Alain Giguère

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, counterfeiting is clearly a criminal activity sometimes. We do not talk nearly enough about the fact that these people can not only counterfeit a product but also sell a dangerous product.

At the international level, if we integrate these products into products made in Canada, our entire production chain loses its value.

Could my distinguished colleague tell us about the impact of counterfeiting on our international image?

[Petitions, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting petitions protesting the elimination of postal delivery at Canada Post. I do not need to remind members that home delivery will be eliminated in three municipalities in my riding: Lorraine, Rosemère and Bois-des-Filion.

This same government supports keeping seniors at home, but it is depriving them of this rather essential service. I am presenting these petitions to protest this situation.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that Canada has banned the use of certain weapons by way of an international convention, whether it be for poison gas, bacteriological weapons, or even nuclear weapons—which we call weapons of mass destruction.

We have been invited to participate in another ban. We are being called upon to pass Bill C-6, which involves a ban that all members of Parliament are in agreement with. They do not want to see weapons of mass destruction. Through the back door, however, Canadian soldiers are being asked to engage in combat operations where they can take advantage of these weapons, and even participate indirectly in their deployment and use. That is the problem.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, allied NATO member countries have signed this agreement to prohibit the use of cluster munitions. Are these countries lesser allies? Are they enemies? Why can our allies sign this agreement, but our hands are tied because one day the United States might use these munitions?

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly not question the integrity of my esteemed colleague.

The fact is that this kind of weapon is used to bombard an area rather than a target, regardless of who is in that area. That is the problem. It greatly increases the number of civilians affected.

Previously, a pilot locked on a target and dropped a bomb. Now, a missile is launched from a great distance and an area is destroyed. That is the problem. Civilians are made victims, something not permitted under the laws of war.

I would like my colleague to tell me how he justifies bombarding an area without knowing whether there are civilians present.

[Respect For Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there is no problem in demonstrating that it is a success. The major problem is what I would call the “not in my backyard“ syndrome.

If you live in a neighbourhood with lots of children and lots of parks, you might wonder whether it is really an appropriate place for activities of that kind. However, the neighbourhoods with drug addiction problems are usually downtown, in places where there are no schools.

There are a lot of problems, however. A lot of the police officers here today could tell you that you do not generally find young schoolchildren in those rough and unpleasant neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods like that are much more of a problem and require more police intervention.

The goal of all this is to turn police intervention into medical intervention. As for the “not in my backyard” mentality, I would say that, in most places where such sites could be set up, it would almost be better for them and life there would become more pleasant.

[Respect For Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, his wealth of experience should remind him that these people need help. However, they must take the first step themselves. We cannot do it for them.

You can urge someone to stop drinking or taking drugs, but they have to take some action too. That action has to be encouraged materially and medically. He is right to a considerable extent, except on one major point: people do not buy drugs at these sites. They come in with their drugs.

Giving someone a syringe is an important way to prevent them from contracting AIDS or any other disease. It is especially important to get rid of the used syringe. It really is a matter of public health. These sites do not sell drugs.

The more services that encourage them to get out of the drug market, so to speak, the better it is. Better, not worse. I support his position overall, except on one major point. It is a place where people take drugs but it is not a place where people sell them.

[Respect For Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we all have all known or seen people struggling with addictions. Very often the problem is with alcohol. Unfortunately, some are addicted to illicit drugs. It is not a happy situation for their parents, their friends, their loved ones or themselves.

These people not only need help, but also some supervision to reduce the problems they can cause. A neighbourhood where drugs are sold is also one where discarded dirty needles litter the ground and where people use drugs out in the open.

In this situation, people could well be using extremely dangerous drugs, perhaps cut with unknown substances by unscrupulous drug traffickers who are only interested in making money on the backs of their customers. This means we are facing a serious public health problem.

Clearly, the fight against drugs includes a policing component: some people need to go to jail. An individual bringing in a container of cocaine or heroin is not really someone who is socially responsible. In fact, quite the opposite is true. People who become victims of this drug need medical supervision. It has been said that all it takes is a little willpower and they could take care of themselves. This is not true. They need medical supervision to leave drug use behind or to not die from it.

Earlier, I spoke about a problem we are currently facing in Montreal. The same problem can be seen from time to time everywhere in Canada when someone cuts drugs with a harmful substance or when the drug purity is too high or too low. This leads to overdoses, and people using this drug are at risk of dying in an alley or a squalid apartment. The risk is extremely high.

People in one Vancouver neighbourhood recommended a medical solution. Right away, this makes it possible to get rid of one problem: no drug trafficker has control over that area. A centre is not meant to sell drugs or encourage people to use them. It is not meant to be placed across from a school, where children could see things.

The danger is already there. If we want to avoid having used syringes in a schoolyard and having children find drug users taking drugs out in the open, the solution is a safe injection site. Obviously, there is a lot of confusion. People think that we want to encourage drug use. However, that is not true. Nothing in the InSite project aims to encourage drug use. The opposite is true. This is a public health project.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has been very clear about this. In 2011, it stated that InSite's services were essential and that it had to remain open under the exception set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is an essential service in the context of a medical action.

It is understandable that the minister wants to impose conditions to ensure that safe injection sites do not become places where drugs are sold. No one wants that. However, we want at all costs to prevent a situation where a functional medical institution is not allowed to operate under the pretext of ensuring public safety.

At this safe site, drug users can get immediate support if they react badly to a drug. This person may be an old friend or a member of an MP's family because, unfortunately, no one is safe. Also, if someone decides one day that they want to stop using drugs, the employees at the safe injection site can give that person medical and psychological support.

We could go on and on about this. I understand that people are afraid, but this should in no way be turned into a police issue. Would conditions like this be imposed on an Alcoholics Anonymous chapter? Never. Would such restrictive conditions be imposed on other public health organizations? No, we would not do that either. The government obviously has a double standard. Is alcohol more socially acceptable than drugs?

It is not easy living with an addiction, whether it is to alcohol or drugs. These people have the right to our support. We must have a minimum of decency and empathy towards our fellow Canadians in difficulty. Is there anything more difficult than dealing with an addiction? We have to extend a hand to these people who are suffering greatly and provide them with medical, physical and emotional support.

Since a centre was established in Vancouver, there have been 35% fewer deaths. That kind of centre is really needed. The Supreme Court recognized that it was necessary, so, do not tell me it is not. We could talk a long time about the merits of this institution, and I believe that many of my colleagues on both sides of the House think that it makes sense from a medical perspective.

What we really cannot agree on are the conditions for establishing this site. The Conservatives say that it would be horrible for these sites to be located near hospitals or schools, and that we have to think of the children. However, the risk of finding dirty needles on school property is much higher if the neighbourhood does not have a safe injection site. I know that there are some police officers and former police officers in the House.

These centres fall within the realm of public health not just because they help people with addictions, but also because the general public would no longer have to experience the most obvious problems associated with living in a neighbourhood where there is a major addiction problem.

[Respect For Communities Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, some drug traffickers in Montreal are getting very greedy and are trying to increase profits by selling low quality drugs. This caused a massive increase in deaths associated with these bad drugs.

I am pleased to support the government's desire to punish these drug traffickers and put them in prison, and especially those greedy ones. However, Bill C-2 also deals with public health.

The minister said that he was proud that we had adopted 10 other Supreme Court recommendations, but that is the problem: it turns a public health issue into a punishment issue.

The NDP wants to combat this dangerous aspect of illegal drug use by making this a public health issue. When the government puts an end to debate like this, it is maintaining this confusion between public health and punishment.

Why is it so important to turn a public health issue into a punishment issue?

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the security of our marine transportation system and the fact that the Canadian Coast Guard is not equipped with super tugs.

If one of these supertankers were to have engine trouble in Canadian waters, it could not be towed by a motor boat. An auxiliary coast guard made up of volunteers, who are often equipped with fishing boats, would not help either.

It is a huge problem that the companies that have destroyed the environment and caused oil spills in Alaska, the Gulf of Guinea and the Gulf of Mexico are the same companies that are operating in Canada and asking us to trust them.

Could my distinguished colleague explain to us how these factors add to the risks?