Scott Simms

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

Mr. Speaker, first, my apologies to the minister. I think the question was posed to him, but it seems I am not giving him a chance to answer. I would like to address what he had to say, which was about striving to reach a perfect model. What he was alluding to was the fact that we can eliminate all incidents of drug abuse, when in fact, we need to focus on reducing the harm for drug users.

The study carried out by Dr. Julio Montaner found a 35% reduction in overdose deaths after this program opened in 2003. Vancouver Police support InSite and broad community consultation, with the support of the provincial government and local governments. The Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Medical Association are national organizations, I know. Still, local practitioners are telling us, by way of evidence, that harm reduction is taking place.

Perfection is not what we are looking for. We just need to strive for perfection.

Obviously, the rules that are being slapped on this lead us to believe that they have no interest in opening up more sites across this country that are based on reducing harm. True or false?

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

Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on the comments from my Conservative colleague, the Canadian Nurses Association is concerned about the meaning of broad community support when it comes to this bill. Obviously it has spoken extensively in favour, as it represents front-line practitioners. The Canadian Medical Association supports evidence-based harm reduction tools. The evidence is quite clear for many of these people. Again, I only bring up these groups because of the fact that they are front-line practitioners and they certainly know what it is they talk about.

Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, talks about this as well. These groups are not just national in scope, but they certainly are local when it comes to the jobs they are charged with and the passion they bring.

My question for my hon. colleague goes back to the charter challenge, which is likely going to happen in this particular case. It is astonishing how the opinion put out by the Supreme Court earlier as to the infractions under section 7 of the charter have so blatantly not been addressed. What upcoming struggles does the government face in doing this?

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been said here tonight by many people, and we talk about a potential charter challenge once more stemming from this type of legislation, it seems to run against logic in this case. It is not like this is something that we can see coming in a challenge and we look at our legislation that protects the fundamental rights contained within our charter. In this case, it is section 7 and the exemption that is laid out in section 56 and the continuation of it.

My question to my colleague is this. With the rules that are now in place following the recent Supreme Court decision, does she feel that the rules and guidelines, which the government brags about, are particularly onerous in that they set the bar too high for any future potential injection site in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, as far as the technical aspects of how this all came about, it was because of the opinion of the Supreme Court that this infringes on section 7 of the charter, which is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of one's personal security. In all of that there lies the deprivation of rights. People are deprived in the sense that they want to pursue and receive treatment in a safe way from this program that was set up in 2003 through the exemption in the act.

What possible defence will Conservatives have if and when this receives another charter challenge and they go back to court and do this again, because in this particular case, as my hon. colleague can comment on, there does not seem to be a proper defence other than the one defence, which is “not in my backyard”?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I always enjoy them. I particularly liked the part about the ideological bent, but I want to go to the charter side of things. When this year is done and we have all these year-end reviews about what happened in the news, I think two words will come to mind: charter challenge.

Here we find another bill that runs up against the charter under section 7, in the pursuit of life, liberty, and security of the person, which is a fundamental justice. It is a fundamental right for people to preserve their health in a situation where they find themselves wanting to get help. This is about harm reduction.

What bothers me is that it would not be so bad if the argument from the government was that there were problems with this particular site in the way it administers the plan and so forth. The minister has the discretion to get rid of it. However, the argument is fundamentally, “not in my home town”, “not in my backyard”. For some reason, the Conservatives have used this as a defence. In addition to that, what is even more insulting, is that they use it to raise money to win the next election.

I would ask my colleague, have we gotten to the point where all the evidence pointing to harm reduction has been so lost that the goal is only to win the next campaign and to fund raise?

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

Mr. Speaker, halfway through her speech my colleague mentioned the documentary Not in My Backyard, which I have to admit I have not seen yet. Critics tell me it is very good and very informative.

One thing she mentioned was that waging war on drugs results in waging war on addicts themselves. I wholeheartedly agree. We heard an example. The member for Burlington was kind enough to give us his personal opinion about this. He told us that many local neighbourhoods do not want this. It is a similar situation all around, which results in a lack of understanding.

We must remember that this is a fundamentally evidence-based situation. Section 56 exists to allow this exemption. Why? It is because it helps. This safe injection site has resulted in a 35% reduction in the abuse of drugs. The member also illustrated her point by using examples from around the world, and I appreciate that.

Does my colleague not feel that in the future, all the rules that will have been handed down will ensure that this will not proliferate beyond the one site in Vancouver?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 13th, 2014]

With regard to the current 2015 code review cycle of the National Building Code of Canada: (a) are amendments to the code under consideration that would make the safety of firefighters and other first responders an objective under the code; (b) are amendments to the code under consideration concerning the installation of sprinkler systems in existing and new health-care and assisted-living facilities or other collective residences; and (c) which industry associations or unions have been consulted with respect to any amendments under consideration as described in (a) or (b)?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his speech. I listened to it carefully. I must say, I enjoyed it. It was very thorough and he did it without notes. We have to give him credit for that.

From my own experience where I come from, one of the greatest exports we have, beyond the fish, beyond the wood, beyond the iron ore, and beyond the oil and gas is not so much the hewing of the wood and the drawing of the water; it is the hewers and the drawers. In other words, it is the people who own the skills. It is our talent. It is the people who have now become our greatest asset. They have gained an intellectual capacity such that they are becoming the greatest assets we have. They are building the economy through the revenues they earn, and they are making serious money. By doing this, they are creating our communities and the capacity for out communities to deliver services.

They do not go to the traditional workplace anymore. They leave Newfoundland and Labrador. They go to Russia. They go to North Africa and Norway. The pattern continues, and it is becoming incredible.

What I worry about, though, is the mix of certifications across the country. I find that there is a breakdown in communication between provinces about certification for these jobs and also some of the programs that are available to them, especially federally, and how they mix provincially.

I do not have a lot of time. I wish I could get more into it. The nub of this is that I am worried that the government, instead of starting a conversation about this, is starting an argument, and that is not going to help us at all.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with my colleague earlier, during the debate, about housing.

When it comes to first-time home buyers, it seems to be that the magic is to lower taxes on a marginal level. There is more to it than that when it comes to first-time home buyers.

This bill lacks the vision to create more programs for first-time home buyers, to make it easier for them. I was one of the people who took advantage of a program, and it had very little to do with the tax rate of the day. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that, please.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick question for the member for Tobique—Mactaquac. I want to talk about regional development because I am not sure if it was in his speech. I do not think it was. Being from Atlantic Canada, the movement of the ECBC in Cape Breton into ACOA represents a far greater change than we anticipated. I am worried that there is no focus on regional development like there was in the past. Hopefully, we are not getting away from that.

Could the hon. member address that, as far as investments go into New Brunswick and how important they have been? Would he dispute the fact that there has been less investment in economic opportunity through ACOA?