Hélène Laverdière

[Ebola Outbreak, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, yes, this is about humanity and solidarity with other human beings struggling with what is basically a calamity. It is also the smart thing to do. The longer we wait to take action, the more that action will cost and the farther-reaching the consequences.

As I said, of course, we have to monitor our borders. There are people who have adopted children but cannot go get them. There is always a risk—slight, but a risk nonetheless—that Ebola might appear in Canada. There is no treatment for Ebola.

My hon. colleague also talked about all of our constituents of West African origin who are watching what is going on in their countries of origin, where they might have family and friends, and who are very worried. My colleague raised a very important point about deportations. All deportations must be postponed until this situation is resolved.

DART is a team that can be deployed rapidly. It has been deployed in a number of places, such as the Philippines, if I remember correctly, to respond to natural and other disasters. This is a disaster. I think DART is the ideal response to this situation.

[Ebola Outbreak, September 15th, 2014]

moved:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

The Ebola epidemic is truly a major crisis and, unfortunately, we are not talking enough about it. It is a potential transnational threat. The World Health Organization is now saying that it is an international public health emergency.

It has been reported that there are 4,000 cases of Ebola, but everyone knows that there are probably more because even the countries affected by this epidemic are unable to identify all those affected in their area of responsibility, not to mention the people who are hiding because they do not want anyone to know that they have Ebola. More than half the people who contract the disease die. There is no treatment.

All of this is already very worrisome, but the main concern is the speed with which the disease is spreading. It is spreading quickly because, at this time, we are unable to respond to the crisis.

Doctors Without Borders is probably the most active organization on the ground at this time, and it has to send patients home. It cannot admit them to the treatment centres, particularly in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. Needless to say, the health services of these countries are also unable to meet the needs.

I would like to provide an overview of the situation in Monrovia, where every day Doctors Without Borders has to send 10 to 30 patients who are infected with the disease home because there is no room in their treatment centres. Those 10 to 30 patients may then spread the disease to dozens of other people who will also not be able to get into a treatment centre and will continue to spread the disease. We are witnessing a potentially exponential phenomenon with dire consequences. If we do nothing, the number of cases will only continue to rise.

Liberia has been particularly hard hit and its health care system has collapsed. There are not enough people to cope with the problem, medical personnel are often sick themselves and other doctors and nurses are afraid to go into the health care centres because they might catch this horrible disease.

It is not only patients who are suffering as a result of the collapse of the county's health care system, but everyone. Treatment is not available for diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis, and pregnant women no longer have access to care.

The effects are devastating. Riots are starting to break out in these countries. We are concerned about security and stability in these countries and in other countries that may be affected. We must not forget that this disease is spreading slowly but surely.

This is also having an impact on our development efforts. For example, Liberia is collapsing. All of the development efforts in this part of West Africa could be derailed or set back years by this terrible epidemic.

This is of concern to us from a humanitarian standpoint since we are talking about very poor countries that cannot deal with such a crisis.

I am going to read a quote from a Médecins Sans Frontières staffer working in Liberia, and I think it says it all. He said:

In decades of humanitarian work I have never witnessed such relentless suffering of fellow human beings or felt so completely paralysed and utterly overwhelmed at our inability to provide anything but the most basic, and sometimes less than adequate, care.

This person has several decades of work experience in this type of environment.

We also must not forget that as the number of cases of the disease rises in West Africa, where this epidemic is occurring right now, the risk that the disease will spread to other places also rises, even though that risk is marginal right now. I would like to quote another individual.

I would like to quote Michael Osterholm who is the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He said:

The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has the potential to alter history as much as any plague has ever done....If we wait for vaccines and new drugs to arrive to end the Ebola epidemic, instead of taking major action now, we risk the disease’s reaching from West Africa to our own backyards.

This also definitely affects our border services, since agents must monitor people coming into our country.

I would like to share another quotation.

For example, Kayt and Stefan Mahon in Canmore are waiting for twins they adopted in Sierra Leone, but because the state is so overwhelmed, they cannot get the papers. They are waiting for these children and they are afraid that these children do not have access to health services anymore because Sierra Leone is overwhelmed with the crisis. That is the kind of effect it is having right now on Canadians.

I see my time is short. I could have talked on the issue longer, but I would like to congratulate the Canadian government for what it has done so far, but it is far from enough. We need to do more. We need to show leadership. The UN has asked for $600 million. The U.S. has given $100 million to fight this epidemic. We need to give money. We need to help with laboratories, which we have done, but with transport if needed and to involve military. We need to offer to deploy DART in this region. People are asking for that. We deploy DART in times of natural catastrophes around the world. We have a catastrophe in West Africa now. This would be the time to deploy DART.

The Ebola epidemic began six months ago. It is the largest Ebola outbreak ever recorded. At this point, we are losing the battle. It is not only the people of West Africa who are losing it, but humanity as a whole. We are putting our own long-term safety at risk.

We are currently losing the battle, but we can turn that around if we show some leadership and do everything we can now to combat this terrible epidemic.

I would remind everyone that the longer we wait, the more it will cost to solve the problem. There are more and more cases every day.

[Request for Emergency Debate, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, many crises are unfolding around the world, such as the ones in Iraq and Ukraine, for example. However, one potentially very serious crisis could affect the development and safety of Africa and perhaps even the health of Canadians. We must not forget this crisis.

I am obviously speaking about the Ebola outbreak, an out-of-control epidemic raging in West Africa. There are more than 4,000 cases, but the figures could be much higher because not all cases have been reported. We know that Ebola kills more than half of the people infected and that there is no treatment for this terrible disease. It is urgent that this epidemic be contained as quickly as possible if we do not want to see the number of people infected increase exponentially. Resources on the ground are overwhelmed. Doctors Without Borders, which is perhaps the most active organization on the ground, has been forced to send home people suspected of having the disease. When these people return home, they risk infecting many others.

Dr. Liu, the president of Doctors Without Borders, said that it is our historic responsibility to act. This is urgent. We must act now to ensure that this does not turn into an even greater problem in the very near future. The situation is getting worse with every passing day. Therefore, a debate on this matter in the House of Commons is urgently needed. If we hold the debate tomorrow, my colleagues may not have enough time to prepare to work on this important issue. However, the longer we wait, the more serious the problem will become. There is talk at this time of an exponential increase. Every day counts.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to grant this emergency debate so that we can all work together and see what Canada can do.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 15th, 2014]

With regard to Canada’s funding and participation within the United Nations (UN) and its agencies: for each fiscal year from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014, (a) how much funding did the government allocate for each UN agency, related specialized agency, fund and program; (b) for each UN body, specialized institution, fund and program, which ones (i) saw their funding reduced, (ii) saw their funding fully cut, (iii) saw their funding increased, or (iv) received new funding from the government; (c) what is the annual evolution of Canada’s overall multilateral funding for all UN agencies, funds and programs compared to its bilateral funding; (d) what have been Canada’s priorities at the UN from 2006-2014; (e) what have been Canada’s priority issues since 2006; (f) what resources and projects were assigned to each priority issue and what were the results; (g) how has Canada voted for each UN General Assembly resolution since 2006; (h) how did Canada vote at the UN’s other bodies; (i) does the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development provide Canada with directives in writing on how to vote within the UN’s various bodies; (j) what department within DFATD, and previously within DFAIT, is responsible for preparing such documents for the votes; (k) what departments and members of the Prime Minister’s Office are responsible for or are involved in the (i) choices, (ii) directions, (iii) monitoring involving Canada’s financial contributions to the UN, and what are the roles of those working within these Canadian bodies; (l) which countries benefit from Canadian funding within the UN; (m) what partners, non-governmental organizations and others are involved in implementing programs funded by Canada at the UN; (n) how has Canada contributed, both financially and in its participation to the issue of reforming the UN since 2006; (o) why was Canada defeated during the election for non-permanent membership on the Security Council; and (p) did DFAIT prepare the Government of Canada’s policy papers for Canada’s election to a seat on the Security Council in 2010?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 15th, 2014]

With regard to the government’s Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) Summit held in Toronto, May 28-30 2014: (a) who within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development was responsible for the organization of the MNCH Summit; (b) what was the initial budget of the event and (i) did the Summit go over budget, (ii) if so, what were the cost overruns, (iii) were there unforeseen expenses; (c) what was the total cost of the Summit; (d) what was the total cost for the venue rental (Fairmont Royal York); (e) how many bedrooms in the Fairmont Royal York were paid for by the government and at what cost; (f) how many names were on the final guest list and what were the names; (g) how many government officials and employees attended the Summit and what are their names; (h) how many guests who are not employees of the government had their stay at the Fairmont Royal York paid for by the government and what are their names; (i) did the government pay for the travel expenses of international visitors; (j) how was the Fairmont Royal York chosen as a venue for the Summit, (i) on what date was the hotel first contacted with regard to the Summit, (ii) on what date was the contract with the hotel signed, (iii) did the Summit organizers contact venues other than the Fairmont Royal York and, if so, how many; (k) what was the total cost for security; (l) what was the total cost of meals and hospitality; and (m) was the Summit paid for by funds dedicated to the Muskoka Initiative?

[International Development, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, much like Rights and Democracy and the Pearson Centre, now the North-South Institute is shutting down because of Conservative cuts. The North-South Institute is an important institution. It was voted the best think tank in the world in its category in 2011 and the best think tank in Canada in the development sector in 2012. The institute had varied its sources of revenue for its projects and had been working for months with government officials to have its funding renewed.

However, the minister said no. Why?

[Human Rights, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Border Services employees have a duty to treat transgender people who are coming to Canada fairly and respectfully.

However, that was not the case for Avery Edison, who was treated unfairly when she came to Canada earlier this year.

With the WorldPride Human Rights Conference starting next week in Toronto, will the minister ensure that all of the delegates will be treated with dignity and properly welcomed when they arrive in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, which brings me to a point I wanted to raise in my speech, had I had more time.

Using this bill to circumvent the Supreme Court decision is so clumsy and bald-faced that one could be forgiven for concluding that the Conservatives were deliberately trying to go back to court to once again be told “no”. Put simply, the bill in no way responds to the Supreme Court ruling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help myself: I find it a tad rich when I hear Conservatives talk about consulting Canadians when every time I travel around my riding—or elsewhere in Canada for that matter—to conduct consultations, particularly on issues for which I am the critic, Canadians tell me that this government does not talk to anybody, does not listen to anybody, is completely out of touch, and does not care what Canadians think.

This is so barefaced. Of course consultations are necessary. Nobody ever said that they were not. However, they set the bar so high—in terms of the quantity of consultations and the documentation required—that the whole thing becomes completely impracticable. Worse still, even if the entire community is 100% in favour of InSite centres, the minister still has the arbitrary authority to decide that an exemption will not be granted.

This is not a bill about consultation. This whole exercise is so brazen. The ultimate objective of the bill is to render it utterly impossible to set up centres such as InSite. Even if somebody managed to overcome all the obstacles put in their path, the minister could still arbitrarily decide that it is a no go.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, we are dealing with an extremely emotional subject tonight, and it is unfortunately too often misunderstood. I know that our colleagues across the way view safe injection sites as a threat or as a way to encourage drug use, but that is not the case.

In fact, all the experiences in Canada and abroad show that safe injection sites are a means of decreasing the number of deaths, disease transmission in communities, health care costs and drug use in public places. In fact, we have a very compelling example here in Canada. InSite has proven itself and is now accepted by the neighbourhood residents and those who work in the area.

Actually, 80% of the people who live and work in the area around InSite support the project. I do not know what the numbers were when the project was first proposed, but now that they coexist with InSite, 80% of the people—a large majority—approve InSite and consider it an asset to their community. InSite is no exception: we see the same numbers when we look at what is being done in Europe.

People who live in the neighbourhoods affected and who see the results are overwhelmingly in favour of this type of site. Nevertheless, tonight we are debating a bill whose objective is obvious and is essentially meant to prevent sites like InSite from operating or from being created, for purely ideological reasons. We hear all the time that these are ideological reasons, but they are also demagogic ones. They have nothing to do with what we can truly accomplish with such initiatives.

As I have said in the past when I spoke to this issue, I have a hard time understanding what the Conservatives want. Do they want more people sick, more cases of hepatitis and AIDS in our communities? Do they want more crime? What is it that they want and why do they want it?

In my riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie we want fewer sick people, less crime and fewer problems. Of course there are problems with drug use in Laurier—Sainte-Marie. It is an urban riding in downtown Montreal. In this area we often see problems with drug use and it is where people with these types of problems congregate. However, there are all kinds of solutions that we could be looking to. I am talking about the work done by CACTUS Montréal, L'Anonyme, the CSSS and the EMRII team. These are all worthwhile initiatives and there is one thing missing that could complement the services they offer: a supervised injection site. A number of groups are interested in opening one in downtown Montreal and even in the greater Montreal area.

People want to do this because they want to prevent deaths, crime and disease. They want to make our communities safer. In fact, that is exactly what the Supreme Court had to say. Let me go over some facts. InSite's exemption expired in 2008. It had an exemption because the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act prohibits the drugs that people are injecting at this centre.

However, section 56 grants an exemption for medical, preventive, control and monitoring purposes, so that drug users do not have to give themselves an injection in what are often appalling conditions.

When InSite's exemption expired, the health minister declined the renewal request. As could be expected, the matter ended up in court. First, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that InSite should be granted a new exemption.

Unsatisfied with this ruling, as we might expect, the Conservative government brought the matter to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which also ruled that InSite should remain open. The government still would not let the matter rest, and the case eventually came before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to turn down the exemption renewal, thus essentially forcing InSite to close its doors, violated the charter rights of its clients.

Here is what the Supreme Court had to say about the minister's decision:

It is arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety.

The court also noted that:

The infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them. The grave consequences that might result from a lapse in the current constitutional exemption for InSite cannot be ignored.

That seems clear to me. No one can claim that is a partisan ruling, even though the Conservatives now seem to think that the Supreme Court is a partisan organization because it has the nerve to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and oppose the government's unconstitutional decisions.

The Supreme Court found that the government had the duty to allow InSite and other supervised injection sites to provide these services that can save lives.

However, the Supreme Court did not just limit the analysis of the situation to clients of InSite. It also addressed the issue of public safety, as well it should. We know that this is an issue that concerns many people. In fact, public safety is often used as a reason to refuse to set up these sites.

Just like the experts, the court raised the point that it is yet to be proven that there is a negative impact on public safety. The court is clear: if a site can cause harm to a community, then it can be banned. We must maintain a balance. However, given the benefits that stem from these sites, one would really have to demonstrate that there would indeed be harm. There is no evidence to that effect. In fact, it is quite the opposite; there are public safety benefits.

Since my time is almost up, I will close by saying that I walked through Laurier—Sainte-Marie with representatives from various organizations. I picked up syringes in backyards and parks. Seeing syringes is bad enough, but children and adults could get hurt. Preventing this activity from happening in a public place is a question of public safety. It is no surprise that 80% of people who live near InSite and similar sites in Europe think that this is a good thing that improved their quality of life.