Annick Papillon

[Air Transportation, December 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport admitted a few months ago that “There are a lot of unhappy citizens out there with the service that is being presented to them.”

Nevertheless, airlines still see no consequences for overbooking or for never-ending delays on the tarmac. As we approach the holiday season, many Canadians will be boarding planes to celebrate with their family or to travel.

Why do the Conservatives refuse to pass an air passenger bill of rights, as proposed by the NDP?

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech and I think she raised a very important point regarding this very conservative vision of public safety. I recognize this vision when the Conservatives say they are tough on crime, for example.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on what the Minister of Public Safety said last December, before he was in that role, regarding the mass shooting that had taken place in the United States. He said that it happened at a very bad time.

I wonder what my hon. colleague thinks of that, because I found that comment utterly appalling. It probably explains why we are in this situation and it explains the Conservatives' current policies.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my honourable colleague.

I would like the member to tell us what he thinks about the search and rescue centre at Quebec being shut down by the current government, knowing that it is the only bilingual centre in North America, not just in Canada but in North America.

I think it tells us a lot about the silence of the Conservatives over there and about the fact that all these centres that take care of the security of people were shut down.

I would like to hear a bit more about that because I know the St. John's centre was also shut down.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. My colleague is always full of wisdom.

The Conservative government is indeed not respecting the rights of these people by going ahead as it is doing. They want to close their eyes and hope these people suddenly stop existing. They would like there to be no more drug users, but that is not the case. These people have rights that must be respected.

That is what the Supreme Court says. Everyone's rights must be respected, including the rights of drug users. That is how we must move forward. The Supreme Court's decision urges the minister to pay close attention to that. This file should not be abandoned along with all the work that has been done on this first supervised injection site. We really should not wipe that work out only to have to rebuild everything later.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his comment. I agree that when it comes to supervised injection sites, consultation and discussion with the community are absolutely necessary.

This bill, like all the others, proves that the government is not listening to the people on the ground. All too often, it bases its positions and its arguments on ideological prejudices. We have noticed that this is often the problem. That is why we always have to come along with a new proposal, because we have been on the ground and have seen what is going on. We met with the stakeholders. In this case, everyone—professionals and business people in particular—agrees that we need to act and we should use this example from Vancouver East to move forward.

It is high time that this government listened to the opposition, since it will not listen to the people on the ground, because we are proposing real solutions. The work being done must absolutely continue. We cannot just close our eyes and pretend the problem does not exist, as the government across the aisle so often does.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I cannot talk about Bill C-2 without making a reference to Bill C-65, the former bill introduced at the close of the last session of Parliament, which, need I remind the House, ended when the Conservatives prorogued Parliament. All of the bills left on the table when the last session ended needed to be reintroduced and renumbered. That is why we find ourselves now completing the task at hand.

I might as well say it upfront: Bill C-2 is a thinly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites. This proposed legislation goes directly against the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision that called on the minister to consider exemptions for supervised injection sites, in an effort to reconcile health and public safety considerations.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the only supervised injection site in Canada. It is located in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. I do not know if my colleagues have ever been there, but it is certainly a neighbourhood where truly disturbing things happen. Everyone deserves to know what I am talking about.

InSite was set up as part of a public health initiative launched by the City of Vancouver and its community partners, after the number of overdose-related deaths in Vancouver increased twelvefold between 1987 and 1993. It took many years to get the InSite centre up and running, and each stage of the process was closely scrutinized, both locally and nationally.

The supervised injection site has the support not only of the Vancouver police, something which is by no means insignificant, but also of local businesses, the chamber of commerce and municipal politicians. The project has been the focus of over 30 scientific reports and studies that have described the benefits of InSite. These findings have been peer-reviewed and published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal. Studies of over 70 analogous supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia have recognized similar benefits.

When InSite opened in 2003, it secured an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for activities with medical and scientific applications. It is worth noting that since then, InSite has had a positive impact. It helps save lives, minimizes the risk of accidental overdoses and above all, makes the neighbourhood safer for everyone.

However, in 2008, the exemption granted to InSite under the law was set to expire. The Conservative government rejected InSite’s application for renewal. The debate went all the way to the Supreme Court, which held that InSite was a key stakeholder in the health field. In its ruling, the court called upon the minister to consider all of the probative elements of the matter, bearing in mind the benefits of supervised injection sites, rather than set out a lengthy list of principles on which to base conclusions.

I would like to quote a critically important excerpt from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, since the bill now before us is supposedly based on this ruling. Here is what the Supreme Court had to say in its decision:

On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. In accordance with the Charter, the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Where...a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

That is what the Supreme Court stated. In my opinion, this ruling is quite clear.

In my riding of Québec, I have had the opportunity to meet several times with stakeholders and volunteers, including those from Point de repères, a community organization that I would like to commend. The organization's mission consists of health promotion, prevention and the delivery of care and services, especially for people dealing with addiction. It is important to understand this difference: an organization like Point de repères does not encourage drug use, but, rather, it advocates a harm reduction approach. As the Point de repères website indicates:

The harm reduction approach is a community-based approach to health that focuses on helping people with addictions develop ways to mitigate the negative consequences of their behaviour, rather than on eliminating the use of psychotropic drugs.

I think it is important to understand the fine points of this often sensitive subject. Again, as explained on the Point de repères website:

Drug use has a significant impact on both the user and the community. Often, lack of knowledge, misconceptions and prejudices about people who use drugs lead to a series of inappropriate actions that cause additional harm to the user and the community.

I had the opportunity to watch a documentary entitled “Pas de piquerie dans mon quartier” about people's resistance to safe injection sites in their neighbourhood. The documentary shed light on the addiction issue in a city like Quebec City, for example.

The documentary's introduction, which unfortunately reflects the glaring truth, states that “the war on drugs often turned into a war on drug users. It is a bit like the war on poverty—we have to be careful not to turn it into a war on the poor”.

Why is the government so lacking in objectivity when it comes to this very sensitive issue? Why are the Conservatives refusing to recognize the facts laid out before them? The NDP believes that decisions about programs that could enhance public health should be based on facts, not ideological stances. We are not alone in thinking that. According to the Canadian Medical Association:

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.

For its part, the Canadian Nurses Association said:

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 that truly cared about public health and public safety would do everything in its power to improve access to prevention and treatment services, not create more barriers. Evidence has shown that supervised injection sites reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, and the number of overdose-related deaths. Evidence has also shown that they do not adversely affect public safety. In some cases, they actually promote it by reducing injection drug use in public, reducing the amount of violence associated with that activity, and reducing the waste associated with drug use.

Supervised injection sites strike a balance between public health and public safety goals. They also connect people who urgently need help with the health services they need, such as primary health care and addiction treatment.

The NDP believes that any new legislation about supervised injection sites must honour the spirit of the Supreme Court decision, which this bill does not do. As my colleague from Vancouver East has said, Bill C-2 contains as many criteria as there are letters in the alphabet, and those 26 criteria are so restrictive and biased that they are practically impossible to comply with.

[Intergovernmental Relations, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, ministerial responsibility means being responsible for everything that happens in one's department. That is what ministerial responsibility is. Furthermore, Transport Canada's website indicates that that is indeed the case. Transport Canada owns and manages several public ports, including the Port of Québec.

Will the government take responsibility and demand that the work stop immediately until the government can hold proper public consultations in order to ensure that the residents and authorities of Quebec City know what is going on in this regard and can finally have their say?

[Intergovernmental Relations, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the CEO of the Port of Québec says that the wood pellet terminal project in Anse au Foulon complies with environmental assessments. However, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was gutted in 2012.

What environmental assessment is being discussed here? The one done by Arrimage Québec? That is not an independent study.

Will the Minister of Transport tell us whether her department conducted an assessment? If so, will she finally release it, and if not, will she call for one?

[Business of Supply, November 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Liberals' motion. Of course everyone is talking about the Prime Minister right now. Everyone is talking about whether a certain act was committed or not. Everyone wants to know what really happened. I understand and I agree that the Prime Minister has some explaining to do.

However, I have a question for my hon. Liberal colleague. All Canadians agree, and the Liberals and NDP agree, that what was done on the other side of the House is simply unacceptable, why did the Liberals vote against the NDP motion to restrict the partisan activities and travel on the part of senators? That motion made a lot of sense and would have allowed us all, as parliamentarians, to move forward. Why did the Liberals vote against that motion and why are they proposing another one? If we cannot agree, how can we possibly move forward?

[Ethics, November 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Mr. Wright no longer works in the Prime Minister's Office. We know that he is no longer on the payroll. However, we want to know more. We do not want to know whether he regrets the $90,000 cheque, or other cheques we may not yet have heard about.

Sometimes what we worry about is not necessarily the tip of the iceberg we do know, but what we suspect is underneath, the rest of the iceberg that could be worse than what we know. That is what Canadians are worried about. They are wondering what, exactly, is going on. They want to know what is behind this whole thing. We still do not know whether he was dismissed or whether he resigned. It is easy to talk around the answer. Every time the Conservatives rise in the House, they talk around the issue instead of giving a straight answer of whether Mr. Wright resigned or was dismissed.

There are two options: (a) dismissed, or (b) fired. Which one was it?