Dany Morin

[Health, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have not been able to keep Canada's drug supply safe. They have recalled dozens of dangerous products. They even refused to ensure mandatory disclosure of drug shortages.

Informing Canadians of imminent drug shortages is something the Conservatives could do right now to show leadership on health care issues. Why are they not doing that?

[Health, November 28th, 2013]

That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Under the Conservative government in 2010, Canada became the leading country for opioid use per capita. Do not get me started on their anti-drug policy.

For months, American representatives have been putting pressure on the Minister of Health to ban certain slow-release products that contain oxycodone.

By allowing certain addictive products to stay on the market, the minister is hampering the Americans' efforts to keep that drug out of at-risk communities.

I know that pharmaceutical companies are lobbying the minister. However, by giving in to that pressure, she is endangering public health in both Canada and the United States.

Will the minister listen to public health experts instead of lobbyists?

[Prostate Cancer, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the prostate cancer awareness campaign draws to a close, I would like to talk about this men's health problem.

In Canada, prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer in men, as well as the second leading cause of death. Every year, about 23,600 new cases are diagnosed, while nearly 4,000 Canadians die from the disease. This means that one in seven men will be affected. Therefore, 33 of my male colleagues could develop prostate cancer. This is why research is so important. If the disease is detected early, the remission rate is 95%.

Accordingly I recommend that all Canadian men talk to their doctors to find out whether they are at risk, and especially whether they should be tested, since two-thirds of newly diagnosed patients have no signs or symptoms. We are not Superman, or invincible. This should not be a taboo topic to discuss with our doctors. Those who will not do it for themselves should do it for their wives and children. We have already lost far too many men that we admired and cared for.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her good question. It gives me an opportunity to talk about statistics and the research that has been done on this topic.

A 2008 study conducted by Boyd et al. concluded that 80% of the people questioned who live or work in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside support InSite. A scientific survey was conducted and, according to the study, 80% of people agree with the site. That leaves 20% who do not agree, but the majority of people support this type of site.

In addition, since the site opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. The Conservatives should stop and think about that statistic. Do they want overdose deaths to increase by 35%? That is what will happen if the government moves ahead with Bill C-2.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for that excellent question.

I have met his father and he is a remarkable man. As a citizen, teacher and mentor for the young people in his class, he has made an effort to protect the environment, and I am grateful for that. I am also grateful that he is teaching our young people good values, such as taking care of their neighbourhoods and society and picking up litter.

The government intends to close down supervised injection sites. I know that there are no safe injection sites in the riding represented by my colleague. A number of cities in Canada, such as Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal, are interested in opening such sites. Eventually, perhaps he will be interested in having such a site in his area of the country. If Canada prevents supervised injection sites from opening, what happened to the hon. member's father will happen again. Drug addicts are not going to put their dirty needles in the nice little yellow waste receptacles found in hospitals and other secure areas. They are going to leave them on the street. People who want to do their part for the environment or people who pick up litter and empty garbage cans will get pricked. This could be tragic for families. Was the needle infected? Could it make me sick or kill me? I do not wish that on anyone.

I am asking the Conservative government to think about the families that could be affected by dirty needles.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, and yesterday we were considering a somewhat similar issue, namely how to prevent prescription drug abuse.

Witnesses included health experts from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

These three organizations are the best of the best and represent thousands of health professionals across Canada in all provinces and territories, including urban communities, which struggle with problems of abuse of both prescription and non-prescription drugs, and rural areas. We must not bury our heads in the sand—drugs are everywhere in Canada.

In Saguenay and Chicoutimi, where I grew up, it was said there were both fewer drugs and fewer kinds of drugs, in comparison with major cities like Montreal and Quebec City. In reality, I knew people who used when I was in high school. In short, we should not delude ourselves: drugs are everywhere in Canada.

Until 2007, harm reduction was the fourth pillar of the national anti-drug strategy. The Conservative government unfortunately decided to remove it to focus only on prevention, treatment and enforcement of Canadian laws.

By removing the harm reduction element, the Conservative government has turned a blind eye to an entire category of people, and I am referring to those who are addicted to hard drugs. These people are caught in a downward spiral and feel they are trapped in a hole where their world becomes darker and darker every day. Although they may want to escape from drug abuse, they are not prepared to do so. These people are not mentally or physically able to take the initiative to seek treatment for their addictions.

However, the NDP and I—and I assume the Liberals agree as well—believe that we should not abandon these people. They are Canadians. They may be our brothers, our sisters, our children, adults or parents. No one should be left behind in Canada.

That is why I insist that the Conservative government, or the next government in 2015, which I hope will not be Conservative, put harm reduction back in the national anti-drug strategy.

This is the second time that I am speaking about Bill C-2. For several days, the Conservatives have been really criticizing Canada's only supervised injection site, InSite, which is located in Vancouver. I would like to know what exactly is so bad about it, other than the fact that they want to scare people with campaigns against heroin.

For example, the Conservative government recently launched an Internet campaign called, “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. If we ask parents with children, or even adults without children or single people if they want heroin near their homes, no one would say they want heroin in their neighbourhood, or their downtown or their rural area, except maybe for those who do not understand the issue.

No one wants to promote the use of heroin and hard or soft drugs in Canada, although the Liberal party wants to promote soft drugs. The NDP is more concerned with the marginalized. Drug addicts are marginalized and we must help them.

Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Health heard from some excellent witnesses from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, and the College of Family Physicians of Canada. I asked all of them the same question. I asked them if they believe that the government should put harm reduction back in the national drug strategy. They all answered yes.

I would like to ask the Conservatives if they have any expertise in health. Harm reduction can only be achieved if we take care of people with serious drug problems. We cannot make them see reason by simply telling them to stop using drugs. We have to help them.

Places like InSite help by taking in heroin addicts and giving them clean needles. If those addicts are on the street and they share needles, cases of hepatitis A, B and C and HIV will increase and it will cost Canadians and the provincial health care systems dearly.

Supervised injection sites take in drug addicts, but they bring their own drugs. I want to reassure the public that the government is not buying drugs for the people who uses these sites.

There are nurses and therapists at these sites to help the addicts get off drugs. They take the addicts as they are and guide them, not necessarily to a cure, but to a light at the end of the tunnel.

A number of other problems are associated with living in the world of drugs, such as homelessness and prostitution, which people enter into in order to pay for drugs. When a person spends their entire paycheque—if they have one—on drugs, then they cannot put $300 or $500 aside for housing. When people are deeply into drugs, they are no longer able to work. They leave the job market and end up on the streets.

Do my Conservative colleagues want people with drug problems to be on the street? The answer is no. The slogan for the Conservatives' campaign is “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. I agree. I do not want people to use drugs and leave needles in the parks in my neighbourhood. No one wants that, but we have to help those people.

The Canadian Medical Association has this to say about Bill C-2:

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.

I would ask the Conservative Party to think about that before the upcoming vote on this bill.

I will now share a quote from the Canadian Nurses Association:

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.

I have to wonder what is behind this. Why have the Conservatives been fighting since 2007 to block any approaches and treatments based on harm reduction?

There may be an answer, and I think it is important to share. Bill C-2 is part of the Conservatives' greater plan to bring all government programs and policies in line with their own anti-drug and abstinence ideals. I am also against drugs, but the Conservatives' methods are unsound and will have consequences for the Canadian public.

The Conservatives are slowly eliminating all the ways for Canadians to safely access supervised injection sites and for people with terminal cancer to access medical marijuana, for example. I think it makes sense to enable these people to ease their suffering.

In conclusion, the Conservatives' plan will undo all the progress that has been made in public health and will nullify the benefits that communities have experienced from harm reduction programs over the past 20 years. I thank the Conservative government for setting Canadians back and abandoning them. That was sarcasm, by the way.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. Liberal colleague, but first I would like to thank him for mentioning the importance of harm reduction so many times.

Yesterday the Standing Committee on Health was examining the issue of prescription drug abuse. Witnesses from the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and the College of Family Physicians of Canada all agreed that the government should correct the mistake it made in 2007 when it removed the fourth pillar from the government's anti-drug strategy, which is harm reduction.

My question is very simple. He already mentioned that the fourth pillar was eliminated from the strategy based on ideology.

Can he explain why the Conservatives and people on the right oppose the notion of helping people who are struggling, who might not yet be ready to begin treatment, and who could be helped through harm reduction strategies such as a supervised injection site?

[Bullying Awareness Week, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the NDP to bring attention to Bullying Awareness Week, which takes place from November 17 to 23. This year's theme is “Stand Up to Bullying!”.

Bullying affects everyone—parents, brothers, sisters, friends and victims. Nearly half of Canadian parents say that their child has already been a victim of bullying, and 40% of Canadians say that they themselves have experienced bullying at work. Bullying hurts and it leaves scars.

As parliamentarians, we have a unique opportunity to make a difference. That is why I proposed a national bullying prevention strategy, which the Conservatives voted against, unfortunately. I know that the government is planning on introducing a similar bill soon. I hope that the Conservatives will remember that prevention must be at the heart of the strategy.

This week, as with every other, let us do what we can to create a bully-free environment, be it at work, at home, at school or on the Internet. Let us do it for our youth.

[Navigation Restrictions, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to thank my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for his excellent motion, Motion No. 441, which calls for a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations.

Basically, this motion wants to give greater flexibility to municipalities, especially rural municipalities, that have lakes or rivers within their territory, including waterways that some people might be abusing by failing to respect others regarding the use of vessels. My NDP colleague's motion will give those municipalities greater flexibility by giving municipal laws more teeth in order to deal with such people who disrespect these rules.

I would remind the House that navigation falls under federal jurisdiction. We should therefore be able to expect the federal government to take its role seriously and actively help the municipalities regulate navigation practices on their waterways.

Unfortunately, there is a vacuum in this area. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, perhaps the existing regulations are not up to date. The way Canadians, Quebeckers and the people of Saguenay use waterways has evolved over time. It is time to build a new partnership between the federal government and municipalities, in order to properly regulate recreational and commercial navigation practices on our waters.

We believe that the municipalities should have greater powers to propose changes to the management of waterways in their territories.

The municipal level is the one closest to the people. It is well positioned to ensure social peace on this issue. I mentioned social peace because, unfortunately, there are a lot of complaints. I come from a rural area, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and I represent the riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, which has one large city and many small municipalities.

As my colleagues have said, the current process is very expensive and is imposed on small municipalities by the federal government. The municipalities have to pay dearly in order to have their say on how their bodies of water are used.

I am proud to tell my NDP colleague that his motion even has the support of the municipalities in my riding. I have here a letter from Rivière-Éternité, a charming village of about 500 people. With so few inhabitants, its financial means are already limited. It already has many priorities for municipal investment in infrastructure, such as a clean drinking water supply, waste water treatment and roads.

Managing these priorities is taken somewhat for granted by large cities. However, small municipalities are not rich, nor is the provincial government. The federal government can be of greater assistance. We are not even asking for money; we are only asking to make things a little easier for small municipalities.

The Rivière-Éternité municipal council wrote a letter stating its support for Motion No. 441, which asks the Government of Canada to carry out a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations. It points out that this motion addresses the concerns of many municipalities and that, moreover, the review of the regulations would foster the standardization of uses among the various users on bodies of water. He attached his resolution to this letter.

My Conservative colleague seemed to suggest that the government will vote against the motion. I regret that, because the Conservatives are showing how out of touch with reality they are. The NDP represents all regions in Canada—urban regions and rural regions. This is a rural issue. In 2011, during the federal election, the Conservatives slogan in my region was, ironically, "Our region in power". We see that the government has abandoned the regions. That is very unfortunate.

A government must represent everyone, whether they live in major cities or in outlying areas. As my colleague from Victoria said, we have the opportunity to work in a non-partisan manner on this issue. It is not a political issue. It will be good for rural regions in British Columbia and the prairies as well as for those in Quebec and Ontario.

We can all work together, and I believe that mayors from Conservative and Liberal municipalities would be very happy to see us set partisanship aside in order to work on this issue with them. The process is currently extremely complicated when municipalities want to regulate what happens on their waters.

I would like to explain the process. First, the municipalities must conduct a three-step consultation. Then, they must look at solutions other than regulations, then they must make a request to put restrictions on the body of water. Finally, through a complicated process, the Office of Boating Safety examines the file and ensures that it meets the requirements of the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation.

My colleague from Laurentides—Labelle brought out the document that is given to municipalities that want to change regulations for their waterways. It is not realistic, and the Conservative government is creating a lot of red tape for the municipalities. Municipalities do not have a lot of financial resources to dedicate to this long and tedious process, especially if we are talking about a municipality with 500 residents.

For example, the municipality of Rivière-Eternity has very few employees, because small municipalities have little room to manoeuvre. They therefore cannot hire someone specifically to work with this long process, which is not very practical. I referred to the support from Rivière-Éternité, but I should also mention Saint-Fulgence, a municipality of about 2,000 people in my riding. Their town council also passed a resolution to support the NDP initiative.

As I said earlier, the process is so long and tedious that municipalities often turn to other solutions, specifically codes of ethics. First, I would like to commend the municipalities for trying to find alternative solutions, despite all the obstacles that the Conservative government puts in their way. Unfortunately, a code of ethics is not mandatory, and municipalities would like to have more power and more regulatory control over what happens on their lakes and rivers. Their goal is not to prevent the majority of their community from enjoying water activities. However, we know that some people have a little less respect for the rest of the community and they may be a little selfish about how they do things. Smaller municipalities should be given more power precisely to handle these few people who are a threat to social peace and the collective good.

Municipalities therefore use codes of ethics to better manage navigation on their lakes. Even though we support such codes of ethics, they rely on people's good will. It is very problematic for people who resist the constraints that municipalities impose. People can pretty much ignore these codes because there is no law to legitimize them.

It comes down to the fact that the government has jurisdiction over navigation on waterways. It should therefore be up to the federal government to introduce a bill to do a better job of helping these municipalities. It has not done so for many years, which is why my NDP colleague had no choice but to do it himself. He represents a beautiful riding in Canada's boreal region, which is also where my riding is. He did an incredible job consulting people on this, and I would like to congratulate him on that. At the time I was writing my speech, over 40 municipalities, most of them in Quebec, had each expressed support for the motion. That is quite impressive.

In closing, I would add that this is also good for the environment. Enabling municipalities to better manage navigation on their waterways and to limit the presence of motorized vessels will help us do a better job of protecting the environment. This is good for everyone: for people, for municipalities and for the environment. Why would the Conservatives vote against it?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the NDP very much for her wonderful speech. I know that she represents a constituency in Montreal. In fact, Montreal is one Canadian city that could be interested in a supervised injection site, along with Toronto and Ottawa.

Could the hon. member tell us how badly communities and people in the field would be hit if the Conservative government succeeds in passing this bill? Indeed, the bill aims not only to destroy any chances of survival for the site in Vancouver, but also to keep other sites from opening across the country, even though research has shown that these sites have a positive impact on communities.