Raymond Côté

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the motion refers to is Bill C-551, about which the NDP has some concerns.

In particular, one part of the bill gives the Prime Minister the right to exclude certain parts of the committee report before that report is made public. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's indebtedness to the people is even more abysmal than this government's past debts.

Considering his leader's decision to release all Liberal senators from the caucus, my colleague has himself faced similar arbitrary action. Given what must have happened within the caucus as a result, is he not concerned that this arbitrariness will keep us in the dark?

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, although we must admit, that approach contains some rather exaggerated elements.

I would like to hear my colleague's response to the comments made by the former commissioner of Communications Security Establishment Canada, Justice Robert Décary. Following a review presented in his 2012-13 annual report, he reached the following conclusion—which was very troubling considering his position: “After in-depth and lengthy review, I was unable to reach a definitive conclusion about compliance or non-compliance with the law.”

Even the commissioner seems to have a very limited ability to determine what is happening, which is completely unacceptable. Would my colleague not agree that Communications Security Establishment Canada should at least be the subject of an independent review?

[Business of Supply, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona for her speech.

Yvan Thauvette, the national president of the Union of Veterans Employees, made the following comment in reference to the Sydney office closure: “For example, how is one worker going to make up for the loss of 13 [skilled workers] who serve 4,200 clients in the Sydney office?”

It is already remarkable that one very skilled Veterans Affairs employee can manage 350 cases, some of which are sometimes very complex. What does my colleague have to say about staff cuts that will result in one employee serving 4,200 veterans?

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his very enlightening speech.

I would like to discuss with him one aspect that he did not really touch upon. We have heard about rate increases, but it is the economically regressive aspect of these increases that will hit the middle class, seniors, small businesses and charities the hardest. Perversely, this will hit even harder those people who are fully dependent on postal services, who currently do not have Internet access or who do not know how to use it. This could potentially force people to invest in this technology or to try learning how to use it. I assume that in his riding there must also be problems associated with the availability of Internet services.

Could the member speak to all these challenges that will end up cutting people off from contact with the outside world?

[Ukraine, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my Conservative colleague's speech as well as the previous one.

It is important to take stock. I also picked up on some bombastic rhetoric about the strength of the Ukrainian people. That is a good thing, but right now, beyond tonight's legitimate and crucial emergency debate, we need to acknowledge the cruel reality that Canada must live within its means, which have been severely restricted by the government.

The response capability that Canada once had, through government representatives and the staff of Foreign Affairs Canada, has been greatly weakened. What is more, Canada has now excluded itself from the UN, resulting in a staggering loss of influence.

I would like to know how my colleague believes we can make a difference, given that we are now living with the consequences of these political choices from another time that have greatly restricted our power to act?

[Ukraine, January 27th, 2014]

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

One very troubling aspect of the situation in Ukraine is that all of the existing parties are hardening their positions. First, there is the ruling power. As my colleague pointed out, as a result of this hardened stance, we are hearing rumours about repression—real or not—of protesters. Some things are very obvious, with images of chaos and violence against the public.

I would like my colleague to give us an idea of the assets we already have in place. She mentioned the work done by her former foreign affairs colleagues. What means does Canada have to take meaningful action, not only against the ruling power, but also in support of the individuals who have been repressed or injured and who need help and support?

[Health, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in mid-January there was yet another incident involving toxic red dust in Limoilou.

The Quebec Port Authority has acknowledged that the dust came from the port, but the port and the company are hiding behind the federal government to avoid taking action. The federal government, in turn, is hiding behind the provincial government to avoid taking action.

The people of Limoilou deserve better than to be caught in the middle of jurisdictional bickering simply because no one wants to take responsibility.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to protect the health of the people of Limoilou?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue did a nice job of summarizing the issue. This is about keeping vulnerable people safe and about the danger they pose to others. Leaving them to their own devices or making them go away shows no compassion or understanding. It is based on prejudice. It is dishonourable. This bill will create and multiply problems, not solve them or help us deal with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

This gives me the opportunity to talk about the situation in Quebec City and specifically in my riding, Beauport—Limoilou.

There has been a debate in Quebec City on the appropriateness of, as well as the concerns and dangers associated with, a safe injection site. Clearly, proponents of the project have faced prejudice and resistance, but they have also faced perfectly reasonable, genuine concerns.

I had the opportunity to speak directly to people—but more importantly, to listen to people—from certain organizations that provide direct assistance to really vulnerable people. These people are overcoming hardships like drug addiction, and they often need to take substitutes in order to be able to function. As for the will to beat their addiction, they told me that they did not want to take drugs, but they had a problem and they did want to get help.

However, this requires infrastructure, as well as qualified people who are willing to reach out and provide assistance.

Getting back to my colleague's question, compassion is probably one of the most important aspects. The government needs to show some compassion, and that is how it must approach this problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and Halifax for speaking to this issue. I am honoured to join them in talking about this bill, which will have a major and very worrisome impact.

I will begin with a fact about what happened in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. The number of overdose-related deaths at the end of that six-year period was 12 times higher than at the beginning.

That is a spectacular increase over a period of six years. Even if that number had merely doubled, it would still have been a very serious problem.

However, given the Conservatives' attitude toward this bill, the way they want to deal with the problem of hard drug use, and their attempts to undermine the amazing work done by Vancouver's InSite, it is obvious that they are refusing to face the facts.

I would like to mention another significant statistic. Since InSite opened, there has been a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. That is a huge success. Of course it is not enough, but it is a big step forward in dealing with a problem that is beyond the control, and against the will, of drug addicts.

Those are the indisputable facts. They are widely available for anyone to consult. Now, the real debate is about the respect that needs to be shown for the work and the rulings of our courts.

I would like to remind the House that the B.C. Supreme Court, the B.C. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada all supported the idea of keeping InSite open because it addresses the dangers related to drug abuse.

The Supreme Court ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite was in violation of the clients' charter rights and that the decision was:

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

The government’s lack of respect for the country’s courts, a pillar of our society, is a very serious issue. It is troubling because it begs the question of how the public can maintain the same respect for, and especially the same confidence in, one of Canada’s fundamental authorities.

However, this attitude on the part of the Conservatives comes as no great surprise. In fact, it is very much in keeping with their desire to appeal to their base, as illustrated so clearly in their “Keep heroin out of our backyards” campaign. This approach promotes fear and prejudice and denies reality. All this sorry campaign puts forward as a possible solution is to tell people that in order to guarantee their children’s safety on the streets, it is important to keep drug users out of their neighbourhoods. This is an approach worthy of the Far West.

At least the Conservatives have not gone so far as to encourage people to get out the tar and feathers to chase away individuals who are much more in need of assistance than stigmatization to free themselves from their drug addiction.

The Conservatives refuse to address the problems and face reality. Above all, they refuse to support the people and the organizations that are not afraid to be on the ground and take steps to reach out to people and tackle the root cause of the problems. That is what is truly most important.

The NDP believes that any legislation must be based on facts, on empirical and objective data. Above all, it must respect the spirit of the courts’ decisions and their interpretation of our fundamental laws.

Of course, the Canadian Human Rights Act is not perfect. Any piece of legislation, anything created by man, can be made better and can be improved upon. However, when this legislation is used as a frame of reference, especially given that it was passed after major debate and that it is based on experiences in countries around the world, then it serves as a foundational text that puts basic principles to paper.

If some elected members of this Parliament lack respect, either for the amazing results of this work or especially for the decisions made in the course of interpreting these laws, then in which direction are we heading?

To cite the Supreme Court decision again, the approach that the government is planning to take with Bill C-2 puts too much arbitrary decision-making power in the hands of the minister. Furthermore, Bill C-2 does not even provide time limits for making a decision on a proposed safe injection site. So, in addition to the minister’s disinclination and the onerous procedures that the organizations wanting to open a safe injection site will have to contend with, they are also going to be facing a wall of silence. This decision will be one that is hidden, arbitrary and hypocritical, because neither Health Canada nor the Minister of Health will be subject to any time limits. They will not have to defend their decisions or justify their point of view about any proposal to establish a safe injection site.

This is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable for any of our institutions or any government representatives to subject a single one of our citizens to arbitrary decisions, inaction or silence.

In conclusion, I would also like to speak briefly about the terms and conditions that would allow the minister to withhold approval of an application to open a safe injection site. They are found in clause 5 of the bill, which is a long list of criteria for refusing the exemption. They are so extraordinary that, taken to the extreme, they could even be yet another way to kill these proposals and put an end to such initiatives.

It is not even a downstream evaluation of the project, that is, after the proponents and those who have decided to set up these kinds of sites have fulfilled all of the requirements; it is something that happens beforehand. It is tantamount to telling people that they can go ahead and do everything in their power and be as professional as possible, but the government will have made up its mind right from the outset. The six principles mentioned, that I will not take the time to read out loud, go so far that they will stop any proposal in its tracks long before anyone can even start working out the details.

I hope that the government members will listen to reason and that for the public good, in the interest of Canadians and for public health in general, the Conservative members will vote against this bill.