Denis Blanchette

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

My background is in technology, and as we always say, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

In other words, if something works, there is no need to fiddle with it.

InSite works, gets results and provides a front-line service that leads to rehabilitation and the reduction of collateral damage, such as dirty needles in parks.

It is too bad that the government does not seem concerned about the effects of the law itself. I think we need to study this bill in terms of the public interest. What would be best for our society?

How does my colleague think we should study this bill in terms of the public interest?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He brought up various problems. For one, budgets are being cut and the prison population is on the rise, even though crime is decreasing. The focus is not on rehabilitation but on harsh treatment for those who commit crimes. In addition, corrections officers are facing greater safety issues in a growing prison system.

Could my colleague talk about what could be done differently to rehabilitate people and ensure a safer society at the same time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He mentioned that this bill did not do enough, that it did not produce a lot of results and that we could not expect miracles.

Could my colleague talk about how we could do better with a much more proactive approach to address the problems that this bill claims to solve?

[Laval University's Rouge et Or Football Team, November 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, Laval University's Rouge et Or defeated the Calgary Dinos 25-14 to win the 49th Vanier Cup.

This was the team's eighth Canadian university football championship and its third win after four straight years of playing for the Vanier Cup, another Canadian university football record for Laval University.

A total of 18,543 fans braved the cold and damp conditions—I can tell you about that—to support their team in a game where the Dinos, led by Andrew Buckley, played their best.

However, that was not enough to stop running backs Pascal Lochard, winner of the Ted Morris Memorial Trophy as the game's most valuable player, and Maxime Boutin.

What a great showing by the team's offence, which set a new record with 449 rushing yards.

Congratulations to the Rouge et Or for this outstanding performance, which reminds us that the greatest victories are achieved by united teams where everyone works together for the win.

The Rouge et Or, a great tradition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate speech.

I know that she is a professional who truly cares about her constituents' lives and health. She shows that every day in her work as a parliamentarian.

The government seems to be confusing the notions of “scientific studies” and “community acceptance” of specific projects.

Could my colleague talk about the methods used in the 21st century to allow people to work on rehabilitation and reducing problems in our society? She touched on this briefly in her speech, but I would like to hear more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. His comments go to two issues at the very heart of my speech: public interest and effective interventions.

We are not living in the 19th century anymore. Treatments have evolved. Nowadays, professionals from various disciplines can work together to treat people who have fallen prey to drugs. Concerted action is key. Parliamentarians from all political stripes all want the same thing: to see fewer and fewer people fall prey to drugs. That is the end goal, the most important thing. It is a public interest issue. We must use all the treatment tools and knowledge at our disposal to curb that problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question, which raises two important issues. First of all, scientific knowledge is obviously something we believe in. There is no doubt about it. As a matter of fact, more than 30 scientific studies have shown that the approach used in Vancouver is effective.

The member also mentioned communities. Our role is not to force communities to support the bill, obviously. I believe that community acceptance will play a key role in each situation. It will be up to each community to assess whether this approach would be appropriate and helpful in their context. We can think about what is happening in Quebec City right now, where proposals for the grain elevators are considered unacceptable by the community. It shows what happens when one tries to implement a project without community support. We know how important that support is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to talk about Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. What we are actually discussing is supervised injection sites.

Do we live in a perfect world? In a perfect world, everyone is well educated, everyone lives well, everyone is happy and everything is fine. The reality, however, is that we do not live in a perfect world. Children do not to go to school as much as we would wish, people do not necessarily have the job they want, and in many cases, basic needs are not met. Unfortunately, some people descend into the hell of drug use.

Once that happens, and we find that people are descending into the hell of drug use generation after generation, what do we do? What do we do as a society? The bill compels us to ask that question. As a society, what do we do when the issue arises? How do we respond in a civilized and effective manner? This is important. Everything depends on it.

The bill is a response by the government to a 2011 Supreme Court decision. The court based its decision on fundamental principles of our society, namely the right to life, liberty and security of the person. I am not talking just about those living in the hell of drug use, but also about those who may be exposed to it indirectly or by misfortune. This is where we get to the crux of the issue.

A supervised injection site reduces the risk of death and disease. Public safety must also be taken into account, of course. This cannot be done just anyhow and anywhere. Such things must be regulated. Reducing the number of needle-borne diseases like hepatitis C or HIV, and reducing the number of overdoses, is no small thing. We know that supervised injection sites make results like this possible.

Our deliberations should be based essentially on the public interest. What do we mean by “the public interest”? Some demagogues will say that the NDP is just defending drug users, but that is not the case. The NDP wants to make sure that harm is reduced to a minimum and that as many people as possible can overcome their problems. That is what “the public interest” means. We do not want children and young people falling into that world. If they are caught up in it, we want them to get out as quickly as possible, so that they can make a positive contribution to society.

We cannot think that someone who has succumbed to drug use once or twice will never do anything worthwhile in life. We cannot think that way. We must be able to give such people a chance, so that they have a real opportunity to make something of their lives. The reason they turned to drugs in the first place is that they saw no way out, no opportunity. They did not think they had the resources to achieve some level of happiness.

To get back to supervised injection sites, if we think about it seriously, the concept for such sites is primarily one of a front-line health care service.

Let me explain. To take the Vancouver example: nurses and paramedics supervise activities. People using the injection site are assessed. They can also be treated if things go wrong. Detoxification services are available nearby. It is easier to reach addicts, and offer them a way out. In our society, it is not possible for workers to go into the streets and go up to people one by one and tell them that services are available and they are invited to make use of them. That is not how it works; we do not have the resources to do it. By bringing them into a safe place where they do as little harm to themselves as possible, and where they can then be offered a way out, I believe we are working in the public interest.

I would like to give an example of something that upsets parents. They believe it is unacceptable to find used syringes in the parks in some cities. As parents, we do not like finding traces of drug use scattered about where children may go to play. Nobody wants that. By moving the activity to a site, getting people to do it safely, concentrating our health care resources—which, as we know, are hard-pressed—and optimizing our health care services through this kind of response, I believe we are working in the public interest. We are thus able to offer a better society to many people, both those who are living through the hell of drug use, and people to whom the children should not be exposed unnecessarily. There are enough bad examples in our society. We do not need more, we need fewer.

That is why I fail to understand some aspects of this legislation. The application process for setting up such sites and the increased complexity may discourage more than one community from trying to take responsibility and resolve or at least address the problem. There is no magic remedy, but if we add to the paperwork, the requirements and so on, are we working in the public interest? Is that not, rather, a much more ideological position? Basically, they want to see no evil, they want to be repressive and hope that it solves the problem, but history tells us that such a strategy will never really succeed.

When they tried to prohibit alcohol nearly a century ago, we saw what happened and how people reacted. I do not mean that we have to put up with people injecting just anything, but in this 21st century, we should have 21st-century solutions. We should provide care based on the knowledge we have acquired about how to treat people. First and foremost, the debate should be about the public interest, and I call upon all parliamentarians present to think about the debate on the basis of the public interest.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3, which has a rather long name, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. In short, the bill amends at least five acts and probably several others. This is an omnibus bill.

How many pages are in this bill? I am surprised that the government would introduce a bill this big and not rise to speak to it. That is the first thing I noticed. Is it really to the government's advantage to defend what it is proposing? Is it to its advantage to do things the right way and inform the public of what is in the bill it introduced in the House?

We have presented our position. We will support this bill at second reading, but we have some concerns. We hope it will be carefully studied in committee. Security and economic development should go hand in hand, especially when it comes to these issues.

The St. Lawrence River is not far from my home. Neither is a refinery serviced by ships. In addition, this same river is a source of drinking water for many communities in my province. Clearly, safety is just as important as economic activity. Heaven knows that economic activity in marine transportation is important.

That is why there are a lot of pilots on the St. Lawrence River. To be able to navigate, every ship must have a specialized pilot on board who knows the river very well. That is critical for safety. The same goes for the west coast. The local conditions are unique: the currents, the winds, the tides and the channel.

Earlier, we talked about the Exxon Valdez. We basically want to avoid a spill. In an ideal world, we would want ships to carry their goods safely, with no environmental damage, so that everyone can have a good night's sleep. However, we are not there yet. As several members pointed out, the bill is a step in the right direction, but there is still a lot of work to be done, particularly in terms of safety.

My colleague who spoke before me mentioned the importance of setting up a committee to take a serious look at this issue with the help of experts and people in the industry who might be affected by these measures. Hearing from Canadians is of paramount importance to ensure the bill is socially and economically acceptable. There must be no voluntary or involuntary conflict between economic development and public acceptability of projects and risk management. I deplore the fact that there are often conflicts.

At the heart of this debate lies the need for sound risk management in order to avoid any harm. Our party has based its interventions on this type of management.

In closing, we must take a holistic approach to safety. Quebec City is about to lose its marine rescue sub-centre. It is ironic that, on the one hand, the government introduces a bill that supports safety requirements and, on the other hand, it reduces them. It is as if there is no comprehensive vision for safety. I hope this perspective will be brought forward in committee.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

She raised a very interesting point. She talked about how, unfortunately, because of global warming, there will be more and more commercial ships in the Arctic.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this bill, specifically about the provisions this bill does or does not contain with respect to these newly navigable waters.