operate with an exemption.

Over 30 peer-reviewed studies, published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the British Medical Journal, have described the beneficial impacts of InSite.

Furthermore, studies on over 70 injection sites in Europe and Australia have shown similar benefits. InSite is one of the greatest public health achievements in our country, and we believe that it and similarly beneficial sites should be allowed to operate under proper supervision.

We want to outline that this is a deeply flawed bill based on an anti-drug ideology and false fears for public safety. This is another attempt to rally the Conservative base, as evidenced by the “Keep heroin out of our backyards” fundraising drive that started hours after Bill C-2 was introduced in Parliament. This bill, which will make it almost impossible to open safe injection sites, will actually put heroin back into our neighbourhoods.

We would also point out that Bill C-2 directly defies the 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which 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 the evidence on the benefits of safe injection sites, rather than setting out a lengthy list of principles by which to apply judgments.

The NDP believes that any further legislation on supervised injection sites should respect the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision, which is not the case with this bill. We believe that harm reduction programs, including safe injection sites, should be granted exemptions based on evidence of their ability to improve a community's health and to preserve human life rather than on ideology.

Along with my colleagues, many of us have pointed out that since InSite opened on Vancouver's east side, we have seen a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable disease infection rates, and relapse rates for drug users.

It is not missed by me, and I am sure many others, that today, on International AIDS Day, we are recognizing the importance of supporting public policy and public health strategies that save lives instead of endangering them. Sadly, what we are seeing is the government use ideological arguments and fearmongering to both disrespect the Supreme Court and to come up with policies that put people at greater risk.

Throughout my years of being a member of Parliament, I have travelled and have spent a lot of time visiting in my constituency. I have met many people who suffer from addictions. Many people can trace that disease back to the trauma they have gone through, whether it be because they were residential school survivors or the children of residential school survivors or whether it be the trauma related to intense physical or sexual abuse or the ongoing trauma that comes with living in poverty and in a state of hopelessness.

One of the recurring messages I get is how much people want and need help. We know that not all people living with addictions are in a place where they can get help, but the reality is that many people, through the support of friends and maybe family, get to that point, and maybe more than once in their lives. We need to make sure that they have somewhere to turn once they have made that decision, once they know that they can no longer keep going down the path they are going, a path that will almost certainly lead to destruction, or even death. We need to make sure that there are institutions and services where people can get help.

As I hear these compelling stories from people who need help and want help, I see too many examples in my constituency of there being nowhere to turn.

I think of the medicine lodge in Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation that has struggled to secure federal funding year after year to provide healing and addiction services to indigenous people who go there to get help, not just from our area but from across the country. It has had to fight to secure funding for programming that works, for culturally appropriate programming, and for support for indigenous people across Canada.

I think of Whiskey Jack, an incredible program for young people in our constituency, located in the PCN. It is a program that works with many underage youth who are suffering addictions, some of them at risk of falling through the cracks in their communities and in our society. This service that is run by committed people in our north is there to help them. Sadly, support from the federal government has always been an ongoing issue.

We need more services. In Thompson we were very excited to hear about the new detox beds in our local centre, yet all of that money came from the provincial government rather than from any partnership with the federal government.

The reality is that the current government is not just pulling away from InSite and from supporting people with addictions; it is pulling away from people who live on the margins of our society and have so much to lose, including their own lives.

I take seriously the need for us to take on our duty as leaders, as legislators, to make decisions based on evidence, based on fact, and based on respecting humanity rather than on ideology, as we see from the current government.

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

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

The bill would provide the Minister of Health with the information needed to make an informed decision.

I would like to ask the member opposite why she opposes the Minister of Health having the right information, whether it be science based, public safety based, or community based, to make an informed decision that would affect an entire community. Specifically, I would like to know more about her perspective on community consultation.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question. Sadly, though, as we know from the work that was done at committee, this bill is actually a veiled attempt at making it more difficult for places like InSite to operate and almost impossible for a place like InSite to open elsewhere in Canada.

Obviously we all believe that consultation is critical, but the way certain aspects of this bill are framed in this case is not actually to that point. It is about shutting down possibilities for continuing to do this important work in our country. We have heard this over and over again from experts. We have heard it from survivors of addictions. As I have pointed out, in article after article, peer-reviewed journal articles lead us to understand that the current government's rhetoric is actually not in line with best practice and where we need to be going.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government gave the exemption to Vancouver's safe consumption site, InSite, we consulted very broadly. We worked in conjunction with the provincial and municipal governments, public health authorities, business associations, and the public widely, and we managed to achieve what I would describe as a form of co-operative federalism wherein local, provincial, and federal authorities came together to create this organization.

Now we learn that in Vancouver, with all of the success that has accrued to InSite and all of the help that it has provided, that despite all the former police officers in that caucus on the other side, the Vancouver police strongly support InSite. The City of Vancouver supports it. The Province of British Columbia supports. It goes on and on. The only voice that is in denial is the federal Conservative caucus. Even members of Conservative parties around the country at the provincial level are supportive.

Could the member help us understand what could possess the current federal regime to act so contrary to science and experience?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it truly dumbfounding that we are at this point in discussing a bill that has been on the table for months, after all the incredible work at committee to get the point across to truly respect what we have heard from all the entities and experts and survivors that support it, as my colleague pointed out. It is dumbfounding to still be at this point, fighting a bill that is obstructionist, does not make any sense, and is purely based on ideology. It disconcerting that the current government is not only not looking at evidence that supports the important work of harm reduction and safe injection sites, but it is also once again failing to respect the Supreme Court decision from a few years ago. It is sadly not a surprise with the current government, which has gone far out of its way to shun and disrespect the role of the Supreme Court at many junctures in our country's recent history.

The fact remains that this is an issue of life and death for too many people, and we have the opportunity to use evidence, science, and expert advice to make the right decision. Sadly, the government is once again shunning all of that and turning to its narrow fear-based ideology to do the opposite.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak on a matter that is very important to both this government and to Canadians at large. I am talking about respect for communities and about Bill C-2, the respect for communities act.

Over the course of the debate in the House, we have heard considerable detail about the purpose of the bill and the provisions within it. My intention in speaking before the House today is to focus on a particular aspect of the legislation, the ways in which Bill C-2 reinforces the respect our government has for Canadian individuals, families and communities.

We know that illicit drug use poses serious risks to public health at an individual level and at the broader community level. These dangerous and addictive drugs tear families apart, foster addictions and destroy lives. The serious impacts these substances have on those who abuse them are not only detrimental to the user, but also cause serious concern and fear for their loved ones, their friends and families, and those who live nearby, including neighbours and other community members.

Illicit drug use also poses serious threats to public safety and order. For instance, we know that criminal activity results and prospers from the use of illicit substances. They often help organized crime get a toehold into our communities, and the profits that flow from their purchase allow these criminal organizations to proliferate. It is for this very reason that Bill C-2 requires that rigorous criteria be addressed by applicants wishing to establish new supervised drug consumption sites.

Equally important, Bill C-2 gives the people of these neighbourhoods, our senior citizens, young families and business owners, an opportunity to have their say on a matter that has the potential to dramatically impact their community. Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children, and the respect for communities act would give local law enforcement, municipal leaders and local residents a voice before a permit would be granted for a supervised injection site.

Bill C-2 establishes rigorous criteria that must be addressed when seeking an exemption for a supervised consumption site, and gives the community members a voice in this process. I congratulate the Minister of Health for putting such a responsive bill before us for consideration.

I also want to point out that the genesis of Bill C-2 is found in the 2011 Supreme Court decision in a case involving a supervised injection site. In that decision, the court affirmed the exercise of ministerial discretion to give exemptions under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or the CDSA. The court also said that the minister must balance public health and public safety concerns when exercising that discretion.

The Supreme Court of Canada outlined factors the minister must consider when assessing an application seeking an exemption from the CDSA to conduct activities at supervised consumption sites. These include evidence, if any, relating to the impact of such a site on crime rates; the local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support it; the resources available for its maintenance; and any expressions of community support or opposition. Those factors form the foundation of the criteria that are incorporated in Bill C-2.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House the last of these factors, which states that exemption applications consider “expressions of community support or opposition”.

As we have said many times here before, our government believes that input from the community is essential. Embracing the need for consultation is one of the major ways that we are demonstrating respect for Canadian communities, hence the title of this act.

The criteria set out in the bill would allow many different voices to be heard and to inform the minister's consideration of an application. The onus would be on the applicant to address all of the criteria. Letters would be sought from various individuals, and I will speak to that.

A letter would be required from the provincial health minister where the site would be located. The letter would need to outline his or her opinion on the proposed activities at the site, describe how those activities would be integrated within the provincial health care system and provide information about access to available drug treatment services for people who would use the site.

In a similar vein, a letter from the local municipal government would be needed, outlining its opinion on the proposed activities at the site, including any concerns with respect to public health or safety.

A letter from the head of the police force in that community would also be required, again outlining his or her opinion on the proposed activities at the site, including any concerns with respect to public safety and security.

Letters from the lead health professional, such as the chief public health officer, and the provincial minister responsible for public safety would be required.

This input from both officials and experts would facilitate the Minister of Health's ability to assess an exemption application. Also important would be the consultations that the applicant would undertake and report.

First, consultations would be required with the professional licensing authorities for physicians and nurses in their respective province.

Second, consultations would be required with a broad range of community groups in the area. The applicant would have to provide a summary of consultations and include copies of all written submissions received.

As previously stated, this is the type of input that is necessary and valuable to the Minister of Health. It does not replace the input that individuals may want to submit directly to the minister. That is why Bill C-2 serves to truly respect Canadian communities through a provision whereby the Minister of Health would give notice that an application had been received. If the minister posted such a notice of application, members of the public would then be invited to provide comments and views on the proposed site for a period of 90 days after posting directly for the minister's consideration.

One cannot overstate the dangers of illicit drugs, which are often purchased with the proceeds of crime and the sale of which often fuels organized crime. In cases where illicit drugs would be used at a supervised consumption site, our government believes that every measure must be taken to protect public health and public safety. That is why Bill C-2 proposes putting in place rigorous criteria that must be addressed before the Minister of Health can consider an application for a supervised consumption site where illicit drugs will be used.

This brings me to the six principles that would be embedded into the CDSA if Bill C-2 were to come into force. The minister would take these principles into account in balancing public health and public safety when deciding whether to grant an exemption for activities at a supervised consumption site. These principles are statements about what is known to be true about illicit drugs, including the fact that illicit substances may have serious health effects.

Adulterated controlled substances may pose health risks and risks of overdose are inherent to the use of certain illicit substances. Strict controls are required, given the inherent health risks that controlled substances may alter mental processes. Use of illicit substances presents a range of health effects for the individual user, from the risk of overdose to negatively impacting dental health to increasing the risk of devastating infectious diseases such as hepatitis C and HIV-AIDS. Malnutrition, life on the street and dependence on drugs like heroin contribute to poor health and a decreased resistance to disease. Drugs that are purchased on the black market have a high chance of being adulterated. There is no way to regulate their purity, their content or their potency. This amplifies the undeniable health risks posed by illicit drugs.

It is essential to take these principles be taken into account as part of the decision- making process for any CDSA exemption for a supervised consumption site. That is why it is so important that Canadian communities be granted a say before any injection site where these dangerous and addictive drugs are to be used opens in a neighbourhood. A supervised drug injection site would not be created in a residential neighbourhood without consultation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech as he read it. I want to come back to something that he repeated several times. He said that the government was open to co-operating.

If the government is so open to co-operating, then here are a couple of questions. Why, despite the bill being tabled by the Minister of Health, was it given to an enforcement department and committee, namely public safety and security? Is this not evidence that the government's view of addiction is that it is a criminal act?

Second, at committee, many witnesses came forward for three meetings. Many expressed concern that the bill would effectively shut down the current site in Vancouver and make it impossible to create future sites. Amendments were provided by the Province of British Columbia, the chief public health officer of B.C., and the City of Vancouver. All were denied. There were 60 amendments moved by opposition parties. All were denied by the government.

Finally, he talks about addiction. Many years ago, someone taught me that addiction is the antithesis of being free. When people are addicted to something they are actually addicted, so their freedom to choose is severely compromised because they are addicted. Could he help us understand why the government would not be facilitating or helping, particularly in the case, as he mentioned, of hepatitis C or HIV infections? For every HIV infection in our country, it costs half a million dollars in health care costs.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is the consultative process. The Minister of Health has put the bill before Parliament and committee for the express purpose of determining, according to the direction she was provided by the Supreme Court of Canada, the standards by which a community should have input. This would ensure that they have the appropriate level of information they can provide to the minister as to whether or not they want that injection or consumption site in their neighbourhood. It affects businesses. It affects communities. It affects safety.

The member asked why it was put before Public Safety Canada. In my speech I spoke continuously about public health and public safety. Those are the key elements the bill is addressing. This is not about InSite. Bill C-2 is about the consultative process that would ensure there is lots of input for the minister to make an informed decision, given that level of input at a future date on application.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member. I believe that it is important to base our laws on facts and not ideology. I would like to know whether the member believes that supervised injection sites help lower the crime rate and whether they not only help improve the users' well-being, but also the well-being of the surrounding community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, but it is a disturbing one. We are not talking about the right or wrong of InSite, or of that injection site. We are talking about a consultative process that would allow the Minister of Health to make a fully informed decision.

When the member opposite and his colleagues talk about ideology, their ideology would cause me to be concerned as to the freedom with which they would open consumption sites across the country without appropriate consultation.

I sat in committee and heard from many witnesses from a broad variety of professional backgrounds who offered tremendous insight into what is the right and wrong approach to this. Consultation is clearly the answer to give the minister the right information so that she could then proceed to make an informed decision on whether or not that facility would be opened in a community.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand today to talk on Bill C-2. It is not my first opportunity, as I spoke on the bill earlier when it was in second reading and I had the opportunity then to share some thoughts.

I am disappointed that the government has not seen the merit of making a considerable number of amendments to attempt to improve the legislation. For me, this feeds into the script that comes out of the Prime Minister's Office in terms of why we actually have Bill C-2 before us today in the manner in which it has been designed.

I think that Canadians should be aware, if they are not already, that there very much is a hidden agenda with the current Conservative government. We see that in the naming of many of its bills and the manner in which it brings in legislation.

As has been pointed out, when the government introduced Bill C-2, it was just a matter of hours before we saw a press release go out from the government. The government was trying to capitalize on some notion that Canadians could anticipate a bunch of sites being planted all over Canada in all regions and that this was something the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party were going to ensure would take place, but it would be okay, because the Conservatives were in government, and if they were given money, they would make sure it would not happen. It was a propaganda machine that the Conservatives put into place literally an hour or so after they actually introduced Bill C-2.

So much for arriving at what is in the best interests of Canadians through using science and information to design good, solid, sound public health and safety policy. Bill C-2 has very little to do with that, and I am being generous when I say “very little”.

Let us be very clear that there is a need to make some changes because of a Supreme Court decision; however, we also need to be very clear that Bill C-2 goes well beyond what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in terms of the factors to be considered when granting an exemption.

Section 56 of the CDSA gives the Minister of Health discretionary powers to grant exemptions from the act under one of three different categories: medical purposes, scientific purposes, or in the public interest.

The one site that Canada has is in Vancouver. It is known as InSite, and we have heard a lot of discussion about InSite. We need to recognize that it came into being as an experiment back in 2003. Back then, there was a great sense of co-operation. We used the term “co-operative federalism”, and I think that is an appropriate term to use in that situation, because in the lead-up to 2003 when this project came to the surface, we saw months of effort by a wide variety of stakeholders. They came to the table and said that we needed to do something. Ultimately, through consensus-building and working with the different stakeholders, this was the idea they came up with.

It was the Jean Chrétien government, working with Paul Martin and the minister of health, that came up with an idea of what and how the federal government would be able to contribute to the debate to realize something that the community itself wanted and that many other stakeholders felt there was a need for. We also had the provincial and municipal governments come to the table.

As I mentioned in my questions to government members, we saw other stakeholders such as police, nurses, other health care professionals and, most importantly, the community itself come to the table through non-profit groups, resident groups, and individuals who were having addiction issues themselves. All came to the conclusion that this was necessary.

I do not know to what degree the government of the day listens when it is told about some of the issues in our communities, especially in many of the larger communities. We need a government that understands that safe injection sites must be part of a broader evidence-based national drug policy that actually saves lives, reduces harm, and promotes public health. This is the type of government that I believe Canadians want. When it comes to action by the government in addressing that broad consensus, we find that Bill C-2 goes against what is in the public interest and the safety of Canadians.

I represent the wonderful riding of Winnipeg North, which has a great deal of culture and heritage. It has many positive things going for it. However, like other communities in Canada, it has some issues it needs to try to overcome. I do not see a government that is very sympathetic to that, because it is not looking for answers. It is not looking at ways to help communities.

A question I asked earlier today of a Conservative member was whether the member could tell us if he saw any value whatsoever in InSite in Vancouver. He skated about the question and did not provide an answer. If we listen to a number of members, whether it is today or previous days, in addressing this very important issue, we come to the conclusion that the government just does not care about dealing in a tangible way with many of the issues that are important to communities in our country. The InSite location in Vancouver is just one of them.

If we want to be able to deal with issues of addiction and crime in many communities, to look at the environments around some of the schools because of drug issues, needles, and so forth, and if we want to be able to deal with many of these constituency or types of issues, whether in Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg, or any other community, we at least need to approach the issue with an open mind. I do not see that on the Conservative benches because the government has ruled out any sort of science or other presentation that was made, whether by the police forces, health care providers, individuals having to deal with this addiction problem, or community activists who are trying not only to help those with addictions but also to turn communities around and make a positive difference among them.

I do not see a government that is sensitive to the needs of the community. I see a government that is more interested in getting re-elected and using legislation as a tool to attempt to scare Canadians into contributing to Conservative coffers.

The bill is more about that than dealing with the reality of the situation. I find that unacceptable, and Canadians will recognize that in 2015.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member. I would like to ask him whether or not he believes that his residents ought to have a say in whether or not a drug injection site should be put into their communities. Does he believe that his community representatives and leaders, whether the local school principal, teachers, moms and dads, or senior citizens, are the ones who ought to have a say in whether or not a drug injection site is put into their neighbourhood or at the end of their street?

For the families and many Canadians who have invested in their primary residences, that residence is perhaps the single largest investment they will ever make in their lifetime. If a drug injection site were to be put into their neighbourhood, at the end of their street or just behind their street, perhaps they ought be consulted before such a site goes in.

Does the member believe they should be consulted?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, not only do I believe that, I can also assure the member that they would be consulted.

Does she really believe that there was no consultation before the establishment of InSite? Nothing could be further from the truth. If and when it were to occur again, I can assure the member that there will be consultation taking place without this legislation.

The parliamentary secretary should reflect on that. Even her own minister would be quite content to see the facility close down, yet I do not believe that the Minister of Health has ever visited the facility in question, even though hundreds of lives have been saved directly through this one particular site. However, the minister has never even set foot in it from what I understand—

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I have.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, she has now. I am glad that she has, as parliamentary secretary. I am glad to hear that. She should be advocating what the Liberals and New Democrats are advocating.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

What has always struck me about the well-known InSite, which was founded 10 years ago, is how innovative it is.

Through creativity and imagination, we were able to create something that was completely new and innovative. The current government is not taking us forward; it is setting us back.

What does my colleague think about how innovative this centre is and how important it is to have innovative policies to address the major challenges facing Canadians and Canada?