Laurin Liu

[Science and Technology, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to revisit a question I raised on November 6 regarding the indirect costs of research, which are severely penalizing Canada's universities.

Research infrastructure is crucial to advancements in many major scientific sectors. Consider, for example, the supercomputers needed for data processing or the MRI machines used to study advanced materials. Such equipment is what determines the quality of research done in our universities. It is key to the retention and recruitment of researchers, and is an essential part of training students.

Furthermore, in the global context, the availability of cutting-edge research equipment is essential to maintaining the competitiveness of our research institutions and is a deciding factor in the creation of partnerships and development of consortiums, both with the private sector and with other public institutions.

Consider Quebec, for example. For the past 15 years, Quebec has invested nearly $2 billion in major equipment and the development of modern research infrastructure. While Quebec, the provinces and universities have been investing massively in their research infrastructure, the federal government has refused to do its part and has covered only a tiny fraction of the operating costs of the research infrastructure.

In addition, the Conservative government eliminated the research tools and instrumentation program, instituted a moratorium on the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada's major resources support program and also eliminated funding for a number of flagship projects, including, for example, the monitoring program at the Experimental Lakes Area, which was a world-renowned research program.

To sum up, universities and the provinces are stuck with the bill for research infrastructure costs more often than not, even though they are already suffering because of federal cuts to transfer payments.

Research infrastructure is expensive for these institutions. For example, the direct costs that research institutions must take on include: equipment maintenance, facility costs, energy costs, support staff costs and equipment.

In 2003, the federal government created an indirect costs program to provide support for a portion of the indirect costs of federally funded research incurred by Canadian institutions.

With an annual budget of just over $300 million, this program was to cover 40% of the indirect costs of research, but that never happened. It is estimated that barely 20% of these costs are covered today. In Quebec, for example, that represents a yearly shortfall of $113 million.

Canada's record is not good compared to other countries. European Union countries cover 40% to 60% of these costs, while the United States and the United Kingdom cover nearly 50%. This shortfall puts a huge financial burden on Quebec research organizations. For example, for the University of Montreal's Institute for Research in Immunology and Cancer alone, which receives some $10 million in federal grants for its research, the shortfall in indirect costs is $4.7 million.

Since the holidays are approaching, I will put it in other terms. That would be the same as receiving a $100 gift but having to spend $50 on batteries.

Does the government still plan on covering 40% of the indirect costs of research?

[Family Reunification, December 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the holiday season is a special time to spend with family; however, unfortunately, many new Canadians will have to celebrate without their parents and grandparents.

Many immigrants to Canada are losing hope that they will ever be able to be with their parents and grandparents because, on the Conservatives' watch, it is becoming more and more difficult to reunite family members.

The Conservatives have allowed the wait time for sponsoring parents and grandparents to become unacceptably long and have imposed a complete moratorium on sponsorship applications. Now they are setting a limit of 5,000 applications for next year and imposing new financial requirements that will unduly penalize middle-class families.

Canadian families are paying the price of the Conservative government's insensitivity. Will the government rescind its regressive family reunification policies?

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

Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague is mistaken when he accuses the NDP of wanting to impose a carbon tax.

What the NDP is actually proposing is a cap and trade system with regard to the price of carbon, an approach that can be found on page 32 of the Conservatives' 2008 platform. Unfortunately, I see that my colleague has changed his position.

I would however like to quote a figure that may surprise him. I am sure that my honourable colleague will be surprised to learn that his government is going to raise taxes for Canadians by almost $8 million over the next five years with budget 2013 alone.

Why does the Conservative government want to increase the burden on middle-class families?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind anyone watching at home that we are debating this bill under time allocation. This is the 58th time that this Conservative government has limited the time we have to debate its bills in the House. I think it is shameful that the government is limiting our ability to represent our constituents in this way.

I would also like to remind the government that it increased taxes last year, which hurts the people I represent in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. It increased taxes on hospital parking fees. This means that the families who want to visit sick loved ones at the hospital in Saint-Eustache have to pay more for parking. That is completely unacceptable and backwards. Could my colleague speak to that?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 29th, 2013]

With regard to the Indirect Costs Program: (a) what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005; and (b) in the case of McGill University and l'Université Laval, what percentage of indirect costs were covered by the program for each fiscal year since 2005?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what I find particularly appalling in this whole thing is that the Conservatives are using this InSite situation to raise campaign money. They launched a “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign.

It is disgusting that they would try to profit from this and that they are sensationalizing the issue. That is petty politics.

Could my colleague talk about the evidence that supports our position? Could he give us some figures, such as the number of people InSite has helped, to illustrate why we have taken this position?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this government has always governed with blinkers on and consults neither the public nor the appropriate experts.

We also know that Bill C-2 flies in the face of the Supreme Court's 2011 decision, which called upon the minister to consider exemptions for supervised injection sites as a way to reconcile public safety and health issues.

As we can see, the Conservatives have no respect even for the Supreme Court. We therefore hope that they will come to their senses, look at the facts and change their position on Bill C-2.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

In my opinion, this shows that the NDP does not have the same approach as the Conservatives. On the NDP side, we look to facts and scientific studies, whereas the Conservatives rely on ideology.

Moreover, the Conservatives launched a campaign entitled “Keep heroin out of our backyards”, and used it to raise funds and fill their campaign coffers.

I believe that the Conservatives are creating an issue to help build up their campaign funds without really basing their ideas on facts and without adopting a science-based approach.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to talk about Bill C-2, formerly known as Bill C-65.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to denounce this bill, which is intended to terminate the operation of supervised injection sites: nothing more, nothing less. It is in direct opposition to a decision the Supreme Court handed down in 2011.

This is a bill that betrays the irrational ideology of the Conservatives, who believe that repression is the only way to deal with this scourge.

We are not the only people in the world to have considered this issue. There are more than 70 cities worldwide that have supervised injection sites. They are found mainly in Europe and Australia. In Canada, there is but one supervised injection site: InSite, which opened in 2003.

In order to use the services of InSite in Vancouver, users must be at least 16, sign a user agreement, comply with a code of conduct and not be accompanied by children. Users bring their own substances, and the staff provide clean injection equipment. Emergency medical aid is available if required, and expert staff are on site to provide health and social service support.

In addition to providing services to drug users in order to minimize the impact on their health and on public health, InSite conducts research on the effectiveness of supervised injection facilities.

This injection site has already demonstrated its effectiveness by significantly reducing deaths by overdose. It is estimated that overdose deaths in Vancouver have decreased by 35% since the site opened. In addition to reducing overdoses, the facility helps to reduce the rates of communicable diseases among injection drug users. I am referring to hepatitis A, B and C and HIV/AIDS, for example.

Ever since it was established by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and its community partners, this public health project has generated controversy. Those who believe only in repression saw it as an encouragement to use drugs.

At first, the site was able to open because it was given an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to operate for medical and scientific purposes. In 2008, the exemption for InSite expired and the health minister denied InSite's application to renew it. This decision triggered a series of court cases, which led to the B.C. Supreme Court decision that InSite should be granted a new exemption. The federal government then appealed this decision. One after the other, the B.C. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the closure of InSite violated the rights of its patrons under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I would like to quote from the 2011 Supreme Court decision effectively demonstrating the Conservatives' bad faith in this case, as follows:

[The minister's decision to close InSite] is arbitrary...because it undermines the very purposes of the CDSA—the protection of health and public safety.

I would also like to quote another excerpt from that decision:

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.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court decision does not just concern InSite. It opens the door to new similar sites, and I quote:

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, as here, 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.

This ruling by Canada’s highest court has led public health agencies throughout the country, including the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal, to consider opening supervised injection facilities.

After being turned down twice by the courts, the Conservatives are now trying to get around the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the Supreme Court judges, by using Bill C-2 to amend the act.

The Conservatives are acting in a way that is just as reprehensible as the bill itself. Some people go so far as to say that this is hypocritical.

As we saw in this House during the previous session of Parliament, the Conservatives’ strategy is plain: to increase the number of requirements that supervised injection sites will have to meet before the department will grant an exemption. These many requirements will make it much more difficult for agencies to open supervised injection facilities in Canada. The Conservatives are so ideologically pigheaded that it is pathetic.

In this House, my colleagues have often heard me say how important it is to base political decisions on fact. Unlike the Conservatives, I have looked at the facts. I have found that 80% of the people questioned, who live or work in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, support InSite, primarily because there has been a significant drop in the number of needles discarded and the number of people injecting drugs on the street.

I can cite other figures and percentages. The rate of overdose deaths in East Vancouver has fallen by 35% since InSite opened. It has also been noted that injection drug users who go to lnSite are 70% less likely to share needles. In one year, 2,171 Insite users were referred to addiction counselling or other support services. Unlike repression, lnSite does not marginalize drug users and does not force them into isolation. These are figures that I think are pretty convincing.

There are more than 30 peer-reviewed studies, published in major scientific journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, that describe the benefits of InSite. Furthermore, there are other studies that show the positive impacts of more than 70 supervised injection sites that are similar to Insite.

In summary, I think that the science and the evidence are quite clear: supervised injection sites promote public health because they reach vulnerable groups and are accepted by the community. They make it possible to improve the health of their users and reduce high-risk behaviour, in addition to lowering the number of overdose deaths and reducing drug use in public places.

Above all, I believe that safe injection sites make it possible to strike the appropriate balance between public health and public safety. Furthermore, the sites give people who need help access to the necessary health services, such as primary health care and drug treatment services.

Front line workers have been clear: supervised injection sites are necessary. Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition issued a joint statement about the bill, which reads:

This bill is an irresponsible initiative that ignores both the extensive evidence that such health services are needed and effective, and the human rights of Canadians with addictions.

It is unethical, unconstitutional and damaging to both public health and the public purse to block access to supervised consumption services...

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

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

I wonder if she could provide some figures that support our position on Bill C-2. Can she talk about the fact that such sites reduce harm as well as the risk of people injuring themselves? Can she tell us about people who agree with our position?