Murray Rankin

[Navigation Restrictions, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in favour of Motion No. 441, a motion to carry out a review of the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations, and I am so pleased to have the honour of seconding this motion presented by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle.

This is a very straightforward motion. It masks a complicated issue, but all it really asks this House to do is study and look at how we can improve and streamline the existing regulation that was passed. It speaks of creating a streamlined process to enable local administrations to request restrictions on the use of vessels on certain waters in an effort to improve how waters are managed, all in the interests of public safety and environmental protection.

It is pretty straightforward. All we are asking the government to consider is whether this 2008 regulation, in light of the evidence that my colleague has presented, is working effectively. We would really welcome the opportunity, speaking for myself as the seconder, to work with the government to see if we can make it better.

My colleague spoke of three principal reasons.

First is the need for social peace on some of these little lakes. I live in British Columbia, and I have seen the fisticuffs that can happen when we have people with Ski-Doos and powerboats versus people who want to kayak or have canoes. I think that is something we really want to talk about. I thought my colleague did an excellent job in outlining that objective.

The second reason, of course, is enhanced environmental protection, letting municipalities get at this issue and improve it for the purposes of environmental protection.

The third one, which I would hope would attract the government's attention, is red tape reduction, something the government has spoken very effectively on. This is an area where we could actually make a difference by working together.

As someone who comes from an urban riding in Victoria, I can attest to the kinds of conflicts that happen even in urban areas as people try to undertake outdoor activities on lakes. Sometimes, as I say, conflicts occur on lakes even in our area.

These regulations are five years old, and I think the simple plea that my colleague's motion makes is that we should try to improve them if we see problems. I believe, for reasons I will come to, that he has identified some very clear problems.

They start with the fact that the process set out in the guide that he spoke of pursuant to the regulation is extremely lengthy and complex. He talks about municipalities having to do a three-step public consultation process, explore non-regulatory alternatives, apply for a restriction on the body of water in question, and carry out a complex review in which the Office of Boating Safety reviews the file and ensures the process meets a particular cabinet directive, of which the member for Essex, the hon. parliamentary secretary of transport, spoke, namely the cabinet directive on streamlining regulation.

I think it is telling that my colleague's excellent and assiduous work on this issue has unearthed so much support from people in different areas.

The Quebec chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society applauds this motion. It says that:

It is a simple and practical solution for managing our waterways, especially for smaller communities that lack the resources needed for this kind of endeavour. We hope Parliament adopts this motion.

That is from CPAWS, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités, the federation of all Quebec municipalities, applauded this motion as well.

There is a problem. People identify a problem.

The former mayor of North Hatley, Pierre Levac, talked about the difficulties and complexity. He said that even federal officials are saying that the process is much more complicated than before, that they are going to need a project manager just to apply for a regulatory amendment.

That is from the former mayor of the Township of Hatley.

My colleague has done so much consultation in trying to get to the bottom of this that many other people have come to the same conclusion: that there is a problem and that we should try to work together to fix it.

Again, what we are asking for is to work together to fix a problem that has been identified by many stakeholders. It is merely a request that we sit down and try to improve this regulation. I am disappointed that the government has apparently slammed the door in my colleague's face on this initiative. I am hoping we can persuade the government that this is a problem that we can work on together to fix.

My colleague was very clear in noting, as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did as well, that navigation and shipping, under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is without doubt the exclusive domain of the federal government. My colleague was very clear that there is no effort whatsoever to derogate from that. All he is seeking is to empower municipalities and local governments, aboriginal and other, to address the problem when it arises, and to have real teeth.

He pointed out a very serious and specific problem. He talked about a tiny municipality, such as a rural municipality in northern British Columbia, or in the Laurentians, in the case of my colleague, say of 1,500 people. They have to get legal advice and do all of those steps I talked about, all that consultation and spending all that money. If it has 97% in favour, that is still not enough because one person can thwart the consensus that has been achieved in this code of conduct.

We can do better than that and put real teeth behind this. If it happens that a local government's people, having done the consultation with all the parties, including aboriginal and non-aboriginal, comes to a consensus position, they can get this passed without the kind of difficulty and red tape that my colleague has demonstrated so obviously exists in this process.

I know this has been an issue all over Canada. It has certainly been an issue in my province of British Columbia. The member even referred to the frustration on Columbia Lake, where after years and years only two or three sections have been able to be set apart and restricted, as per the wishes of that local area. The point I am trying to make, in short, is that there is an issue. With the greatest of respect, I do not understand why such a simple issue cannot be addressed in good faith by both sides of this House now that the issue has been identified so clearly by so many people. It is a simple matter to say that we have a regulation that is not working, so let us fix it. I thought that is how we were supposed to work together.

There is also the second issue of environmental protection. That is at the bottom of the complaints that local governments get, for example, there are too many motor boats and they are causing pollution in the water. There are other things about water management that has attracted municipal attention in the past, where power boats, for example, are involved. Eutrophication of the lake can be exacerbated by the use of motor boats. This could contribute to shoreline erosion. There can be greater turbidity in the water, which causes sediments to rise from the bottom of the lake. There can be increased density of algae that is created.

These issues come to the attention of local governments when the community is located right on the lake or the water body. The government officials say they know it is a federal issue, but they want to try to fix it and they try to use this legislation. My colleague has pointed out very, very clearly that it does not work. It seems to me fairly self-evident that we should try to take such a simple problem and work through it.

I would have thought that the red tape reduction initiative would attract the attention of the other side of the House. We hear a lot about that, but when we come to those members with a specific and demonstrable example, they seem to turn away from it. I do not understand that. This regulation costs nothing. This is a question, not of money, but about trying to reduce the number of obstacles thrown in the way when the people in municipalities want to get involved and take action on the waterway on which they are located.

There are many solutions that can be addressed. However, we are simply asking the Conservatives to review the regulations, consult with the provinces and the municipalities and the first nations, and produce strategies that would work for Canadians to simplify this process and make it work. We understand the regulation was enacted in good faith, with a desire to address this problem. We agree with the regulation; we just want to make it work better.

Again, I would ask that the Conservatives think seriously about how we could work together to address this very specific but very real problem.

[Navigation Restrictions, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hard-working member for Laurentides—Labelle, for his very thoughtful presentation today. I know him to be an avid boater, an avid fisherman. He is bringing this forward, I think he said for several reasons: social peace, more empowerment to the community, the environment and cutting red rape.

I would like to ask the member to explain a bit further the current problem for a municipality in getting such a matter through, under the current regulation. How does it work?

[Pensions, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member opposite got the latest talking points from the minister.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that boosting the Canada pension plan is “good in the long run for Canadians”, but still he is refusing to act.

Increasing the CPP is the right thing to do to ensure that all Canadians can afford to retire with dignity. Why is the minister choosing to antagonize the provinces instead of working with them to fix Canadians' retirement security?

[Pensions, November 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians approaching retirement age are increasingly concerned about their financial security. Enhancing the Canada pension plan and the QPP is the best way to improve retirement security for all Canadians. The provinces are ready to take action. The only one stalling is the Conservative minister.

Why is the minister waiting for a full-blown crisis before improving the system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I should point out, ironically, if there is any issue of real estate, I am from the west coast. We do not need to be told about real estate values. They have gone up in Vancouver. They have gone up in the Downtown Eastside. I think it is a rather specious argument.

I want to repeat that we would be working in partnership, if there were a bill that truly implemented the spirit and the letter of the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment. We would find a community partnership to address some of the concerns there.

Of course there are always benefits and costs in any public policy decision, but I am so persuaded, and all people on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party are persuaded, the benefits will clearly outweigh the cost. We need to move on the basis of public safety and health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague's fundamental point that these strong social programs, as he puts it, do help alleviate community concerns.

Let me give the House some examples of that. In a study by Wood et al in 2004 about the Vancouver situation, there was a significant drop in the number of discarded syringes, injection related litter and people injecting on the streets one year after the InSite location had opened. That means, as the member points out, that people are not shooting up in alleys and dropping syringes by schools, they are going to a supervised site.

Secondly, I would point out that at those sites, there are trained nurses. If people are ready, willing and able to seek treatment and detox and get off drugs, that is what they are there for and they will help the addicted person to achieve that.

There are also all of the benefits that come from that, economically and otherwise. First of all, wasted lives, getting people off of drugs and getting into productive lives is certainly something that we really cannot put a price on. Secondly, the cost of less law enforcement, less hospitalization and so on are some of the benefits that, as the member said, clearly outweigh the costs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary about the concerns she has about real property. I have concerns about real people's lives. I live in a community where people are dying every day on the streets. I am concerned about that. Residents of Victoria are concerned about that. On this side of the House, that weighs more heavily on us than the impact on property prices and investments, as she put it.

I point out that in Vancouver, 80% of people surveyed living or working in the Downtown Eastside support InSite. That is the community, too. People live there and 80% of them are in favour because they know the impact it has had on their community.

I live in a place where people often do not know that there is the possibility of treatment. We need to create, in partnership with local governments, what they did in Vancouver with InSite, which the Supreme Court celebrated in its decision. It is a coming together of the community. The police are in favour, I remind the House, as well as the community, the City of Vancouver and all of the partners.

They figured out that they could find a way to put this in an appropriate location. We are not talking about putting it in places where the community does not want it. We accept and respect the need for ample consultation with the community. That is what happened in Vancouver and that is what would happen here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I am deeply saddened that the Conservative government has seen fit to introduce such a retrograde bill, and, as I will discuss, a bill that flies in the face of the unanimous 2011 Supreme Court decision on InSite. It seems obvious to many lawyers that this bill will also be struck down by the Supreme Court, costing Canadians hundreds of thousands of dollars. How many lives will be lost or wasted until that occurs?

I would first like to salute the remarkable work done by my colleague from Vancouver East, the health critic for the official opposition. Her compassionate leadership on this issue has been truly inspirational. It saddens me greatly that the Conservative government is only appearing to implement the Supreme Court of Canada judgment. In reality, this bill does nothing more than throw hurdle after hurdle in the way of those other communities across Canada that might wish to establish a safe consumption site to assist those who are suffering from the scourge of addiction.

At the outset, let us be clear, the federal government lost in the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court agreed unanimously that Vancouver's InSite clinic should be allowed to stay open and required the government to determine the conditions that would allow it and other facilities to do so. This bill is supposed to be the result of that Supreme Court judgment.

Before turning to Bill C-2, let me begin by describing the judgment of the Supreme Court. Then I want to examine the contents of the bill before turning to its importance to communities such as Victoria, which I have the honour to represent.

The court's unanimous judgment is extremely eloquent. I can do no better than to read certain portions of the judgment into the record today. It goes like this:

In the early 1990s, injection drug use reached crisis levels in Vancouver’s downtown eastside [...]. Epidemics of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C soon followed, and a public health emergency was declared [...] in September 1997. Health authorities recognized that creative solutions would be required to address the needs of the population of the [downtown eastside], a marginalized population with complex mental, physical, and emotional health issues. After years of research, planning, and intergovernmental cooperation, the authorities proposed a scheme of care for drug users that would assist them at all points in the treatment of their disease, not simply when they quit drugs for good. The proposed plan included supervised drug consumption facilities which, though controversial in North America, have been used with success to address health issues associated with injection drug use in Europe and Australia.

Operating a supervised injection site required an exemption from the prohibitions of possession and trafficking of controlled substances under s. 56 of the [Controlled Drugs and Substances Act], which provides for exemption at the discretion of the Minister of Health, for medical and scientific purposes. Insite received a conditional exemption in September 2003, and opened its doors days later. North America’s first government-sanctioned safe injection facility, it has operated constantly since then. It is a strictly regulated health facility, and its personnel are guided by strict policies and procedures. It does not provide drugs to its clients, who must check in, sign a waiver, and are closely monitored during and after injection. Its clients are provided with health care information, counselling, and referrals to various service providers or an on-site, on demand detox centre. The experiment has proven successful. Insite has saved lives and improved health without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area. It is supported by the Vancouver police, the city and provincial governments.

In 2008, a formal application for a new exemption was made. Again, I say, the Supreme Court held in favour of InSite. The court stated:

The Minister [of Health's] failure to grant a s. 56 exemption to Insite engaged the claimants’ s. 7 [charter] rights and contravened the principles of fundamental justice.

The minister's decision not to grant an exemption is not in in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It is arbitrary because it is undermines the very purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the protection of health and public safety. The court continued:

It is also grossly disproportionate: during its eight years of operation, Insite has been proven to save lives with no discernable negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada.

It further stated:

The effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.

The court went on to order the minister to grant that exemption to InSite, and here is the key point. It said this:

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.

What does Bill C-2 do in the face of that judgment? It sets out a daunting list of criteria that supervised injection sites would have to meet before the minister would grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Experts agree; these criteria would make it much harder for organizations to open safe injection sites in Canada.

Do not take my word for it. Let us hear what the experts have said. Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition issued this statement on BillC-2 when it was first introduced as Bill C-65. They stated the following:

The 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 [sites]....

The Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association have also criticized the bill. This is what the CMA stated:

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.

The Canadian Nurses Association stated:

Evidence demonstrates that supervised injection sites and other harm reduction programs bring critical health and social services to vulnerable populations....

The NDP's position is clear. New Democrats believe that decisions about programs that may benefit public health must be based on facts and evidence, not ideology or appeals to the base of a particular political party. InSite users were found to have charter rights to access services and that similar services should also be allowed to operate with the appropriate exemption.

Over 30 peer-reviewed studies published in famous journals, like the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, have all described the beneficial nature of InSite in Vancouver. There has been study after study. There were 70 safe injection sites studied in Europe and Australia. They have all shown the same thing; it is a public health achievement. Canadians should be proud of what was forged in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

Other communities that are seeking to address the scourge of addiction want similar tools to do so, and then the government passes Bill C-2. It is shocking. It is shocking that the Conservative Party's “Keep heroine out of our backyards” fundraising drive started mere hours after it introduced this bill. However, here is the irony. Bill C-2, after setting these virtually unattainable hurdles in the face of safe injection sites, is going to put heroine back in our neighbourhoods. Shame on the government.

We believe in harm reduction programs, including safe injection sites, and we believe that these exemptions should be based on the evidence, not ideology. The bill puts far too much emphasis on communities having to prove the benefits of these sites. No one, for a moment, has suggested that there should not be ample consultation with communities. Of course, there should. However, the number of hurdles in the bill are absolutely daunting.

That brings us back to what the Supreme Court said. It said there cannot be arbitrary decisions by the minister. The NDP believes that any legislation brought forward should respect that ruling imbalance between public health and safety. Bill C-2 does not do that. Therefore, we think the bill is retrograde. We think people in various communities will throw their hands up and not even bother applying, given the hurdles that I will describe. If that is the intent of the bill, which many believe it to be, then the government will have succeeded, at the cost of millions of people around the world who have had similar processes addressed through safe consumption sites, and at the loss of people struggling with addictions in various neighbourhoods in Canada.

If the bill is passed, new applicants in various communities are going to have to include unprecedented amounts of information, such as supporting letters and, ironically, scientific evidence as well. We think that the process will be slowed down. For example, there are no parameters for how long Health Canada is going to have to take to process an application. How long the minister would take to make a decision is wide open and unaddressed. It could be months; it could be years.

In addition, the bill outlines certain principles that the minister must adhere to before approving an application. They are outlined in section 5 of the bill. These principles include a number of things, some of which are entirely appropriate, but when added cumulatively show the government's real objective, which is to thwart the ability to ever have such a facility opened. Therefore, the bill may well achieve its objective, not giving communities the opportunity for a supervised safe injection facility.

What is going on at the ground level? InSite remains the only operational supervised injection facility in our country. Since it opened, what has happened in Vancouver? There has been a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable disease infection rates and relapse rates for drug users. It was part of a public health plan. This statistic is absolutely shocking. Between 1987 and 1993, there was a 12-fold increase in overdose deaths in Vancouver. As the Supreme Court said, there was a public health crisis. That is why the community came together with the police, provinces, health authority and community groups to create this remarkable achievement. Now, of course, it seems like it is going to be for naught.

After the Supreme Court made its decision other public health officials, in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, started to consider opening supervised injection sites. So far, there has not been one such a request made to open a site.

I am indebted to my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, for his research on the implications of Bill C-2 in our community, the lower Vancouver Island. In his earlier speech, he described the crisis in overdose deaths in Victoria and surrounding area.

The B.C. coroner reported last year that there were 44 deaths from illicit drug use on Vancouver Island in 2011, and 16 of those deaths occurred in greater Victoria. He noted that Vancouver Island is the region with the highest rate of deaths related to illicit drug use in British Columbia.

The Centre for Addictions Research at the University of Victoria concluded that Victoria's per capita death rate is almost 30% higher than in the Lower Mainland. That is right, so just a few kilometres away, a ferry ride away from our community, in the Vancouver community where InSite exists, 30% fewer people die from overdoses per capita than on Vancouver Island, where we do not have a safe injection site. All that Bill C-2 would do is make it virtually impossible for us to realize the public health benefits that have been achieved on the mainland.

The Health Officers Council of British Columbia has resolved that “supervised injection services have been studied enough as research projects, and that it is time to move them into the mainstream of health service provision.” The College of Registered Nurses and the Canadian Nurses Association have interpreted their professional standards for nurses and nurse practitioners to encompass and support the supervision of drug consumption by clients.

In September 2010, the City of Victoria presented a resolution to the Union of B.C. Municipalities to lobby the province to “legislate that base levels of harm reduction services, including needle exchange and access to safe substance use equipment”, and detox and treatment beds, “be made available in every [local government]”.

In April 2008, University of Victoria addictions researcher, Dr. Benedikt Fischer, and B.C.'s provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, called on relevant authorities to implement a supervised consumption site trial for high-risk street drug users in Victoria. Their argument would be the basis for an editorial published in the BC Medical Journal on April 1, 2008, which said:

Victoria provides a perfect platform to implement a distinct and scientifically evaluated supervised consumption site program that is uniquely tailored to reflect the local characteristics of street drug use and associated public health needs....

I could go on, but I would like to talk about the recent response to the bill by Katrina Jensen, AIDS Vancouver Island executive director, who said there is a need for such a site in Victoria. In June she said:

“We have had eight overdose deaths in the last six months and those are deaths that could have been prevented if we had a supervised consumption site,” she said.

“I think there’s overwhelming evidence that a site in Victoria would save lives and be beneficial to the community.”

Debra McPherson, head of the BC Nurses' Union, asks:

“How does this respect the Supreme Court of Canada decision that recognized these facilities save lives?”...

She said the legislation is a smokescreen for the government’s real agenda of “pandering to prejudice and misplaced morality over health care, evidence and a coherent strategy on addictions and mental health.”

The bill does not achieve the goals that the Supreme Court of Canada set out. The Supreme Court of Canada suggested a road map for granting exemptions by the Minister of Health to allow supervised safe injection sites, consumption sites, to be established in communities.

The bill would set up all the red tape imaginable in communities that want to do something about this scourge, this public health and safety issue. These communities are only going to be frustrated by the bill. That is essentially why I oppose the bill. I think it is wrong-headed and contrary to public health and safety.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his excellent remarks.

My question to him would be based on his reaction to the following: Would he agree that the Conservative policy has been to subsidize the fossil fuel industry by $1.3 billion, and that discourages the investment in renewable energy?

Second, does he think that the Liberals' support of the Keystone XL project would do anything to help diversify our economy?

[Ocean Science, November 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today a crucial report was released focusing on the vital importance of ocean science in Canada. The report, sponsored by the Canadian Consortium of Ocean Research Universities, rightly asserts that the health of our oceans is fundamental to our precious environment and to Canada's economy.

The CCORU universities do world-class research, including at the University of Victoria, but there is a pressing need for better integration of science in ocean management and use. Industry, government and universities must work together to ensure a healthy ocean ecosystem for generations to come.

While we face real challenges, I believe we can build a modern, balanced Canada and create good jobs without sacrificing our environment. The path to achieve that goal should be guided by the best science and research possible. I commend CCORU for prompting this report, and urge members of the House and all Canadians to take its findings very seriously.