OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 035 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, January 27, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES January 27, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 035 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 035 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 035 (Version officielle) 147 035 27 01 2014 2014/01/27 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers (1105) [ English ] Vacancy Fort McMurray—Athabasca The Speaker : It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Jean , member for the electoral district of Fort McMurray—Athabasca , by resignation effective Friday, January 17, 2014. [ Translation ] Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(

b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

[ English ] Board of Internal Economy The Speaker : I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. Toone , member for the electoral district of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine , has been appointed as a member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Cullen , member for the electoral district of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for the purposes and under the provisions of

section 50 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

Private Members' Business Private Members' Business [ Translation ] Electronic Petitions The House resumed from October 28, 2013, consideration of the motion. Motion Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, since this is the first speech of this parliamentary session and the first of 2014, I would like to wish all members of the House a very happy new year. I hope this year will bring lots of interesting, relevant debate. With this in mind, let us talk about the motion moved by my colleague, Motion No. 428.

Several members, myself included, are of the opinion that it will improve parliamentary debate so that it more accurately reflects what really matters to Canadians. As the NDP critic on digital issues, I am often asked to evaluate new technologies that will enhance communication with our constituents, with the hope that they will become more involved in the debates. For instance, the Internet is an excellent tool for sharing information and making people aware of important current issues.

At present, although Canadians can get information and learn more about an issue, they cannot take action by signing an online petition. In fact, their online signatures are absolutely worthless in this House. This is a serious flaw. In this digital age, the House does not reflect how the world works today. The fact that only paper petitions can be submitted is a flaw. Many people sign electronic petitions, but their voices will never be heard here. It is our duty to modernize how we do things in order to better represent Canadians. These days, nearly everyone is on Facebook and other social networks.

That is how we communicate. Accordingly, why not present issues in a way that reflects how the world works in the 21st century? Everyone of my generation is on Facebook. We all use social networks to communicate. I very often receive online petitions from my constituents and even my friends. Unfortunately, as it stands, they are pointless. The legislatures in Quebec and the United Kingdom accept online petitions. Now it is our turn. We need to do everything we possibly can to get young people involved in democracy. In 2011, only 39% of young people voted in the election.

My colleague came up with the idea of moving a motion that would make it acceptable to present online petitions. I sincerely believe that this will ensure that youth are better represented in the House, that their voices are heard and that we are talking about things that are of interest to them. I would like to point out that this is not the first time this idea has been discussed. The issue was raised as part of a committee study during the 38th Parliament. That was a long time ago and nothing has been done. It is clearly time to act. I am hearing more and more that people are not interested in politics.

Perhaps the issues we are talking about today and those we have talked about during this parliamentary session are not what matter to the people in my riding or their neighbours. The motion moved by my colleague would allow Canadians to directly influence debate in the House. What could be better for democracy? Other ideas can certainly be proposed in the future; however, this first step is an essential one. According to a 2012 study by Samara, only 55% of Canadians are satisfied or very satisfied with our democracy. We have some work to do to achieve a better result. I think we can do better than 55%.

The purpose of this initiative is to have members debate an issue when 50,000 people have signed a petition that five members of Parliament have sponsored. This number is not in the wording of the motion, but that is something we can discuss with hon. members. For 50,000 people to take the time to sign a petition suggests that the subject matter is very important to them. It is our duty to discuss that subject. This could be a way to encourage people to vote and to watch the debates in the House of Commons. A very small minority of people are watching this debate right now or watch the debates on a regular basis.

When there is a proposal like Motion No. 428, we should act on it and support it. We should do everything possible to make the House relatable to people and help them see that it truly debates issues that matter to them. What my colleague is proposing just might do that. I would like to mention some of the support my colleague has received for this motion. That support is coming from various sources: the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Preston Manning, and OpenMedia, an agency that seeks to use new technologies to engage people in the democratic process. It is time to modernize Parliament.

This institution is old, but we have the means to improve democracy and to give our constituents a voice in the House. I congratulate my colleague on putting forward this proposal. I hope that on Wednesday, all the members of the House will support the motion. (1110) [ English ] Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in today's debate on Motion No. 428, sponsored by the member for Burnaby—Douglas , which would create a new electronic petitions system.

My colleague across the way has a keen interest in the role of Parliament and its members and has examined the experience of other jurisdictions with electronic petitions. I want to emphasize the government's commitment to a strong Parliament. All members know that in 2006, the government's first act after forming government was to pass the Federal Accountability Act, which changed the way Ottawa does business for the better.

Thanks to this unprecedented legislation, government accountability has been strengthened, including accountability to Parliament, and the government has further continued to promote democratic reform and open and transparent government. Let me now turn to Motion No. 428. The first part of the motion would essentially require the procedure and House affairs committee to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing petitions so as to create and implement an electronic petitions system.

The second part of Motion No. 428 would require the committee to consider, among other things, the possibility of a debate in the House outside sitting hours when a petition has reached a certain threshold of signatures. The motion goes on to state that the committee would have to table its report within 12 months of the motion being adopted. Under the terms of the motion, the committee would be required to include recommended changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions to implement an electronic petitions system.

Basically, to summarize, the motion requires that the committee report lead to the implementation of an electronic petitions system for the House. For the purposes of this debate, it is worth first examining our current paper-based petition system. Our current petition system is set out in Standing Order 36, which is based on principles of representative democracy and the fundamental role of an individual member of Parliament. As evidenced by the 2,000 petitions presented by members in 2012, the system works quite well.

The Standing Order requires that before petitions can be presented, they must be certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. House rules specify that at least 25 Canadians must sign a petition, using the proper format, including a statement of the grievance, and that it be addressed to the House, the government, a minister, or a member of the House for a response. It is a matter of routine practice that members table petitions on behalf of constituents, and it is understood that members may not always agree with the views of a specific petition.

Following the presentation of the petition, the government must respond within 45 calendar days. Our current petitions system functions efficiently. The system is transparent. Canadians are able to tune in and watch our proceedings to see what petitions are being presented, or they can view a list of petitions presented in House of Commons Debates or in Journals of the House. As we debate Motion No. 428, it is useful to examine the experience of other jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions have a petitions system similar to our current approach and appear to be satisfied with that approach.

However, there are some jurisdictions that have recently implemented electronic petitions systems as part of their legislature or as part of the government's operations. In 2011 the United Kingdom House of Commons authorized electronic petitions. Petitions with at least 100,000 signatures can have a debate in the House or in Westminster Hall, a parallel chamber to the House.

To date, these debates have included national issues such as health care and pension increases as well as special interests, such as eliminating welfare benefits for the convicted 2011 London rioters, heart surgery at a local hospital, and the elimination of the badger cull. I would contend that the experience of the United Kingdom suggests that while electronic petitions can increase the participation of citizens in the petition process, they can also be used by orchestrated special interests to force their agenda onto the parliamentary stage.

Similarly, the We the People electronic petitions system established by the White House in the United States, whereby petitions with at least 100,000 signatures are publicly recognized, has been used to advance topics such as the Star Wars -inspired Death Star and the deportation of a CNN journalist. Some commentators in the United States have suggested that electronic petitions systems can undermine representative democracy by recognizing or debating divisive or frivolous issues. I would ask members whether they would want to create an electronic petitions system if that were to be the result.

(1115) In addition, at a time of fiscal restraint, the creation and implementation of a new electronic petition system, and potentially the addition of extra sitting hours for the House to debate petitions with a high number of signatures, could be quite costly. Further, the need to put in place a process to verify thousands of online signatures could prove to be quite an involved and onerous process. Do members believe that such an additional cost would be prudent at a time of global economic uncertainty and fiscal restraint?

The member for Burnaby—Douglas has said that the electronic petitions would “empower citizens to communicate their concerns with their elected representatives and to have the opportunity to set the agenda for debate in Ottawa”. As all members know, every day of the year, whether in our ridings or here in Ottawa, Canadians have many options for contacting their individual members of Parliament or the government. Each of us is regularly back in his or her constituency.

We all have staff in our constituency offices and in Ottawa to help constituents with questions and detailed requests, including through electronic means such as email and websites. I ask members whether creating an electronic petition system would really enhance our ability to engage and serve our constituents. As mentioned at the beginning of my speech, Motion No. 428 presupposes a result for the work of the procedures and House affairs committee. By dictating the outcome, Motion No. 428 undermines the principle that committees are masters of their own affairs.

It is one thing for the House to instruct the committee to undertake a study, but this motion goes too far and oversteps the principle that committees are masters of their own proceedings. I would ask members whether they want to support a motion that would diminish the independence of a House committee and the ability of members of committees to decide upon and manage their own affairs. On the surface, the idea of creating an electronic petition system may have some appeal in terms of using new technologies to serve our constituents.

However, the experience of other jurisdictions suggests that many countries have decided not to implement an electronic petition system and that such a system could become a popularity contest and be open to abuse by special interests. In addition, the cost of implementing a new electronic petition system is a concern during a time of budget constraints. Finally, I take issue with the wording of the motion as it undermines the principle of House committees being masters of their own affairs. For these reasons, I am not prepared to support the motion.

However, I note that the procedure and House affairs committee will be examining our rules and procedures, and if its members were to agree, the committee could decide to review the effectiveness of our current petition system and whether changes are needed.

(1120) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I must say at the beginning that I am somewhat surprised at the way the government members are responding to this motion. We see before us a motion that would enable Canadians to participate in our process and have the opportunity, through petitions, to express themselves. I am surprised by the arguments being brought forward. For example, the member from the government who stood before me talked about a significant cost factor.

I can assure the member that it would be a fraction of the potential cost of the increase, by the current government, in the number of members of Parliament. The Conservatives are increasing the size of the House of Commons, estimated to cost over $30 million a year. Interestingly, I have a petition on that issue. There has been an overwhelming response from the constituents I represent that we do not need to increase the number of MPs in the House of Commons.

I can assure the member that it would cost Canadians a lot more to increase the number of politicians in this House, which is ultimately unnecessary, than it would to allow Canadians the opportunity to be engaged through petitions. This is really where the government is off base. Why would the Conservatives oppose the opportunity for citizens from across Canada to provide their thoughts on a wide variety of issues that come before this House? I was at a protest rally at the Manitoba legislature just two days ago.

Individuals from Winnipeg, and I suspect from even outside of Winnipeg, came to the Manitoba legislature because they were concerned about what was happening in Ukraine. What is happening in Ukraine today is horrific. It is a slap at fundamental freedoms. The people of Ukraine want to be able to express themselves and to have the right to do so. Some of the actions we have seen in Ukraine go against some of the fundamental principles we often take for granted here. It was interesting that at the rally, one of the calls was to have people attending that rally sign petitions.

In fact, I have already submitted, first thing this morning, the names of some of the individuals who signed that petition so that I would be able to stand in my place at some future time, hopefully soon, and express to the floor of the House of Commons the wishes of those individuals who took the time to go to the Manitoba legislature and sign a petition. What are we asking for here? It is an opportunity for a committee of the House of Commons, on which I sit, to study the issue of electronic petitions. What is wrong with that?

What do the Conservatives have against affording the public the ability to participate? On the issue of Ukraine, could members imagine the response if we were allowed to use electronic petitions through the Internet? Hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast would be able to engage on this one issue alone. The leader of the Liberal Party constantly talks about going out and meeting and connecting with Canadians and trying to get Canadians engaged.

Unlike the Prime Minister of this country, the leader of the Liberal Party is constantly out meeting with Canadians and challenging the government to be more accountable.

(1125) This is one of the ways in which Canadians could, in fact, have the opportunity to send messages and participate in the process. Yet the government, for whatever reason, says no, not this time, or it does not want this to move forward. It does not want to provide answers to the types of petitions that might come through electronic means. The member who spoke before me started off by speaking about accountability, as if the government is more accountable. He talked about his accountability legislation.

I have not been here for that long, but with regard to the accountability within this chamber, I would challenge the member or any government member for the way in which the Conservative-Reform government has taken away accountability inside the chamber and limited debate. There are record high numbers of time allocation by the current majority government, unprecedented in Canadian history. Budget implementation bills have multiplied by hundreds of pages, with numerous pieces of legislation all wrapped up in one bill.

Liberals do not have to take any lessons from the current majority government in terms of accountability, because it lacks it in the chamber; and I am disappointed that it does not see the merit of at least allowing the debate of electronic petitioning. I, for one, use petitions a great deal. I afford the constituents of Winnipeg North the opportunity, as much as I can. Quite often in my mailings I encourage people to get engaged in the process by signing petitions.

I have presented petitions on issues such as housing co-ops, the Experimental Lakes Area, refugees, crime prevention, Canada Post, the environment, Elections Canada and robocalls, as well as ethical corporations in developing countries. Of course, one of my favourites was the petition with regard to the government's wanting to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. The constituents of Winnipeg North say no to that, and they have been signing petitions to that effect. They value our programs for pensions.

The health accord is going to expire in 2014 and the government has done nothing to support the renewal of a health care accord, which Paul Martin established, that has seen more money delivered to health care than ever before. The government likes to take credit for the amount of money that is going into federal transfers for health care, when it was actually former prime minister Paul Martin. I have a petition that calls on the government to deal with the health care issue. I made reference to the number of members of Parliament. I talked about the signatures from the Manitoba legislature related to Ukraine.

Over the last seven days, someone contacted me about a pet registry petition, which I look forward to presenting. These are petitions that Canadians have seen fit to sign because they believe in what is being reported in those petitions. How does electronic petitioning hurt democracy here in Canada? We should at least allow it to continue in terms of debate. Let us bring it to the procedure and House affairs committee. I represent the Liberal Party on that committee, and I can say that the Liberal Party, in fact, is very supportive of the concept of electronic petitions.

Liberals see it as a way for more Canadians to get involved in our democracy, and that is a good thing. We see that as a healthy thing.

(1130) We are asking the government and all members to open their eyes, as hopefully members of the Conservative Party will see the value of at least bringing it to the next step. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few words with members. [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 428 about e-petitions. This initiative was put forward by my NDP colleague from Burnaby—Douglas , a meticulous and effective parliamentarian, and a champion of democracy.

I would like to begin by pointing out that the Conservative government has a very poor record when it comes to democratic participation. First, the Conservatives tried to prevent citizens from participating in environmental assessments. Then they muzzled scientists and librarians. After that, they started a witch hunt against environmental organizations that oppose their policies. The NDP believes that citizens should have the opportunity to participate in democracy, to intervene and to express their opinions about the government's policies.

This motion, which encourages citizen involvement, is in line with our philosophy. I would like to explain how the system works now. As we all know, petitions have always been a key part of our democratic system. People use petitions to draw Parliament's attention to a problem. Right now, electronic petitions cannot be presented in the House of Commons by members because they do not comply with the Standing Orders. As a result, the government is not required to provide an official response to e-petitions the way it does to paper-based petitions.

Motion No. 428 recommends updating the rules governing the format of petitions and studying the possibility of letting e-petitions trigger a debate in the House of Commons once a certain number of signatures have been collected and if at least five members sponsor a petition. Clearly, the Standing Orders need updating. The House of Commons has to get with the times and take into account what Canadians are thinking now that they are making increasing use of electronic means to communicate and join forces on political issues.

We have to give people more ways to participate in their democracy; we have to adapt democracy to 21st-century realities. If we do not, Parliament will become more and more useless, perhaps even insignificant. Anyone who looks at the other chamber, the Senate, will see that is true. Right now, thousands of Canadians feel left out and powerless when it comes to decisions made in the House. I happen to agree. The current rules have led to a growing divide between people and the government. The numbers speak for themselves.

According to an online survey of Canadians carried out by Samara in December 2012, only 55% of Canadians report being satisfied with the way democracy works in Canada. This number is going down, since it used to be 75% in 2004. To combat this democratic deficit, we need to start listening to Canadians again. They need to feel that their voices are being heard. I will digress for a moment to point out that this is why we are calling for reform of the Elections Act. We need to give more powers to Elections Canada, so that it can more effectively combat election fraud.

We have been seeing the worst kinds of abuse from the Conservative Party in recent years. For example, there were the misleading phone calls to deny voters their right to vote; the bending of the rules on political party funding, which is known as the Conservative in and out scandal; and the election schemes of the former Conservative minister from Labrador, who failed to declare election expenses. Furthermore, the current member for Peterborough is facing four charges in court regarding overspending during the 2008 election campaign.

These despicable actions are alienating Canadians from politics, since they get the impression that they do not really have a say in the matter. They come to believe that the only things taken seriously are the interests of the Conservative Party's big contributors and their friends.

(1135) I could also talk about the need to change our voting system to make sure that every vote counts. Many changes need to be made to our electoral and parliamentary system, but I will save that for another day because my time is short. More fundamentally, we need to fix the Elections Act to regain Canadians' trust. It is also important to change the rules governing how our parliamentary institutions operate so that we can better connect with Canadians. Petition reform is part of that overall plan.

Unlike the Conservatives, we want more than ever to strengthen Canadian democracy and to do everything we can to get Canadians involved in the debates that affect them because, ultimately, this is their House of Commons. We want to give Canadians a chance to have a say in Parliament's agenda. That is why Motion No. 428, which was moved by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas , calls for the use of electronic petitions in the House. I wish to make it clear, however, that we do not want to do away with the current Standing Order with regard to paper petitions. Both paper and electronic petitions will be accepted.

I can attest to the fact that my colleague has done an excellent job of garnering support within all political parties. On the left, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent supported the initiative by saying: Bringing electronic petitioning to the House of Commons is a 21st Century idea and one I fully endorse. Empowering Canadians to come together and help set the Parliamentary agenda will breathe fresh air into our democracy.

My colleague also had the support of Preston Manning, a well-known political figure in our country, who clearly stated: To be able to petition one's elected representatives, and to have such petitions addressed, is one of the oldest and most basic of democratic rights. Affirming and re-establishing this right in the 21st century through electronic petitioning is an idea well worth pursuing.

Similarly, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation welcomes this motion: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation applauds this worthy initiative from the member [for Burnaby—Douglas] to kick-start Parliament on accepting electronic signatures on petitions. When taxpayers get the opportunity to go online and sign an official petition to Parliament, they'll be able to get the attention of Ottawa politicians in a hurry. We also support the [member's] suggestion that 50,000 Canadians signing a petition and 5 MPs should be able to force a debate in Parliament.

This would help restore some grassroots democracy and accountability on Parliament Hill.

According to an Angus Reid poll conducted in March 2013, Canadians, including my constituents, widely support the principles of Motion No. 418. The pollster found that 81% of Canadians either support or strongly support the use of electronic petitions as a way to present their concerns to the federal government. It is important to understand that this motion represents real progress towards improving Canadian democracy and the vitality of our participatory institutions. Promoting and adopting this motion are one more step towards creating a healthier, more transparent democracy.

This is a tangible step with clear and demonstrable repercussions on how important issues are represented in parliamentary debates. It will also allow us to productively channel the widespread discontent regarding Canadian democracy and many of its institutions, including the Senate, where the Conservatives are now showing their true colours. I think it is absolutely crucial that our constituents be included in the political process, and such a motion would be one of the best ways to encourage them to actively participate in our public debates.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion in order to lead off the debate on the future of electronic petitions in our country.

(1140) Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak in 2014. Allow me, respectfully, to wish you a good year, in the hope that our democratic institutions will increase in value, which has absolutely not been the case in previous years. The motion we are discussing this morning could be an excellent way to get back on track. I would also like to wish an excellent year to my fellow MPs and to all Canadians and Quebeckers, who I hope might once again be proud of their politicians because of the quality of the debates that we engage in throughout this new year.

When I was elected in 2011, I was determined to improve our democracy. I still am. The desire to change the way politics is done continues to drive my political involvement. It is not so easy to change things in this honourable institution, Canada's Parliament, but I am not one to give up on my goals so quickly. The subject we are discussing this morning is quite the paradox between tradition and the need to modernize our political institution. Hon. members also know that I am a teacher by profession and that engaging young people in public debate is one of my priorities.

I, like many others, was disappointed to see that voter turnout among 18- to 24-year-olds in the 2011 federal election was 39%, which was well below the national voter turnout of 59%. That is not a spectacular number either, but it is far better. There are likely a number of reasons for this that deserve our attention. In my riding, Trois-Rivières, I was surprised to learn that political debate seems undesirable at the university, where student associations—NDP, Conservative, Liberal, PQ, whatever the political stripe—do not seem to be welcome.

How are we supposed to engage young people and prepare a new generation of active citizens when political debate is considered suspect or dangerous? I must admit that I have a problem with that attitude and the fact that many public places are not open to political debate. Now that the opportunity is here to explore this issue, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 428 on electronic petitions moved by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas . Mr. Speaker, like the vast majority of us, you have a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a YouTube channel and a website. I know because I checked.

All of these digital tools are useful in helping us accomplish some of our work as parliamentarians. They allow us to share our ideas, our values and our vision for the Canada of tomorrow. Much of our work and that of our assistants is visible on social media. I have, at times, had the pleasure of working with the longest-serving member of the House, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour . He told me that when he began his career, he did not have any of these tools, not even a cell phone. Today, politicians would be at a loss without these tools.

As time moved on, we adapted to new technology and the purpose it can serve. I believe there is more to be done. These platforms serve as more than just a means of spreading our political message and doing politics. We also need social media and the Internet to communicate with all of our constituents, all of the groups that wish to be in contact with us and those interested in the debates taking place in our democracy. We use digital media every day in order to speak with our constituents, no matter which party we belong to or what our ideas are. In just a few short years, democracy has gone online.

Long speeches in the public square are becoming increasingly rare. Even more rare is an entire town or community gathering together to listen to us. The relationship between parliamentarians and constituents has been transformed and there is no going back. The town square is virtual now, and we need to keep up with the times if we want to connect with the people we claim to serve. My colleague's motion acknowledges that transformation and sheds some light on the issue.

The idea is that if we, as parliamentarians, can make frequent use of digital tools to share our thoughts, why is the public not also able to use technology to connect with us? In other words, we are constantly reaching out, trying to convince them of our ideas, but they cannot influence our debates or our agenda by taking advantage of progress in electronic communications.

(1145) It is almost hypocritical of us, and we need to try to change that. That is exactly what this motion is about. What my colleague is proposing in this motion is quite simple. He is proposing that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommend changes to the Standing Orders so as to establish an electronic petitioning system in Canada, while maintaining the existing paper-based petition system. The committee would present a report to the House sometime in the next year.

Among other things, the member's motion recommends that the committee consider the possibility of holding debates in the House of Commons, similar to take note debates, once a certain threshold of signatures is reached. For example, 50,000 signatures on an electronic petition is a considerable number. I think it is a rather serious problem if members do not feel that an issue with such support must be addressed. In addition, five members of Parliament would have to agree to sponsor or support the petition in question. Electronic petitioning systems are nothing new.

An increasing number of democracies are embracing this new way of doing things to revitalize the relationship between the work of parliamentarians and constituents. Need I remind members that our Parliament does not always have a good reputation and that our institution has been harshly criticized by Canadians? The Senate scandals and the Conservative government's inability to address the related issues are fueling people's cynicism about both chambers of Parliament.

I am confident that any initiative that would reaffirm and restore Canadians' trust in our work is a step forward, a step in the right direction for our democracy. As I was saying, electronic petitioning systems are nothing new. They are already in use in Quebec and the United Kingdom, and the results are quite promising. We would do well to take a closer look at them. In the British system, for example, petitions supported by at least 100,000 signatures trigger a debate. However, this new way of doing things has not made any significant changes to procedures or the rigour of the work.

Members do not have to be concerned that our agenda will be disrupted by the tabling of a huge number of petitions. Although electronic petitions with over 50,000 signatures are not unheard of, they all draw attention to important issues. According to an Angus Reid poll, this motion already has support from a wide range of stakeholder groups and 81% of the population. We are talking about 81%. In what survey will you find more than 80% of Canadians and Quebeckers agreeing on an issue? It is clear that Canadians and Quebeckers want to see our systems modernized.

This reflects their growing expectation that the House of Commons pay more attention to movements of opinion across the entire country. I have two examples. First, I want to talk about Marie-Hélène Dubé, a Quebec woman who decided to start a national petition after her third reoccurrence of thyroid cancer. Her petition calls on the federal government to amend

section 12 of the Employment Insurance Act, which is 40 years old, to ensure that people with serious illnesses can receive more than 15 weeks of benefits, which is what they receive now. As we speak, this national petition has collected around 430,000 signatures. I would also like to talk about Sylvie Therrien's online petition. Ms. Dubé developed a rather onerous technique that means people have to sign the paper version of the petition and print it, so that it can be submitted in the House. Ms.

Therrien, who had a different experience, also has thousands of signatures on her petition, but unfortunately, it cannot be submitted to the House. In conclusion, I want to quickly say that this is a tangible measure that will have a clear and demonstrable impact on the way issues that are important to Canadians are represented in parliamentary debates. This proposal would also be a proactive way to combat the widespread discontent with respect to Canadian democracy and many of its institutions, including the Senate. Therefore, I fully support my colleague's motion.

I hope that in 2014, the Canadian Parliament can join the 21st century and agree to hear from the people of this country through electronic petitions.

(1150) [ English ] The Deputy Speaker : I would advise the hon. member that in order for the sponsor of this motion to exercise his five-minute right of reply, the member for Victoria will only have nine minutes of debate. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be participating in this debate. I want to congratulate my friend and colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for this initiative. In a former life he was a professor of public policy at Simon Fraser University, where he studied the very issues that are before us today. I commend him for bringing them to the House of Commons.

If ever there were a non-partisan issue, I would have thought it would be this one. It is trying to improve our democracy, trying to enhance the participation by people from all walks of life in Canada, and in particular the young people. I will come to that in a moment. What I would like to do first today is to describe what I understand this motion to be, and what it is not, despite some people characterizing it as such, and to talk about, if I may, the objections that might be raised to an initiative like this.

I hope we can persuade all colleagues to agree that this is an initiative that is long past due in our country. The clear intent is to modernize our long-standing tradition of citizen petitioning of their government. That has been done to date only in paper form. What we have is a transformative technology called the Internet that has changed so many aspects of our lives. Young people come to me in my riding of Victoria and say “Well, why do you not use the Internet? Why do you have to sign the petitions? Why can I not just send an email?” Young people basically cannot understand why this is not already in place.

They particularly cannot understand when I advise them that it has been the case in other modern democracies, like Great Britain, where it is working well, and in Quebec, the Northwest Territories and other places. They look at me and ask, “What is wrong with you? Why do you not harness this communication tool that has been made available?” Canadians are among the most plugged in people on the planet, and it is getting to be more and more the case that Canadians utilize the Internet. Why can we not use electronic petitions?

This motion does not do much more than say that we should get the relevant committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine this, not to replace paper petitions but to enhance the ability of citizens to participate by way of electronic petitions, and to consider a number of things as well, which I will come to. This initiative comes within a broader context of parliamentary reform initiatives, such as the private member's bill introduced by the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills .

His proposed reform act of 2013 was designed to reinforce the principles of responsible government by which the executive branch is accountable to the legislative branch of the government. This is just one manifestation of the hunger in our democracy for parliamentary reform and for bringing our institutions, of which Canadians should be very proud, into the 21st century to enhance and make our democracy more vibrant. We hear people talking about other reform initiatives. The NDP has proudly been in favour of proportional representation for many years.

I believe that will go some distance, along with the reform initiatives of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills . This electronic petitions initiative must be understood in the broader context of that reality. People want this. The recommendation in this motion is that the procedures committee consider the possibility of triggering a debate in the House, something like a take note debate, once a certain number of signatures, such as the proposed 50,000 that we have heard, have been obtained. What is a take note debate? For those watching, it may not be clear.

Historically a minister moves a motion which includes the words “that the House take note” of something. It is designed to solicit the views of members on some aspects of government policy. It does not usually come to a vote. We have used it very effectively on issues such as peacekeeping commitments, NORAD, missile testings, and the war in Kosovo. These are all examples where this has been used. A take note debate is all that would be triggered under this motion. It is not a direct democracy initiative. It enhances our parliamentary procedures.

The problem is that such online petitions cannot be tabled in the House of Commons under our rules. That is why we are debating this. The United Kingdom has a threshold of 100,000 signatures before a take note debate may be triggered.

(1155) Based on the population differential between Canada and the United Kingdom, 50,000 signatures has been proposed. That may well be the right number, but the committee should examine that and give us its response. Many from every side of the political spectrum have validated this, ranging from Mr. Preston Manning to Mr. Ed Broadbent. We have heard from many equality-seeking groups, such as Egale Canada, which have strongly supported this, all the way to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a group that I often do not have a meeting of minds with at the finance committee.

However, the federation is completely behind this as well, as are so many other groups. In an effort to persuade all members to get onside with this reform initiative, I want to talk about what the objections to such an initiative might be. The kind of objections that have been brought forward, and for which I am indebted to the member for Burnaby—Douglas , are as follows. Maybe the initiative will be costly. What is the experience in other countries? Will frivolous issues be generated as a consequence of these electronic petitions? Perhaps the wording of the motion is problematic.

I will examine those in the time available because we need to disabuse members of those concerns. First, on the cost side, the member for Burnaby—Douglas has talked to a number of members of political science departments and has used the Library of Parliament, and there have been no cost concerns. In Quebec and the Northwest Territories existing resources are mostly used. There has been no concern of that kind. Second, the experience in other countries has been uniformly positive. The Library of Parliament reported back that no jurisdiction has ever put an e-petition in place and then taken it out.

Once enacted, it seems to have gone well. Indeed, a recent House of Commons committee in the U.K. studied it and reported back the following: The system introduced by the Government has proven to be very popular and has already provided the subjects for a number of lively and illuminating debates. That does not sound as if the U.K. government wants to get rid of it. As for frivolous matters being a concern, the point is that five members of Parliament would have to look at the petition. It would also require a certain threshold of signatures. That should be an effective check of any abuse.

With respect to the question of the wording being too prescriptive, as some say, that does not seem to be the case if we examine similar motions. Therefore, by way of conclusion, I would urge all members of the House to reform our parliamentary institutions to allow a more vibrant, participatory democracy and to take advantage of the technology of the Internet to enhance all of our parliamentary traditions. Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak here in the early days of the new year.

Let me begin by thanking all hon. members for participating in this debate on my motion to bring electronic petitions to Parliament. I think the spirit of the debate has been respectful. What I will try to do in my five minutes is to give some more information that might help members decide to support this. I believe that we all want to find practical ways to make Parliament more accessible for our constituents. My motion is in the spirit of what I see as an emerging trend of cross-partisan efforts to reform Canadian politics.

Next week, we will vote on a measure by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt regarding committee reform. We will also soon consider Bill C-599, the reform act, put forward by the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills . I am proud to say that I have jointly seconded both of these efforts. In fact, I view these three proposals as somewhat of a package that would bring real change to how we do business in this place. It appears that this cross-partisan spirit is infectious.

Former reform party leader Preston Manning and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent have endorsed my e-petitions motion, as have the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Moreover, as my colleagues mentioned, Canadians want electronic petitions. An Angus Reid poll shows that over 80% of Canadians support bringing electronic petitioning to Parliament. Again, though, my motion is just one step in the larger process. I would like to say that what I am proposing here is only a study.

This is not a motion to bring e-petitions to Parliament; it is a motion to study this before we move to bringing e-petitions to Parliament. It is a study on how we might implement electronic petitioning only to supplement our current paper-based system. If it is the will of the House to modernize our democracy in this simple way, then it would be the responsibility of the procedure and House affairs committee to conduct this study and make recommendations as to how we would best accomplish this goal. It has been suggested that perhaps I should have introduced a bill rather than a motion.

However, the respective procedures of this House are such that that Standing Orders are usually amended using motions. That is why I used this method. More important, the best laws and rules are often only reached after careful consideration and consultation. An in-depth committee study would allow us to hear from experts in civil society to ensure that we get this right. That is important. The issue of costs has been brought up a number of times. I have asked the Library of Parliament to look into how much it would cost if we decided to move ahead with these reforms. These costs would not be onerous at all.

As my colleague said, the National Assembly in Quebec has looked at this. It reports that their e-petition system was developed and is maintained through existing resources. So there are no extra costs. In the Northwest Territories, the initial start-up cost was $8,000. However, the year-to-year cost is only $800. So it is a very low-cost way to bring thousands, if not millions, of people into this process.

It might actually save money as well, because it might reduce the burden upon MPs who are now inundated with hundreds of electronic petitions that we cannot present here in the House but that we have to sift through and reply to. In the U.K. and in the U.S., citizens can create an account, and once their identity is verified they can sign on to whatever petitions they choose. That might be something we would choose to do here. Again, it would give people an official way to get into the process and, once registered, they could do it over and over again.

Some members have expressed to me their concerns about my idea of building in a safeguard of having five MPs sign on to any petition receiving sufficient signatures to trigger a take-note-style debate. They think perhaps five members is not enough. However, the procedure and House affairs committee could certainly sort that out and might conclude that maybe 10 MPs would be the proper number. An hon. member: Why not?

(1200) Mr. Kennedy Stewart : Why not? This is what a committee does. Again, if it wants to safeguard the House of Commons through this debate, that is a very good way to do it. In conclusion, a lot of countries use electronic petitions. I feel that Canada is behind. No country has ever shut down an e-petitioning system once it has been installed. Every single legislature that has adopted this innovation has been sufficiently satisfied to keep it. If we went ahead with the study and implemented this initiative, it would better our democracy, I feel.

It would allow northern and rural Canadians to overcome geographic challenges to better access their legislature. I ask all reform-minded MPs to join me in taking this small practical step to improve our democracy by supporting the motion. The Deputy Speaker : That brings to a conclusion the debate on this motion.

(1205) The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: Division on motion deferred The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 29, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

[ Translation ] Votes on Bills C-475 and C-513 The Deputy Speaker : I would like to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 94, the divisions on Bill C-475,

An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (order-making power) , and Bill C-513,

An Act to promote and strengthen the Canadian retirement income system , stand deferred until Wednesday, January 29, 2014, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Respect for Communities Act The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2,

an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put. Bill C-2. Second reading Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on Bill C-2 , I would like to welcome you and all my colleagues back to the House of Commons from the weeks we had with our constituents and families. I hope everyone had an informative and restful time away from the House, because the debate about the future of the country begins again.

One always hopes, coming out of a time when politicians are separated by great distances and surrounded by friends and family, that we would return to find a new spirit from the government, a spirit in which we could start to renew and rebuild Canada and perhaps find some common ground in order to make our country a better place, which I believe we all begin our political careers hoping for.

Unfortunately, after a very productive debate we just had on a democratic motion from one of the New Democratic members about e-petitions and restoring and enhancing democracy in our Parliament, for which we hope to see some Conservative support, we now move over to an incredibly offensive piece of legislation. This is the first one the Conservatives felt they needed to call. They often have trouble naming their pieces of legislation accurately.

We have seen them time and time again borrow from the worst aspects of our neighbours in the south, particularly the Republican Party, which uses the naming of bills to inappropriately stir up feelings and emotions within the public and inaccurately reflect what is actually being proposed in the legislation. We have that here with Bill C-2 . An appropriate name for the bill would be “Bill C-2, shutting down InSite”. This is essentially what the bill is meant to do. For those who are not familiar with InSite, it has become something that the Conservatives constantly and almost vehemently oppose.

It is a program run out of the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, one of the most troubled communities in the entire country but also one of our most resilient communities. I spent some time working with people who have been positively affected by InSite, a program started a number of years ago in the nineties. It is a safe injection site and the only safe injection site in Canada. I know some of my Conservative colleagues who choose ignorance over the facts will use this as some sort of culture war rallying cry, raising money and potentially securing votes by misinforming the people they represent.

However, they cannot misinform themselves during the course of this debate, because the facts sit before us. They can choose to have their own opinions, but they cannot choose to have their own facts. What we see in this piece of legislation directly goes against science. It goes against the facts of the matter and the principles that we, at least in the New Democratic Party, think are important. Therefore, I am disappointed that this legislation continues to receive support from the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party. I am not surprised, unfortunately.

However, I am also encouraged because it allows us to talk about such important things as public safety and the health of Canadians. InSite was at the time, and remains, a cutting-edge program, a bold initiative to try to tackle a problem that has been plaguing a community for many years. It is one that has received support, at least in British Columbia and Vancouver, from both ends of the political spectrum. Very conservative mayors and more progressive mayors, like Mayor Robertson, have supported this initiative over the years.

It forms one pillar of the four-pillar approach in Vancouver, which has taken on a challenge. As you know, Mr. Speaker, being from Windsor and having spent some time in Toronto and other Canadian cities, within some of our neighbourhoods there can be a cycle in which crime leads to more crime, open drug use leads to more open drug use, and people stop fighting for their neighbourhoods. They leave. The people we want to move into the community will not do so because they do not feel safe, and communities spin almost out of control.

The police are unable to regain a certain amount of public security, and the community ends up looking like one of those communities we fear. Perhaps there are better examples across the border from your home, Mr. Speaker, in Detroit, where because of economics and social malaise, entire neighbourhoods are essentially being bulldozed because no one wants to live there.

(1210) It costs communities not only the hardship, but many millions and billions of dollars in the end. The Downtown Eastside has seen a renewal and revitalization owing not just in part to InSite and the good work the people there do, but also because of many programs that progressive governments have brought to bear in dealing with issues like housing. The Conservative government would perhaps take note that housing is one of the most affordable and most essential components.

The renewal has not been complete, but there is certainly an incredible difference from even 15 years ago when I spent some time working in the Downtown Eastside. It is quite amazing. Let us deal with the bill, because in Bill C-2 the government has found a new love for public consultation and community input. I look to my colleagues to see if they can think of anything else the government has ever done on which the public's opinion has actually mattered.

Those of us dealing with the pipeline politics in northern B.C. and the Enbridge northern gateway would love to hear the Conservative government suddenly have some feeling and concern for the opinion of the public. For those dealing in the Toronto waterfront, such as my friend from Trinity—Spadina , to hear that the Conservative government actually cares what the public thinks would be remarkable. Right across the country we have seen the government time and time again simply invoke measures, as happened when the Prime Minister changed the age of retirement from 65 to 67.

I do not remember that he consulted with Canadians and asked for their opinion, but suddenly, when it comes to a safe injection site, the Conservatives ideologically oppose it. Their opposition is not based on any facts or evidence, even though Conservatives say from time to time they have a new-found love for science. We asked them to help review with us the 30 peer-reviewed articles and medical journals that have studied the effectiveness of InSite. InSite is supported by the Police Association, by the Chiefs of Police, by the Nurses Association, and by the Canadian Medical Association.

These must be some of those foreign-funded radical groups the Conservatives are always crying about, these well-respected institutions of our health and public safety in Canada, but each of these studies has shown time and again that this harm reduction strategy has lowered fatalities due to overdose by 35% since its inception. A caring Conservative would say there are fewer people dying of drug overdose, and it seems like a good thing. A Conservative who is concerned about public safety would also note that crime has dropped precipitously in the same region over the same time.

Therefore, the whole idea that safe injection sites in communities cause the crime rate to go through the roof has proven to be the opposite; in fact, the spread of communicable diseases in that community, a serious public safety and public health issue, has also dropped in that same community in which InSite exists. Not only must we consider the pain and hardship of those who contract these communicable diseases, we must also consider the public purse and what it costs the already strained public system.

It should be every government's intention and work to lower the amount of disease spreading in our communities, and drug relapse for those who have participated in this program is significantly lower than it is in any other program in this country. The addicts who go through the InSite program tend not to get back on drugs nearly as frequently as they do after any other detox or remediation program we have.

All those facts together—public safety, the lowering of crime, the lowering of health costs, the encouragement and support of people in Vancouver and British Columbia of all political persuasions for such a program—should open the eyes of the Conservatives just a little bit. The medical doctors of Canada support this program, the nurses of Canada support this program, and the police in the city and the province support this program. One would think one of those groups would be of interest to Conservatives, but no, that is not the case. What is of interest is fundraising and ideological warfare.

We know that when they introduced the bill, it had not even been debated for a minute in the House of Commons before the Conservative Party sent out a fundraiser to its membership asking them to send money for this great bill. I remember that when the Prime Minister ran for election after being in a position of minority government, he said to give him a majority and not to worry about any agenda he had, because he would be restrained by the courts. In the case of the Supreme Court of Canada, after three trials at the B.C. Supreme Court, the government took the case to the B.C.

Court of Appeal and finally to the Supreme Court. What was the cost to taxpayers? I do not know, but it was millions.

(1215) Even after the Supreme Court said that this bill violates charter rights, that it may well be unconstitutional, and that the government is arbitrarily undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which includes public health and safety, that is what the government is doing. It is not a free and conscious clear-thinking government. It is one driven only by ideology, only by fundraising initiatives, and only by blind faith in some sort of world view that absolutely contradicts the facts in front of us. We will be opposing this legislation at every step of the way. Hon.

Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, welcome back to all of my colleagues. Happy new year— An hon. member: It is Groundhog Day. Ms. Michelle Rempel : Mr. Speaker, it is not Groundhog Day, as one of my colleagues said. This is a very important piece of legislation that we are discussing, because it addresses an issue that is very keen and close to a lot of people's hearts across Canada, which is how we help Canadians overcome addictions to these types of substances.

My colleague spoke very passionately about the need to help people overcome them and the best way to do so. That is a debate that is very worthy of the House. I think we all agree that it is an important issue, but what I did not hear my colleague talk about was the impact of these sites on the communities around them. One of the things that we have been talking about in debating this bill is the right of the communities in which these centres are located to have consultation and to talk about the impact on their households and their lives. I ask my colleague a very honest question: How do we balance that?

How do we balance the needs of the community with the needs of folks who are affected by substance abuse? We have put a lot of policy in place in this government in terms of addressing some of the determinants of how people fall into that type of substance use. Does the member not agree that it is important for us to consult with our communities ahead of opening up one of these sites?

(1220) Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend back as well. I wonder if we could apply those very same principles to energy policy in this country. I am talking about consultation with the communities that are affected. Communities that are affected by any government proposals—such as, say, a bitumen pipeline—should be consulted and listened to. That would be a curious thing, because in the consultations that the government has conducted with Canadians over one pipeline in northern British Columbia, if anybody opposed, the Minister of Natural Resources called them foreign-funded radicals.

With response to safe injection sites, let us understand the process of how these things come to be. The initiative starts from a community that is facing an intractable problem like the one in the Downtown Eastside. The facts of the matter are that in terms of lowering the incidence of drug use in our communities, this works. The facts of the matter are that in terms of lowering crime associated with that same drug use in those same communities, this program works. It has been peer-reviewed by 30 different groups. It is supported by the police, by the nurses, and by the doctors.

These groups are concerned with the same things that my friend just raised. If she does not want to listen to me, that is fine, but she should listen to the groups that have studied this situation. I would also encourage my friend to do as I did and actually visit InSite and talk to the people who work there. She should talk to the clients who go there and to their families. They have seen the success that has happened in this program. Is it perfect? No. Does it move us further along? Yes. Is there a better idea in this piece of legislation? Absolutely not. Let us not sacrifice the perfect as we seek the good.

Mr. Frank Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his thoughtful and informed remarks about InSite. During both the campaigns of 2008 and 2011, I had questions asked of me of InSite. People had this impression that it was like people walking into a Holiday Inn and walking up to a bar where they could order drugs and have a wonderful room in which to sit and relax and take their drugs. I had to inform these people that it is not at all what it is like.

I am taking my friend up on his last comments about visiting InSite and seeing what really goes on there. Perhaps he might tell Canadians the frame of mind that people are in when they go to InSite, what they meet, the welcoming that they have, the opportunities they have for rehabilitation, and all the other things that are afforded those who actually use InSite. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr.

Speaker, if we talk to the people who work on the street, the nurses and the social workers, one of the things that they will tell us, and this is clear across Canada, is that getting access to people who are addicted to harmful drugs is one of the most challenging aspects of their work. It is very difficult to access them and get them into those programs, such as the affordable housing programs or the other initiatives that may be coming from the federal government or some of the provincial governments providing health care.

They cannot get access to people, and one of the reasons InSite has been successful is that ability to at least have the initial conversation. Not everybody is ready at the first invitation to start to move off of a destructive lifestyle, but the conversation starts and the relationship starts. There is not a better idea coming from government. It is not even close. All that we see is this, something that is likely unconstitutional and that breaks our charter. I think we can do better. I know we can do better.

We can support InSite, not take it to court and spend millions of Canadians' dollars fighting good programs that save lives. Ms. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am just going to pick up from where my colleague left off with his answer to a question about the perceived ideas of what a safe injection site is.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley talked about getting access to the addicts as being one of the most difficult things for people working in health care, for people working with folks on the street and for people who are trying to reach out to addicts and help them, whether to access health care or addiction services or housing. How do we actually find the addicts? How do we get to them so we can give them the supports they need? That is very true in my home community in Halifax. We have this incredible program right now called MOSH, which stands for mobile outreach street health.

It is a van with nurses that goes around to where people are. They go to homeless shelters, under bridges and to fields. They go with the van to where they know homeless people are and try to access them and give them some very basic, rough medical attention, and maybe talk to them about the next step. They may talk to them about treatment; there is a doctor down at the North End Community Health Centre. They may talk to them about housing and ask if they know how to access housing. They might connect them to Halifax Housing Help or to Direction 180, which is our methadone clinic in Halifax.

Actually having access to people with addictions is a great thing because we can give them the supports they need. We need access to people who are looking to deal with their addiction or become housed or get the health care they need, and safe injection sites are a way to access people with addictions. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley cited some great statistics about how safe injection sites work, such as InSite in particular, and how people who want support—not everyone—can actually get addiction counselling and can transition to a healthier life where they tackle their addictions.

That is something we should be doing as a country and as Canadians. We should be helping. We should be thinking about ways to actually help people with addictions instead of just further marginalizing them and making it harder for them. So why are we here talking about Bill C-2 ? We are here because, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that InSite saves lives, that it offers life-saving services and therefore should be exempt from

section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the CDSA. I really think judicial decisions are separate from who we are as legislators, but I read that decision and think it was a victory for evidence-based science over ideology. That was 2011. Here we are now at the beginning of 2014 and, unfortunately, I am standing here debating a bill that is a return of that ideology, and it makes me quite sad that we are actually moving backwards. This bill is deeply flawed, and it is based on an anti-drug ideology and on fears about public safety that are not necessarily rooted in evidence.

The fears are not necessarily real. They are false fears. What are these fears? My colleague from Guelph was talking about some of these false fears: people think there are raging addicts going around our communities, who get to go into these posh sites and put their feet up and access drugs, and it is like one-stop shopping for addicts; people think that if there is a safe injection site there will be increased drug use; people think there will be more drug users on the street. When I say “people” I do not mean all people, but those are the false fears that exist.

They are false fears that drug users are going to terrorize our children and our communities. Why do I say these false fears are out there? It is because on the Conservative Party website we see that the Conservatives are trying to capitalize on these fears. There is this beautiful page, and I say “beautiful” with a heavy dose of sarcasm. It says, “Keep heroin out of our backyards”. It is a fundraising request. People can sign up, and the big donate button is there to donate to the Conservative Party of Canada. There is a picture of a couple of needles on the ground and people milling around.

They are not people in fancy dress shoes or high-heeled shoes. It is apparent that these are the shoes of drug dealers; again there is a heavy dose of sarcasm there.

(1225) It is incredible; it is fearmongering. There is a Facebook site that goes with it. If members have some time and they want to get themselves quite exercised about what state the country is in, they should read those comments. They are comments filled with vitriol and more fearmongering. It is incredible. I pulled one comment that said, “Addiction is not a health problem. Addiction...is stupidity”. The vitriol extends bizarrely into saying the civil service should be gagged and put on the EI line. I do not really know where that comes from, but it is out there.

That fearmongering is being fueled by the Conservatives. People may say they do not want a safe injection site in their backyards, but I am going to talk about my backyard in Halifax. My office is on Gottingen Street. Gottingen is a beautiful, strong, vibrant street full of community action and community togetherness. I love the street my office is on, but Gottingen Street has its share of social problems. It is a historically poor neighbourhood. There is drug use and sex work in my community. There is a lot of poverty in this community. The last time this legislation was up in the House I spoke to it as well.

The week before was a riding week and MPs were at home in our constituencies. Just purely by chance that it happened that week, I rode my bike to my office and right on the ground by my bike lock was a needle. I dutifully went inside, got something to pick it up with and took it three doors down to the community heath centre, which has a sharps bin. That is the reality of my community. If my community decides it is better to have a safe injection site, then why can my community not make that decision free of interference and fearmongering from the Conservatives?

I was chatting with some folks from the Metro Non-Profit Housing Association, which is located across the street from my office. I did not know this, but they told me that it and other community organizations had rallied together to put a sharps container on a street behind my office where there is not a lot of back and forth traffic nor a lot of people, so it turns out to be a place where people do use intravenous drugs. Bushes provide privacy. It is ideal if someone is looking for a place to do something outside the eyes of the public.

The association rallied together and said it would put a sharps container behind these buildings because there is so much drug use. At the very least, kids would not be walking around in the midst of needles and having an accident. At first I thought that was a great idea. If there are needles, then let us give people a place to put those needles. Then I found out that people were breaking into the sharps container to steal dirty needles. What kind of desperation must one feel to break into a sharps container to steal dirty needles? What kind of low is that individual at?

Where is that individual who thinks that is a good idea and acts on it? Where is that individual when he or she acts on that, when that is the reality? That is not an awesome thing about my town, but it is real, it exists and it is not going to go away if we just ignore it and do not talk about it. My community says enough is enough. It does not want sharps containers in the café down the street anymore. It does not want sharps containers in all of the community organizations along Gottingen Street. We do not want people shooting up behind the office or behind the health centre.

We want to take care of people and offer them the supports they may need. We want to help them if they want to transition away from addiction. Who is to say that we cannot do that? I will finish with a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada. “Insite saves lives. Its benefits have been proven.” That speaks volumes.

(1230) Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, having been involved with drug investigations a number of times, I understand where people are coming from with regard to InSite. However, the problem with InSite is not the building per se, but rather that 1.1 grams of heroin cannot be purchased legally in this country. The problem is that it has to be brought to that site in an illegal form to inject it legally within that site. To say that there is no drug dealing going on in east Vancouver or Halifax is really not a fair statement to make because it is still happening.

It is just a matter of where the people are injecting. The question boils down to this. Within InSite or any of these sites, is there a way that your party would ensure that the drug being purchased is safe, because there is no way of proving that right now, and how would you do that? The Deputy Speaker : I would ask all members to direct their comments to the Chair and not to other members of Parliament, please. The hon. member for Halifax. Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and it is complicated. This is not easy stuff. It is not black and white.

There are a whole lot of shades of grey here, and so we figure it out. Yes, there will still be people dealing in drugs if there are safe injection sites. Yes, there will be, but right now there are people dealing in drugs. We have a choice of having a community where there are drug transactions and people dying, or a community where there are drug transactions and maybe not as many people dying. Maybe one person will decide to take advantage of addiction services and will no longer be an addict. If there is just one, I consider that to be a victory. It is not simple.

I am not standing here saying that we have the magic bullet, that we know exactly how to do this and how it should roll out, but I do know in my heart that the first thing we have to do is try to save people's lives. If that is what safe injection sites do, I am all for them. (1235) [ Translation ] Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, parents often have concerns about safe injection sites.

Does my colleague think it is better for a child to see a building without really understanding what goes on inside or to come across an addict shooting up or even a person who died from an overdose in the park where that child plays? Does she think that such activities are better carried out inside a building or in front of a child in a place where parents have no control? Ms. Megan Leslie : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. I would like to give an example of what is happening here in Ottawa.

Perhaps that will help alleviate some of the concerns people in our communities have. [ English ] In Ottawa, Campaign for Safer Consumption Sites and the Drug Users Advocacy League came together and opened a mock injection site, where people from the community could see what it was all about. Instead of fearmongering, with pictures of needles rolling around, they said, “This is what it is. Come and talk to our nurses, health experts and people who think this is a good idea. Come on in and see what it is that happens in here”. People get to see the little kits that would be given to people who access the site.

It's a mock site, which helps demystify and dispel the myths, where people can ask questions. We are afraid sometimes, and that is okay. People can go there to ask questions and get educated on the issue instead of just being told that we should live our lives in fear. We should get educated on these issues, and the Campaign for Safer Consumption Sites has done a really remarkable thing. Not everybody in Ottawa agrees, but it has created a safe space for debate and discussion, and that is a far cry from what the Conservatives are doing. [ Translation ] Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : 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.

(1240) 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.

(1245) 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. Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and those who spoke about this bill earlier. The complexity of the situation has been mentioned. However, Canada is recognized as a compassionate nation. With this kind of values in our DNA, we must reflect on how we can do more to help people.

As we have already seen, InSite in Vancouver met a desperate need among the population. I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the importance of showing compassion for people who are addicted to hard drugs. This is also a health issue. These places really focus on health.

(1250) Mr. Raymond Côté : 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. Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, my question is actually very simple. Whenever we talk about supervised injection sites, the subject of parents and protecting children comes up. True, some addicts do come from troubled homes. Others, however, had very good parents who did their level best, but whose children, sadly, became drug addicts for one reason or another.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a parent whose child is a drug addict. Would we not feel better knowing that our child has access to a safe injection site rather than constantly worrying about him shooting up in the streets? He could be assaulted or even die on the street, not to be found until two or three days later. A daughter could be sexually assaulted while under the influence of drugs she used in some backyard. Mr. Raymond Côté : 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. [ English ] Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be back in the House today, after the recess, not only as the newest member of the Green caucus of Parliament but also, as of today, as the deputy leader of that party.

As we know, we are here to talk about Bill C-2,

an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is clear to me, and I believe to at least three-quarters of Canadians, that the party across the way is of the mindset that if a person is poor, or a single mom, or a person of colour, or unemployed, or if the government has unfairly cut off EI, that is that person's fault. That also extends to addictions. If someone is in the unfortunate position of becoming addicted to a substance, all too often caused by the sorts of things I just mentioned, it is entirely his or her fault. Society and the government are not to blame.

We have a government with a punishment attitude. Empathy is often lacking. Understanding of the root causes is often lacking. For those who fall into that class of society and who the government feels are, pardon the expression, "losers", it is their fault. I do not think I can do better than to read some of the recommendations of the Canadian Nurses Association on why Bill C-2 is a bad idea.

They state: The federal government has the opportunity to create policy founded on the best scientific evidence, while reducing costs to taxpayers, supporting vulnerable members of society, providing essential disease-prevention services and encouraging access to addiction-treatment. Given the numerous benefits of [safe injection sites] to public health and safety... If I may interject, the Supreme Court has indicated that it agrees with the nurses on this. ...the [Canadian Nurses Association] recommends 1. that the proposed legislation governing

Section 56 amendments to CDSA be withdrawn; and 2. that it be replaced by legislation that creates favourable conditions for the minister to grant exemptions in communities where evidence indicates that [a safe injection site] stands to decrease death and disease. The legislation must - recognize access to health services as a human right for vulnerable groups; - be based on the principles of harm reduction; It should not cause more harm.

It goes on: - be founded on evidence-based practices in public health; - be developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including people who use injection drugs; - consider the cost-savings benefits of [safe injection sites] to the Canadian health-care system; and - provide for reasonable establishment and evaluation periods prior to renewal.

In addition, [the Canadian Nurses Association] recommends that harm reduction be reinstated as a fourth pillar in Canada’s National Anti-Drug Strategy. [The Canadian Nurses Association] recommends that the auditor general review Canada’s National Anti-Drug Strategy every [decade]. Doing so will not only ensure that the strategy is modified if it is not meeting public health objectives, it will also allow the strategy to integrate recent, effective, evidence-based public health interventions.

We have heard it said on many issues in this House, such as the environment, Statistics Canada, and now this, that Canada needs to have policies based on evidence and science. Today we have legislation, like this, based on an ideology that if one is rich and powerful, one is a winner. The government picks winners. If a person is a loser, it is his or her fault.

(1255) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and caucus mate for bringing forward some additional points on the ideology that underpins the bill. I spoke to it before the recess. One of the things I find most distressing about Bill C-2 is that it is a disguised attempt to bring in, by stealth, measures that would defeat the purpose the Supreme Court of Canada threw back to Parliament to meet, which was to ensure that the security of the person is protected.

There are more than 40 different so-called conditions before a clinic for harm reduction can be opened in a community, including some that are practically impossible. For example, before they are even able to get permission to open such a clinic, they have to provide the background, resumé, and educational qualifications of the people they plan to hire. This is not a reasonable set of conditions. I certainly have a lot of sympathy with the idea that a community where an InSite harm reduction, needle exchange program facility would open, such as the one that exists in Vancouver, should be consulted.

My view is that Bill C-2 is not a set of conditions for consulting a community. It is a set of conditions for defeating the instructions of the Supreme Court of Canada by stealth. I wonder how the hon. member feels a community should be engaged in these decisions.

(1300) Mr. Bruce Hyer : Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that safe injection sites should not go everywhere. They should not go anywhere. There should be community involvement by all the stakeholders. There should be thoughtful, evidence-based decisions based on some clear criteria. As my hon. colleague has pointed out, at least some of the members of the current governing party, not all, but many, and especially those at the top, do not believe in democracy. They do not really want to listen to the Supreme Court on several issues. We can think of others, I am sure.

They are really not interested in a fair voting system. They are not interested in a fair system of parliamentary democracy at all. They are ideologically driven. They are bound and determined to do whatever it takes to gain control and push their own ideological agenda. Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves with respect to why the funding should continue for InSite injection clinics. The rate of overdose deaths in east Vancouver has dropped by 35% since InSite opened. It is about the health and safety of people and the well-being of communities.

Those who use InSite services at least once a week were 1.7 times more likely to enrol in a detox program than those who visited infrequently. Over and over we have heard that it is about the well-being of the community, about the well-being of the person, and about trying to get people into programs so that they can get out of their dependencies. Does the member think that by removing the funding and not allowing these InSite programs the problem will go away, or will it get worse? Mr. Bruce Hyer : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hard-working member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for her good question.

It is very clear that this will not be a cost-saving measure. It is very clear to anyone with a brain that doing that kind of draconian thing and forcing people eventually into our prison system, at a cost of $80,000 to $120,000 per year per person, is a really dumb thing to do. Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we find ourselves debating Bill C-2 , a bill that has been given a pet name by the Conservative government that really does not speak to what the bill is about.

I would like to start off with a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. who once said: Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. I would like to ask each member in this House a question. How many people in this House have actually met and spoken with drug addicts? How many people have been witness to neighbourhoods affected by drug addiction and poverty? How many people would prefer to steer away from these areas? These are pertinent questions to put to the House today. I remember vividly when I was living on the west coast.

I would take weekend visits to Vancouver to visit friends in the Strathcona neighbourhood. I remember walking down streets like Hastings and Cordova during the winter of 1995 and seeing people huddled on doorsteps, people who might have been dead. The rate of overdoses that winter was horrible. One could walk the streets and literally see people dying on the streets. It was devastating. In the media at the time, figures such as drug enforcement staff sergeant Jack Dop could see the problems that were hitting the streets in Vancouver. They were saying that we had to do something about it.

They could see how this scourge was affecting the community, because it was not controlled. It was uncontrolled. I should point out that at the time, in 1995, the Chrétien regime had instituted cutbacks and a reorganization of Transport Canada that affected the coast guard and ports. It might have been a coincidence that shipments of heroin from Asia increased at our ports during that time of reorganization and cutbacks. It might have been a coincidence, or it might have been related. That is for the House to decide. This is a complex issue. We know that drugs exist in our communities, that people use drugs.

As responsible legislators, we have to respond to this problem in a responsible manner. I asked before if anyone in this House has known a drug addict. I asked that question because I have known a drug addict. I knew a guy named Johnny. He stayed with us in Victoria for a couple of months. He was a tree planter. He was a very hard worker, and he was a recovering heroin addict. He had been clean for four or five months, and he had been planting trees in the interior of British Columbia. He worked hard. He was a funny guy and a nice guy. He could play a mean guitar and cook a great meal.

We had lots of laughs with Johnny. He was a nice guy, a human being. Now at the time I met John in 1994, we were living in a poor neighbourhood. It was the North Park neighbourhood in Victoria. It was a pretty rough-and-tumble, poor neighbourhood. It attracted all types of people: students, artists, and coincidentally, drug addicts. I know that John eventually went back to using, and I lost track of him. He got swallowed up by drugs. He ended up back on the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. I do not know what happened to him.

I do wonder if during that winter of 1995 John was one of those people on the doorsteps who had overdosed and died because there was pure heroin and there was no one there to take care of them. This is a human story. This was a good guy with a bad habit. There are a lot of good people out there who have bad habits, and they need our help. They need us to stand up for them. That is why we need places like InSite. Ten years later, when I was doing my graduate studies at UBC, I worked with communities in the Downtown Eastside, primarily in the child care community. I talked to people in that community.

They said that their fear was needles in parks and needles found in child care centres. InSite was responding to things like that. InSite was keeping these neighbourhoods safe, because it was centralizing the problem, and it was controlled.

(1305) This legislation would promote unsupervised drug consumption sites. They do exist. There are flophouses in communities. They pass under the radar because they are not official. They are drug dens. They could be anywhere in our communities and could pop up anywhere.

InSite creates a centre that is legitimate, controlled, and visible in the community, rather than unsupervised drug consumption sites, which I would contend the government is promoting by trying to make it more difficult for supervised ones to open. “Keep heroin out of our backyards” is the slogan of Conservative national campaign manager Jenni Byrne. She thinks it is pretty clever. I do not think it is clever. I think it is irresponsible policy on the part of the government to make it more difficult for supervised injection sites to open. I do not think the bill would eradicate heroin from people's backyards.

If we do not have supervised drug sites, we would have unsupervised ones, which I think could be more chaotic, dangerous and have greater criminal elements attached to them. Since they are not controlled or supervised, those criminal elements could flourish. We need a responsible way to frame these afflicted communities and to help them. The current government often talks about safe streets and communities. I think InSite contributes to safe streets and communities. As I said, maybe my friend John was one of those who overdosed.

If he had been able to go to InSite, then maybe when he had a reaction the people supervising him could have seen that and contacted medical authorities to help him out. In terms of needles in parks and schoolyards, at least when people are injecting on those sites the needles are taken care of. They are not discarded next to a swing set at a child care centre or in a public park. It is controlled. It is supervised. That is the whole idea around it. When something like InSite is created, it is a community coming together to say they have to find a solution to this problem.

We have addicts in our communities and they need help. They need medical help. They might need psychological help. They might need clean works. A place like InSite provides that. It is a step in a community's deciding to better its environment, not worsen it. I think this policy is playing a lot on people's fears. They are people who have never met drug addicts and are afraid to talk with people with these problems. As a society we all have to work together to solve these problems. We have to talk to drug addicts. We have to work with them. We have to create points of contact with these people.

Otherwise, it goes under the radar and we end up with unsupervised flophouses and drug dens. The criminal element is allowed to flourish because we do not want to deal with it. By creating places like InSite, we have a point of contact where we start to deal with these problems and with complex questions like the hon. member from the interior of British Columbia asked about. It was a good and pertinent question. However, if we back up and move away from places like InSite, I do not think we are going to ask those important questions complex questions about drug addiction and drug importation in this country.

Through InSite, we can start to discuss these questions. This legislation has offered a chance to debate this issue, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues on the other side concerning this. I do not think we can put on blinders and say that hard drug use in our society is going to go away if we do not do anything about it. Nobody wants a flophouse or a drug den or a crack house next to their house. If you ask anybody in Canada, they would not want that. InSite creates a community point of contact where these people can get help, be supervised, and where they can be kept healthy.

It is a good positive step in the right direction. There is always room for improvement, but we have to start somewhere.

(1310) Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing from the NDP that InSite is meant to help people get off of drugs and be no longer dependent, but I have yet to see or hear any statistics which actually show that addicts who have gone to this site have chosen to get treatment, no longer live a life of dependence and have stopped contributing to the illegal drug industry and trafficking in Canada.

Would the member have any statistics to prove that people who use needles to feed their addiction have instead sought the help, are no longer dependent, are free from drugs and are contributing to society and not contributing to supporting the illegal drug industry?

(1315) Mr. Jamie Nicholls : Mr. Speaker, that is the hope of all Canadians, that people who are addicted to hard drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine should seek help to kick their habit and become responsible contributing members of society. All Canadians hope for that. We are saying that places like InSite offer the opportunity for them to do that. They are public points of contact, supervised and official. We can actually gather those statistics through working with that community.

This is opposed to having unsupervised drug places in society; no one will be able to monitor whether anyone is getting better or kicking their habit. By having places like InSite, we have the opportunity to work with that community to see if we can help them. In all cases, our hope would be that these people would want to quit using drugs. That is everyone's hope. The reality is that there are so many steps to get to that point and that addiction is a complex issue.

Speaking to addicts and seeing their struggles, hardships, and the complexities of their lives, it is not just a one-shot solution, where we build a centre and they will be cured. It does not work that way because drug addiction is a complex issue; it is not a simple issue. However, we have to start working on a multifaceted approach. Places like InSite are a good start. It is not a be-all and end-all solution. Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am standing to comment on the question by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness .

I have some information that she has been looking for about InSite in particular. InSite has generated the highest intake of people wanting to get on a program to wean themselves off whatever illegal substance they are consuming. As the members for Vaudreuil-Soulanges and Skeena—Bulkley Valley said, it is the point of first contact. It is not necessarily at the first contact that this is taken up, but it has worked. The take-up of people who have a dependency on illegal drugs in Vancouver is the highest by far from InSite.

The parliamentary secretary may want to take that under advisement because that aspect of the program is working very well. Mr. Jamie Nicholls : Mr. Speaker, InSite created an opportunity for researchers to look at this, so there are statistics. Dr. Tyndall and a group of other researchers, in 2005, did a study over a one-year period and produced a report in 2006. They found that there were 273 overdoses at InSite and none of them resulted in a fatality. Over that year, 2,171 referrals were made for InSite users to addiction counselling or other support services.

InSite created the ability for researchers to monitor and to benchmark the program to see if it was working. They found that it was successful. By having sites like these we can work with this community to learn how to conquer addiction and help people move on with their lives without drugs. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to you, to all my colleagues and to my constituents in the riding of LaSalle—Émard my best wishes for health, happiness and solidarity in the new year.

Before turning my attention to the proposed legislation to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which the Conservatives have dubbed the Respect for Communities Act, I would like to quote a firsthand account recently published in the Globe and Mail : (1320) [ English ] As I watch the daily circus and the madness surrounding Mayor Rob Ford, I envy the people of Toronto, who get to watch this on television, read it in the newspaper and listen to it on the radio. They quack about it on Facebook and laugh about it on their daily travels.

I envy them because they can change the channel, stop talking about it or turn it off. In my life this is not an option. My daughter is 23 and she has been an addict, in one form or another, for seven years. She has snorted drugs, shot them in her arm, smoked them and taken pills. She has had her own version of the “drunken stupor,” and she has even been found with vital signs absent by paramedics. Contrasted to this is the very bizarre fact that our daughter is also a university student who pulls A grades in every subject. What she desperately wants is to be well.

The family, if the addict still has a family intact, is swallowed whole and suffers immeasurably. [ Translation ] On reading this account, I feel compassion for this mother who goes through this tragedy every day, a tragedy that affects the entire family, even though I cannot fully comprehend this family’s suffering or the suffering of an individual addicted to hard drugs. Compassion is a value Canadians hold dear. We live in a country with a harsh climate, as today’s weather attests. The population is spread over a vast area. Communities have always survived by helping each other through difficult situations.

Similarly, Europeans shared with and forged mutually beneficial ties with First Nations. Canada therefore became a country in which communities forged close ties with one another. I am fortunate to represent the closely knit community of LaSalle—Émard , where a wide range of community groups and volunteer associations never ask whether they should assist those in need or why they need help. They simply roll up their sleeves and extend a helping hand. Addiction to hard drugs is a complex problem, as my colleagues noted earlier. In Vancouver an innovative approach was developed to help hard drug addicts.

This innovative approach helps persons struggling with hard drug addictions by providing them with a safe place where they can survive. Addicts are given a helping hand and directed to services that hopefully will help them overcome an addiction that slowly kills them. InSite also has associated benefits, so to speak. By providing drug users with a safe injection site, this service also keeps the neighbouring community safer. As was pointed out, public places are kept free of drug addicts and their syringes.

This also helps provide the health care that is so important to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and to give people the help they need. The current bill would amend the legislation that regulates certain drugs and other substances, but primarily it would affect the way in which supervised injection facilities can be set up. First there was the non-renewal of InSite’s licence, and then there was the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada on the matter. What happened? The government decided to challenge the Supreme Court ruling and then to comply with it, more or less, by introducing this bill.

This decision and the proposed policy in Bill C-2 garnered a variety of responses. I will mention a few, as follows: (1325) [ English ] It's difficult to imagine a more cynical and dangerous response to a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that Ottawa has a constitutional duty to protect Canadians than the...government's Respect for Communities Act announced Thursday. [ Translation ] They say that the government, through Bill C-2 , also called the “Respect for Communities Act”, is providing a very cynical and dangerous response. The government must protect all of its citizens.

What is even more dangerous is the partisan way in which the current government has exploited such a situation. I will continue with the quotation: [ English ] As [the former] Health Minister...was holding a press conference to announce details of the act that sets conditions for new safe injection sites, the Conservative party was emailing its faithful to organize opposition to such facilities. [ Translation ] How can the Conservatives be so partisan when it comes to a safe site that—hopefully—helps improve the health of people who are addicted to hard drugs?

How can they be so cavalier in opposing a unanimous Supreme Court ruling and propose insurmountable barriers that will allow the federal health minister to strike down any initiatives that could improve the lives of people who need them so badly? This is why the NDP will vote against Bill C-2 as it currently stands. We should show compassion and extend a helping hand to these people. (1330) [ English ] Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I come back to the problem that the issue is not InSite itself. The issue is the fact that one cannot purchase one gram of heroin in our country legally.

As a result, anyone who goes out to purchase heroin anywhere does not really know what they are getting. They assume that what they are getting is between 65% and 70% pure heroin, but if they were to get 90% they would be in big trouble. Therefore, I go back to my continuing question. I would like to hear what the opposition's solution is with regard to heroin itself. There is no arguing that InSite in its present form in East Vancouver is there to assist, but it does not control what is coming in. It cannot. It is not possible for that to happen.

Therefore, what is her party's solution from the perspective of controlling heroin that comes into InSite for injection? [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc : Mr. Speaker, these questions have been raised a number of times by the government member. He is not addressing any of the facts relating to Bill C-2 . With this bill, the government seeks to put up barriers to an innovative solution that would enable our cities and the rest of Canada to make a meaningful effort to tackle the problem of addiction to hard drugs.

This solution would offer people with addictions a safe place where they can receive services that would help them. We must acknowledge this fact. This bill seriously hinders the establishment of supervised injection facilities. Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when my colleague talks about people who suffer from addictions, I note that she refers to them as if they were persons. They are indeed human beings. On the other side of the House, it appears that they wish to take away their status as human beings by using terms such as “addict”.

If we can show compassion for a mayor who smokes crack and gets drunk on bourbon at City Hall, we should also show a little bit of concern for people who have taken a wrong turn somewhere in their lives and who perhaps really want to overcome their drug addiction, instead of just giving press conferences. Ms. Hélène LeBlanc : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I want to point out that InSite is recognized internationally. My colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges called this facility a safe point of contact. The facility will then make it easier for us to understand this very complex issue.

We would rather not see people addicted to hard drugs. However, it is a reality, and InSite helps us to better understand this reality. This is how we will be able to find long-term solutions. This bill will prevent us from better understanding how this problem develops and will prevent more sites like this from opening in Canada. It will prevent us from answering the call for help from individuals and families struggling with an addiction to hard drugs. [ Disturbance in gallery ] (1335) [ English ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the gentleman in the gallery was saying “save Canada Post”. I can tell the House that at the town hall meeting I had last week, a hundred citizens in my riding were saying exactly the same thing. A lot of Canadians are very concerned about the government's mean-spirited destruction of Canada Post— [ Disturbance in gallery ] Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, citizens are concerned about Canada Post— [ Disturbance in gallery ] Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Speaker, for those citizens concerned about the Canada Post closures and Canada becoming the only G7 country without home mail delivery, the NDP is putting forward a motion that every MP will be voting on later this week, asking the government to maintain home service delivery. It is in the interests of Canada and communities across this country. However, we will be speaking about that in question period and in the days to come. Today, we are called upon to speak on Bill C-2 , which is called

an act to amend the controlled drugs and substances act, but should more rightfully be called

an act to shut down InSite. Members will recall that the Conservative government wanted to shut down InSite. The Supreme Court justices, who are appointed to maintain the rule of law, said no, that it was not in the public interest. Now we have Conservatives coming back with a mean-spirited bill that attempts to do exactly the same thing. On this side of the House, within the NDP caucus, we say no to that. We stand with most British Columbians, who believe that InSite should be maintained. Why? Because the scientific evidence very clearly points to the importance of InSite. I grew up in the Lower Mainland.

I can recall a time in the early 1990s when we saw a tragic skyrocketing of overdose deaths to over 200 people a year. That is 200 individuals. Conservatives might call them addicts, but many Canadians knew them as fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. These family members were passing away at an alarming rate. InSite was a reaction from the community to put in place a controlled injection site so that we could bring down the number of tragic overdose deaths. InSite has succeeded remarkably. The number of overdose deaths has decreased by more than 35%. That is an extremely important statistic to know.

More importantly, InSite is keeping heroin off the streets and keeping it in a controlled injection site. Study after study has pointed out very clearly that the number of discarded syringes has decreased in the Downtown Eastside and in parts of the Lower Mainland as a result of InSite. Studies show that over 2,000 referrals to addiction counselling are being made every year. In fact, the rate of those who are looking at addiction treatment and who go to InSite is more than twice the average of those who do not go to InSite.

What this means, in a very real sense, is that InSite is the first door and the first hallway into addiction treatment programs. The Conservative government has been equally irresponsible when it comes to addiction treatment and crime prevention programs. What we have seen under the Conservative government are severe cutbacks in addiction treatments and crime prevention programs. What we have is a Conservative government that just does not seem to get the importance that communities place on putting in place effective crime prevention measures and effective addiction treatment measures.

InSite is part of that process of finding solutions. Many of my colleagues in the NDP caucus have spoken very eloquently. We have yet to hear from a Conservative on this issue, at least this year. The Conservatives will ask questions designed to take us away from this issue of InSite, for the simple reason that most British Columbians support it. They have yet to comment on the very compelling statistics and evidence of the success of InSite. A very compelling result of the success of InSite is the fact