Djaouida Sellah

[Business of Supply, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for her speech. I listened closely to the points she made.

Unfortunately, the facts are the facts. Since coming to power, the Conservatives have cut $225 million from the Veterans Affairs budget and have eliminated one-quarter of the department's employees and services. In proceeding with those cuts, they froze hiring of medical staff for mental health.

I know that when our soldiers agree to be deployed, they accept the liability. They agree to unlimited liability and recognize that they could lose their lives. That is the ultimate sacrifice for Canada. Do these people not have the right to a minimum level of service? I would like to ask the member if she plans to vote for our motion to get things back on track. This is yet another opportunity for her to do that.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speeches given by the minister responsible for Canada Post and our Liberal colleague.

We know that this is not the first time that this Conservative government has made announcements the day after the House of Commons adjourned. This proves once again that this government does not consult anyone before making important decisions that have a significant impact on our society.

My colleague said that this government is trying to distance itself from public institutions. I would like to add that not only is the government distancing itself from public institutions, but it is also working with people behind closed doors to try to dismantle these institutions, which are a valuable resource for Canada. This is not the first time that the Conservatives have tried to do this. Under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, 1,500 post offices across the country were shut down.

I would like to know whether my colleague is concerned that this government seems to be driving Canada Post into privatization.

Although the Liberal Party does not have a good track record when it comes to dismantling public corporations, I would like to add this question. Will the hon. member support the government's privatization of valuable crown corporations such as Canada Post?

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for his excellent question.

This is a very important issue for health care professionals. This bill is an attempt to hamper potential applications to open safe injection sites even though the sites have had a positive impact on the health of intravenous drug users and on community safety. That has been proven internationally, and no one is questioning it. This bill, however, focuses on criteria and arbitrary decisions. It is appalling to us that a minister would be given the power to decide whether or not a site can open. For that be happening in this House, under a Conservative government—

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his health-related question, which is relevant to our debate. Since we were elected, we have been saying that the Conservative government is not listening to or consulting Canadians. This government refuses to sit down with the provinces and discuss the agreement that is coming to an end in March, just a few months away. We know that this government does not care about the health of Canadians; it cares about the economy. However, without health, there is no economy. That is why we are once again asking the current government to change course and listen to Canadians who are saying, loud and clear, that their top priorities are health and health.

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is also a health care professional, for his relevant question.

It is obvious—and there is irrefutable scientific evidence to this effect—that these supervised injection sites are gateways to health care professionals, whether for primary health care or addiction treatment.

There is absolutely no doubt about that. What is regrettable is that this government has the audacity to put an end to everything that works or bury its head in the sand. That is the problem. It is better to move forward and try to address the issue, instead of imposing coercive measures.

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have risen in this chamber to debate Bill C-2, which was introduced as Bill C-65 at the end of the parliamentary session.

I am still very disappointed with Bill C-2, which I think once again represents what the Conservative government is all about. It governs the country according to its own ideology and not for the benefit of Canadians.

This Conservative government is ignoring the scientific evidence around the ruling of the highest court in our country. It is absurd. This bill is another thinly veiled attempt to put an end to supervised injection sites, as the government has already tried to do with InSite in Vancouver.

This government is not hesitating to use taxpayers' money to appeal rulings that do not tally with its ideologies, as it did in 2008. I have a lot of questions. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the positive impact that a supervised injection site has had in Vancouver East, and its ruling was unequivocal:

InSite has saved lives and improved health. And it did those things without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.

I would like to repeat that last sentence again: “And it did those things without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.”

The Canadian Nurses Association holds a similar view:

In Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, where the Insite safe injection site is located, business owners, service providers and residents in the neighbourhood agree that the clinic has had a positive impact on the health of the people who use it and on the health of the community.

That is a fundamental issue in this debate. The Supreme Court ruling was based on section 7 of the charter and on the constraints imposed by the law, aiming to strike a balance between public health and public safety.

As a health care professional, I find this bill mind-boggling. I want to add my voice to those of people in the field who have criticized Bill C-2, including the Canadian Medical Association, which fully endorses the existence of harm reduction tools, including supervised injection sites, and believes they should be included in a comprehensive national drug strategy.

The CMA's position is founded upon clinical evidence and not upon ideology, unlike Bill C-2. The CMA, which represents all of the doctors in the country, is very critical of Bill C-2:

The unanimous decision was grounded in evidence, not ideology. The overwhelming clinical evidence is that centres like Insite save lives when it comes to some of our most vulnerable patient populations. In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that “…the evidence indicates that 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.” What we have seen today seems to contradict the essence of the ruling.

Harm reduction works. This method has proven to be effective. In Australia, a report on supervised injection sites found that one site had reduced the number of overdoses, reduced the spread of HIV and hepatitis C and alleviated safety concerns related to users shooting up in public places and needle disposal. The report even indicated that the site served as a gateway to addiction treatment.

If that is not improving safety in the community, I do not know what is.

Many countries now have supervised injection sites: Australia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, just to name a few. These sites work.

It is no wonder Montreal's director of public health recommended, in December 2011, that the city establish such a site in the greater Montreal area. He gave a number of reasons similar to the ones I just quoted concerning Australia's experience. Why? Because they are based on conclusive data that the Conservatives and the Minister of Health have patently decided to ignore.

I would like to quote Montreal's director of public health:

The reasons that justify implementing SIS in Montréal are very succinct: the epidemic of infections caused by HIV and HCV, and the excess mortality among IDU. Cocaine use, the drug most often injected in Montréal, is a major determinant of HIV transmission, as is sharing used needles. HCV infection is also having devastating effects: 7 in 10 IDU have been exposed to the virus and its transmission does not appear to be slowing. As for excess mortality among IDU, the data on hand indicate that the problem in Montréal is alarming.

I urge the government to do its job for once in the health field. Since the Conservatives took power, we have seen the federal government disengage from files where Canadians expect it to play a role. This includes the government's refusal to negotiate a new health accord with the provinces, the shortage of prescription drugs, and diluted chemotherapy treatments.

It is unbelievable and completely unacceptable for a bill such as this, which flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling, to be introduced.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP obviously opposes Bill C-4, because of both its content and the process used. I have a question for my colleague.

Over the past 35 years, under both Conservative and Liberal governments, the income of the richest 20% of Canadians has increased, while the income of the poorest 80% has decreased.

Could he speak to that?

[Health, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, drug shortages are a serious public health problem.

Unlike the United States, the European Union and New Zealand, Canada does not have a mandatory drug shortage registry. This situation is unacceptable. We cannot leave it to companies to decide whether to disclose, or not disclose, shortages. A voluntary approach is not a solution.

Will the government work with the NDP to pass my bill in order to ensure that a mandatory registry is created, yes or no?

[Saint-Bruno Charity Drive, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to all the volunteers involved in the Saint-Bruno charity drive, who took to the streets last Sunday to collect donations for needy families in Saint-Bruno. Over 1,000 of us volunteered to brave the cold and knock on doors. I would like to commend the people of Saint-Bruno for their generosity. Thanks to them, the Saint-Bruno charity drive broke its own record by raising over $67,000.

Although much of this success is due to the kindness of the people in my riding, the contribution of the two organizers on whom the charity relies year after year is just as important. Ms. Fleischman and Ms. Lacharité, I sincerely congratulate you on this great achievement and I thank you wholeheartedly for your continued dedication to the needy families of Saint-Bruno. You are remarkable women, and I hope that the Saint-Bruno community can count on you for many years to come.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech made by the member opposite, who is from British Columbia. He did a fine job of detailing the issues surrounding our natural resources. He spoke about coal and other resources.

I fully agree that there are resources available; however, we must have the means to develop them in a responsible and scientific manner.

Bill C-4 is an attack on the National Research Council of Canada because it eliminates nearly half of the agency's positions and gives more authority to the president, who was chosen by the government.

Does my colleague think that firing hundreds of scientists and researchers will help develop the natural resources in his riding?