OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 013 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, November 4, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 4, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 013 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 013 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 013 (Version officielle) 147 013 04 11 2013 2013/11/04 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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-462,

An Act restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit and making consequential amendments to the Tax Court of Canada Act , be read the third time and passed. Bill C-462. Third reading Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House of Commons to speak on legislation and other matters. The bill on the disability tax credit, which I thank the member opposite for introducing, is a vivid reminder of how important our work is. Persons with disabilities face many barriers or challenges to live full lives.

We have real opportunities, as lawmakers, to make a difference in their participation in communities. There are obvious physical barriers to address for this sector. However, today we address equally important barriers, namely financial barriers. We have an opportunity in our tax laws to ensure fairness, justice and equality for persons with disabilities, who lose significant income that others might be able to earn more easily.

Before speaking directly on this legislation, let me recognize the good work done by our current critic for persons with disabilities, the member for Montcalm , and critic for the Canada Revenue Agency, the member for Victoria . They have been outstanding new members of our caucus and serve their constituencies and critic areas well. I also have to pay tribute to the extraordinary work done on the disability tax credit by a former NDP critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster .

He has been legendary, both in our caucus and in the persons with disabilities networks, for crossing the country to facilitate workshops on the disability tax credit. He has been holding disability tax credit workshops for nine years now in his own riding. I recently read a comment from a person named George, acknowledging how informative these sessions were. George was grateful that he was able, with the retroactive feature, to secure a tax credit of over $13,000. There are thousands of Canadians who have benefited from these seminars.

My own riding staff in Nickel Belt have also done outstanding work, to inform people and then help them navigate the bureaucratic channels to receive their money. My office wants to make sure that every eligible Nickel Belt resident knows how to access this legitimate entitlement under the Income Tax Act. As we know, many persons with disabilities struggle from cheque to cheque or find themselves below poverty levels. The disability tax credit can amount to up to $1,380 per year and can be claimed retroactively for up to 10 years.

It is transferrable to spouses and other family members if the income of the relative with a disability or infirmity is too low. I will talk about some of these cases in a minute. Our party has made it clear that we support this legislation at the third reading and report stage. We have noted, though, that a study is needed to improve recommendations about the consultants and other equally important issues. Certainly it is necessary to establish limits on maximum fees charged by promoters. However, the biggest issues related to the disability tax credit are not addressed in this bill.

The application process for the tax credit is not transparent and persons with disabilities have trouble obtaining it. As a northern Ontario member of Parliament, in a vast riding, I know the cuts by the Conservative government to the Canada Revenue Agency have had a real impact on services offered to Canadians. Closures of Canada Revenue Agency offices across Canada discriminate against persons with disabilities who often need to meet with an adviser. These issues have become clear when I have talked to people in my riding for whom my staff and I have tried to help secure a disability tax credit.

These people have a right to this money, but they are at a supreme disadvantage. My constituents tell me that without knowing how much money they will get, they have to sign an “authorization of representation” form to authorize consultants, such as National Benefit Authority, to represent them. They have all signed the “authorization or cancelling a representative” Canada Revenue Agency form, T1013, which gives permission to the NBA to access their Canada Revenue Agency account. They have to agree to pay a fee of as much as 30% of the money that the firm gets for the constituent.

The amount of the credit and the refund is complicated by whether the constituent has taxable income or might be transferred to a spouse. When helped by my staff, people have shared how upset they were when they realized they could have come to my office in the first place, received the assistance and not had to pay the consultancy fees. In one case a woman was eligible for DTC in the amount of $4,800, but the firm took $1,600 which left her with $3,200. If she had not gone with the firm, she would have received the entire amount.

Some of these firms advertise in local newspapers, asking people with disabilities to go to them for help. People go, not knowing that they are being charged for their services. If they had only gone to the MP's office, they would received all of these services for free. Another constituent who had been getting the DTC was disqualified without any real explanation and could not talk to a person at CRA. This is not right for anyone, but especially for the elderly or disabled. They want to talk to a person. Many Canadians try to contact the CRA, but it is increasingly more difficult.

They get a message on the telephone asking them to press one, press two, or “Sorry, you pressed the wrong number, so you have to call back“. This is as equally frustrating for people with disabilities as for seniors. This has become a real problem for so many folks trying to access help from the Canada Revenue Agency. In the north, we have seen cuts to offices that now have fewer people, and since the decision in 2012 to have no direct dealing with people, there have been more and more frustrated constituents.

The 1-800 and Internet services can be extremely frustrating, particularly for people who already face enough barriers in their lives. Sometimes government offices advise people to visit my MP office for assistance. Imagine going to a government office and because of all of the cutbacks to Service Canada that the Conservative government has made, the people who work there will advise that they would get better and faster service at their MP's office. The Government of Canada is missing in action.

Imagine the Government of Canada not being in the business of serving Canadians, but downloading and off-loading to the offices of MPs. The government is missing in action in northern Ontario. Missing persons posters for the Government of Canada could be put up in post offices with what the Conservatives have done to government services. Another problem is when a doctor refuses to complete the application. We have had three cases where people have been told by their doctor that they do not qualify and who would not complete the form.

In one case the person had the DTC previously, but the doctor refused to complete the form. The person did not then feel comfortable going to another doctor. Let me elaborate on the circumstances of this person. He had been collecting DTC for many years, but had to reapply and get the doctor to re-sign the forms. This gentleman, whom I know quite well, is obviously disabled. He has one arm shorter than the other and is blind in one eye, yet the doctor figured he could get a job. This is something that has to be done. I do not know why some doctors act this way.

I think it should be up to the CRA, especially when a disabled person is already collecting DTC. In 90% of the cases regarding DTC and CRA, people had to go back to their doctors for more information or clarification. Quite a few of the DTC cases went to the review level to provide additional information.

This process can take up to one year before they receive any information. (1110) [ Translation ] Carmela Hutchison, president of the DisAbled Women's Network of Canada, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the DisAbled Women's Network of Canada support the objectives of Bill C-462 and agree that persons with disabilities are fully entitled to protection from the unreasonable fees being charged by financial promoters.

We want real support for this program and better protection against financial abuse and therefore we want to impose restrictions on the fees charged by promoters to people with disabilities. [ English ] Let us get this right. Let us fix the problem with DTC. Let us simplify the application process to make it more accessible for persons with disabilities. Let us reverse cuts to the CRA and provide it with necessary resources to provide information sessions on the— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso . Mr.

Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-462 , and I want to thank my colleague, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke , who is a fellow member of the class of 2000. I know many in the House, my colleagues from Brant and Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound , have remarked on a number of occasions that the class of 2000 was probably one of the strongest and most capable collection of members of Parliament to come to the House in generations. I thank them for that. The member's bill is certainly well-intentioned. I want to congratulate her on it.

The bill seeks to restrict the fees that consultants can charge disabled Canadians who need help with applying for the disability tax credit. It seems that since 2005, a cottage industry of consultants has sprung up to help Canadians apply for the disability tax credit. Although many of these businesses are legitimate and provide a useful service, there are some that are charging outrageous fees to help guide people through the application process. I agree with my colleague that it is important to protect persons with disabilities from being taken advantage of like this.

Therefore, as with many of my colleagues from all parties, I will be supporting this bill, as I hope my Liberal caucus colleagues will as well. However, I want to spend some time speaking about some of the shortcomings of the bill. It has some flaws that give me concern, and I believe they should be corrected. I would also like to talk about the reason the bill is needed in the first place and how additional steps are needed to fix the problems. Finally, I would like to talk about a note of caution.

The disability tax credit is essential to many support programs for people with disabilities, so we need to ensure these changes would not make it more difficult to get help when they need to apply for this credit. My first area of concern is that the bill may be too vague. The bill does not make it clear who exactly would be affected by the new regulations on charging fees. Right now, there may be a risk that legitimate accountants, tax filers, or doctors could accidentally be hurt by the bill.

In the submission of the Canadian Medical Association, for example, it noted that: as currently written, Bill C-462 proposes to apply the same requirements to physicians as to third-party companies if physicians apply a fee for form completion, a typical practice for uninsured physician services. As the CMA points out, there are already guidelines for these types of physician fees in provincial and territorial medical regulations. The member says her proposal is targeted at third-party promoters other than normal tax preparers and accountants.

In order to ensure the legislation would only affect the right people, it needs to be made more clear. On a similar note, although the bill seeks to put a cap on how much consultants can charge to help file for the credit, the bill does not make it clear how high that cap would be. The finance committee has heard that the CRA would be in charge of setting the level for the fee cap, but CRA staff were unable to give the committee any idea of how high or low that level might be.

I understand the member wished to avoid including specifics so that the CRA could consult with stakeholders before setting an appropriate cap. While I understand and appreciate her concern on this point, it is nonetheless difficult for tax filing professionals to plan ahead if they do not know whether, or by how much, their fees would have to change. In order to ensure that legitimate businesses are not hurt by the bill, the text must be more clear about unfair fee levels.

My second concern is that the bill would not tackle the root of the problem and may reduce the ability of persons with disabilities to access programs designed to support them.

(1115) Although I believe the member has proposed this bill with the very best of intentions, we must be sure that it would not have the unwanted effect of reducing the amount of disability tax credits that Canadians claim. As we know, the cost of this tax credit to the treasury has grown quite a lot in the past few years. Some consultants may be abusing the system, but we must keep in mind that others are clearly successful at ensuring that Canadians with disabilities get access to the money they need and deserve.

It makes sense to restrict the fees consultants can charge to help with the tax credit; no one should be taking advantage of people who live with disabilities. However, we must ensure that by restricting these fees we do not also restrict disabled Canadians' access to this tax credit. The fact that these consultants exist in the first place suggests that it is hard to file for this tax credit.

The Canadian Medical Association noted in its submission that it was: ...concerned that one of the reasons individuals may be engaging the services of third-party companies is a lack of awareness of the purpose and benefits of the Disability Tax Credit. Additional efforts are required to ensure that the Disability Tax Credit form be more informative and user-friendly for patients. Therefore, I want to call on the member to address this issue.

The process to apply for this tax credit should be made simpler and the cuts to CRA staff should be reversed so that people struggling with the application process can get the help they need without having to pay through the nose for it. This brings me to my third point. It is important to make the disability tax credit easy to access because applicants have to be eligible for the tax credit in order to qualify for a number of other support programs.

Representatives of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities said in their submissions: The Disability Tax Credit was initially designed as a tax fairness measure recognizing that people with disabilities have additional disability-related expenses. Disability Tax Credit eligibility is now the determinant for accessing other benefits and programs.... Some of these other programs include the registered disabilities savings plan, the disability tax credit benefit, the working income tax benefit for persons with disabilities, and the disability accommodation benefit.

As we know, it also spills into a number of provincial programs; certainly it does in Nova Scotia. Because of a number of benefits and the fact that individuals can back-file for up to 10 years, there is a huge amount of money available to people who qualify for this credit. The disability tax credit really is a gatekeeper for disability benefits, and qualifying for the credit can mean tens of thousands of dollars in relief for a disabled person. We need to ensure that whatever changes we make do not prevent people who need help from filing for the tax credit and getting that help.

We do not want to set out to help persons with disabilities only to end up hurting them in the end. The bill seeks to prevent some consultants from taking advantage of persons with disabilities, but there is a risk that this legislation, if not applied properly, could also prevent legitimate consultants from doing their job. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In conclusion, it is important to me that we make sure that disabilities do not get in the way of people living a full and happy life. Disabilities impose extra costs on those involved.

Because of this, Canada has a number of programs designed specifically around the disability tax credit. However, it is not helpful to set up a program to help people that makes it so difficult that people cannot access it or that requires them to pay ridiculous fees to consultants to help them through the application. The bill has good intentions. It may not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. I recommend that some parts of the bill be updated so that it would be sure to target problem areas and not negatively affect people.

I also recommend that the government look more generally at simplifying the application process for the tax credit. Those are my comments.

(1120) Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, before I start my comments, I should clarify something. I think the member for Cape Breton—Canso was a little confused. I know that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound said that the class of 2000 was rather impressive. However, he also said, and this is where the misunderstanding comes in, that the class of 2004 was far superior. I want to get on the record that the class of 2004 was, in fact, the better of the two. I am thankful for the chance to outline both the need for and the benefits of this legislation.

I really relish the opportunity to demonstrate how our government is working to make a real difference in the lives of Canadians with disabilities by providing them with increased opportunities to participate fully in society. There is no better example of this than the disability tax credit promoters restriction act before us today. In a nutshell, this legislation is about ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of people with disabilities when it comes to applying for the disability tax credit program.

Bill C-462 , as it is entitled, does so by making sure that a tax credit intended solely for people facing serious health challenges goes to those individuals and family members who care for them. It would restrict the fees charged by private sector promoters who would profit from their circumstances. The act's objective is comparable to that of the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, which protects all Canadians filing tax returns from unscrupulous business operators. It places limits on how much a discounter can charge for a discounted income tax refund.

However, Bill C-462 focuses specifically on the needs and interests of people with disabilities and their supporting family members who rely on this tax credit. It recognizes the impact of disability-related costs on an individual's ability to pay tax and it would lessen the tax burden. Its intent is to curb the practice of charging outrageously high fees for services offered by promoters who help such individuals to fill out a small part of the application form, which is just a very small part of the process. Let me explain just how grave this problem is and why we must act.

The Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, receives an average of about 200,000 applications for tax credits each year. Of this total, it is estimated that as many as 9,000 of these requests received from taxpayers use the service of disability tax credit promoters. One needs to appreciate that the Income Tax Act allows someone with a disability who meets the criteria to request a reassessment dating back 10 years when applying for the disability tax credit program.

This means, of course, that if the individual claim is successful, someone with a disability could get an income tax refund as high as $10,000 or $15,000, or even higher. I have seen them higher than that. While this is good news for people who need the financial support to help defray the cost of therapies, medications, and other supports for the basic activities of daily living, not all of this money necessarily ends up in the pockets of the people who have the disabilities. That is because some promoters charge contingency fees as high as 30% and 40% of the tax refund.

Even a 30% fee means that a refund going back a decade could yield a promoter a cheque between $3,000 and $4,500 just for filling out a few lines on an application form. That money is intended for Canadians with disabilities and the family members who care for them, not tax promoters who fill out a simple form that requires little or no effort. As several speakers have already noted, CRA provides a wide array of information and assistance related to the application and adjustment process for the disability tax credit program.

CRA telephone agents can help to demystify the process and explain how the form needs to be filled out. As mentioned, many members of Parliaments' offices are also helpful. Instead, people are often told by promoters that they have insider knowledge. Ironically, these promoters also suggest that only they can ensure that people who may be eligible for tax credits will receive all the money to which they are entitled. That is quite a claim, given that the promoters expect to receive such a high percentage of the eventual refund.

(1125) At the moment, there are no provisions in federal legislation to prevent or restrict such practices. That is why we need Bill C-462 : it would put an end to these ethically questionable business practices. At the same time, it would support a functioning marketplace for those with disabilities who choose to use the services of a disability tax credit promoter. Certainly there are many legitimate businesses that provide a valuable service to the people who want help in applying for tax credits. We do not have a problem with that, but that is not what we are addressing here with this bill.

We are not out to stop anyone from providing services as long as the fees are reasonable. The provisions in this proposed legislation are designed to make sure that people with disabilities will not be charged excessive rates. We want to protect them from anyone who tries to capitalize on their tax credit by shortchanging them. Equally important, the bill would assist caregivers by reducing the cost of applying for the tax credit so that they can redirect that money into helping the people in their care.

This proposed legislation is a clear demonstration of our government's pledge to ensure the sound use of public finances, as it would put an end to the days of paying out millions to tax promoters instead of providing funds to people with disabilities who really need the help. The provisions in Bill C-462 would also serve as a deterrent, since any firm that tries to skirt the new rules would face harsh penalties in the future. These amendments would restrict the fees that could be charged or accepted by promoters for preparing a disability tax credit application on behalf of someone with a disability.

A maximum fee would be established under the disability tax credit promoters restriction act, and anyone who failed to respect the fee would face penalties. A minimum penalty of $1,000 would apply when the maximum fee is exceeded. Exactly what the maximum rate should be would only be determined following public consultations. The discounter and tax preparation industry would definitely be a part of the consultations when the maximum fee is established through the regulatory process.

Another important feature of the bill is that it would require promoters to notify the CRA when more than the maximum fee has been charged. Failure to inform the agency when an excess fee is charged would be an offence and result in a $1,000 to $25,000 fine. There is no shortage of sound reasons to back the disability tax credit promoters restrictions act, and there are countless good reasons to give it all-party support.

None is more important than the fact that we will be looking out for the hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities who apply for the disability tax credit each year, ensuring that their needs and best interests are met. Bill C-462 would ensure the fair and equitable treatment of Canadians with disabilities, providing them with the same protections other Canadians enjoy thanks to the Tax Rebate Discounting Act. The legislation would provide assurance to qualifying Canadians with disabilities that they will receive the full amount of financial support to which they are entitled.

How could any parliamentarian not agree with that? In my riding, one of my staff, Sue Dingwall, has been devoted to helping people with the disability tax credit program. In the last four years, this staff member has helped people with disabilities receive over $8 million. Close to 2,000 people in my riding have received $8 million as a result of Sue Dingwall's efforts; if these fly-by-night operators were preparing those tax returns, disabled people would have lost maybe $2.4 million of that $8 million.

This money belongs in the pockets of those poor people on disability and the people who care for them. (1130) [ Translation ] Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-462,

An Act restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit and making consequential amendments to the Tax Court of Canada Act . This is an important issue for me. I think that a significant part of the work I do as a member of Parliament is to ensure that my constituents receive at the very least the government services they are entitled to. I would like to provide a brief background as to why we have reached this point. The non-refundable tax credit allocated to persons with disabilities can go up to $1,380 per year.

It is given to people with a severe and prolonged impairment of physical or mental functions. This amount includes a supplement for persons under 18 years of age. To be eligible, persons with disabilities must have a form filled out by a health care professional such as a doctor, optometrist, audiologist, occupational therapist, psychologist or speech therapist. This form may be submitted at any time. In 2005, the government changed the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit by allowing the tax credit to be claimed retroactively.

At that time, promoters started offering services to taxpayers in order to help them maximize their tax credit and refund. It later became clear that some unscrupulous promoters were abusing the system by making false entries in order to maximize the fees they could charge their clients. In addition to false entries, there are cases where promoters charged their clients fees equal to up to 30% of the refund. It is despicable that these people are profiting from the misery of the most vulnerable in this way.

Basically, there are two problems: the misleading entries and the high fees charged by promoters to fill out the disability tax credit request. Bill C-462 addresses the first problem by prohibiting promoters from charging more than an established maximum fee, which will be established by the Governor in Council. The bill also addresses the problem of fraud by establishing that any promoter who makes false or deceptive entries will be subject to fines ranging from $1,000 to $25,000. These are offences under the Criminal Code and can lead to a criminal record.

Although I support this bill, which seeks to crack down on fraud and set fee ceilings for those who help people with disabilities claim these tax credits, I would like to point out the irony of this situation. The question we should be asking ourselves is this: why do vulnerable people have to call upon this type of specialist to receive a tax credit? I think that the disability tax credit application process is simply too complex.

It is not right that taxpayers, particularly those living below the poverty line, have to turn to tax experts, accountants, tax preparers or other third parties in order to have access to the money that the government owes them. In committee, Dr. Karen Cohen, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Psychological Association, criticized the complexity of the process for claiming the tax credit. She said: The Canadian Psychological Association supports this bill....However, it is important to address what might be the underlying cause driving the use of promoters.

If it is indeed the lack of clarity for taxpayers and health practitioners, then the criterion certificates themselves should be revised to enhance the fairness of assessments.

Gail Beck, a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Medical Association, proposed amending the form. She said: We suggest the disability tax credit form be revised to be more informative and user-friendly for patients. Form 2201 should explain more clearly to patients the reason behind the tax credit and explicitly indicate that there is no need to use third-party companies to submit the claim to CRA.

(1135) Carmela Hutchison of the DisAbled Women's Network of Canada reminded the committee that the Canadian government needs to do a broader review of tax measures for people with disabilities in order to create greater access and fairness. She proposed the following, and I quote: Streamlined process and strategy should allow people to have greater access to programs, clear policies, and forms available online to create savings that can be directed to increased benefits and programs for disabled people.

She added: Make the Canada pension plan disability program, disability tax credit, and other federal government forms ones you can save as you work through them. Review the “other qualified professionals” list of who can sign a disability tax credit application. Prohibit billing above a set amount for forms for any provincial, federal, or municipal government program by either professionals or for-profit companies. Protect people from exploitation and outright financial abuse by ensuring some standards for industry promoters and financial advisors of people with disabilities.

That is quite the list of suggestions, but she is right. Instead of tinkering with legal measures that apply to promoters of the disability tax credit, the government should be conducting a more comprehensive review of the taxation of persons with disabilities. The red tape people have to cut through to access to the disability tax credit reminds me of the guaranteed income supplement. When I arrived at the House of Commons I was quite shocked to learn that 160,000 seniors who were eligible for the GIS were not receiving any benefits because the Liberals and Conservatives had bothered to contact them.

The problem was identified in 2001, but the government insisted on maintaining its red tape. It is estimated that, for the whole of Canada, this helped the government generate savings of $300 million on the backs of its poorest seniors. In March 2012, I proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act to provide for automatic enrolment for the GIS. My bill forced the federal government to take the necessary steps to reach recipients. A few weeks after I introduced my bill, the government finally picked it up and proposed a proactive mechanism to contact eligible seniors.

I am pleased to see that this problem is finally being resolved. If I was part of the solution, then so much the better. Similarly, I think it is time to address the problem of the disability tax credit. It is time to make the application process easier. We could also change the criteria for accessing the program because we hear many horror stories about people with disabilities being victims of dubious administrative decisions. In October, my colleagues from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and Burnaby—New Westminster and I organized two information sessions about this.

There was a turnout of about 60 people who wanted to learn more about this tax credit. They all complained about how complicated and unclear the process for getting the credit is. I do not see why people cannot get proper assistance from officials. We see that, more and more, the Conservative government's cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency and other parts of the public service are having a real impact on the services provided to Canadians and those provided in my riding. Cuts to the public service have two consequences. First, they are felt on the front lines.

Eliminating CRA regional program adviser positions jeopardizes information sessions on the disability tax credit. Those information sessions are normally given by public servants. Now NDP members of Parliament are having to take on that job. This sort of thing should not be happening.

(1140) Closing Canada Revenue Agency counters throughout the country also penalizes people with disabilities because they often need to meet with an adviser. It is high time the government reviewed its budget cuts and stopped saving money at the expense of the disabled and those most in need. Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and deliver the final NDP speech on Bill C-462. This is an important bill. I would like to thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for introducing it.

The Standing Committee on Finance reviewed it and asked the appropriate and relevant questions about the bill's scope. Accordingly, it is helpful to be able to conclude the debate with some observations about what happened and some testimony that we heard in the Standing Committee on Finance. It is important that people know that this bill will limit a consultant's ability to charge fees to help people with disabilities claim a non-refundable tax credit that they are entitled to when they file their taxes. These consultants can play a significant role in helping people with disabilities.

A witness from the National Benefit Authority appeared before the committee and made that very relevant point. However—and I believe that this was acknowledged by witnesses and also members of the Standing Committee on Finance—there are people who are not as well-intentioned who might take advantage of vulnerable people with disabilities to put their hands on a larger share of the refund. In fact, even in the case of legitimate organizations, commissions of up to 30% of the refundable amount are often charged. That is a problem.

I could say that the bill, which I support and encourage my colleagues to support, addresses one symptom of the problem, but not necessarily the cause of the problem. In fact, there are two reasons for involving consultants in the process. The first, and the one I am most concerned about, has to do with tax simplification. In this case, the tax credit system is complex. People who are eligible for this tax credit are not contacted and informed that they are eligible. They have to find out about it themselves. The form is complex, and that is a problem.

This was mentioned many times by different witnesses, including the Canadian Medical Association. When it appeared before the committee, the association asked this question: ...why do vulnerable people need to go to these promoters [or consultants] in the first place? We [the Canadian Medical Association] suggest the disability tax credit form be revised to be more informative and user-friendly for patients. Form 2201 [the form in question] should explain more clearly to patients the reason behind the tax credit and explicitly indicate that there is no need to use third-party companies to submit the claim to CRA.

This is a complex situation. There are several tax credits for which people do not feel the need to use consultants or promoters. They can claim these credits themselves, whether it is a refundable or non-refundable tax credit. If there are lots of people who are not aware that this tax credit exists, that means there is a problem. This is the second problem. The second problem with this tax credit that will also have to be fixed is the lack of information being made available.

A number of my colleagues mentioned the excellent work done by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster , who visited various ridings to inform people and let them know that they are entitled to this tax credit. In most cases, we held information sessions for some 50, 100 or even 150 people who learned that they were entitled to this tax credit. I think everyone agrees that it should be up to the Canada Revenue Agency to inform people, especially in cases where there is insufficient information. However, the Canada Revenue Agency struggles to be able to provide adequate information to the general public.

There are several reasons for that, including the Conservative government's decisions dating at least as far back as 2011. The government eliminated a number of regional program adviser positions, which jeopardized the information sessions on various topics, including those on the disability tax credit. It also closed Canada Revenue Agency counters. A counter in Rimouski was closed down. I do not think there are any left in Canada, or at least there will not be any left soon.

These are the places where people could go for information directly, or they would employ people who would travel to give different information sessions.

(1145) That option no longer exists. The Canada Revenue Agency's ability to provide this information has been significantly reduced. Also, the numbers associated with the budget cuts have already been mentioned a few times. These cuts amount to a quarter of a billion dollars for the Canada Revenue Agency alone, or $250 million. Three thousand people work for the Canada Revenue Agency. The agency's information mandate is therefore at risk, and taxpayers, or the persons with disabilities in this case, are paying the price. Therefore, there is much to do in terms of information as well as tax simplification.

Indeed, regarding the information issue, we received a comment from the representative of the National Benefit Authority, an agency of promoters and consultants focusing on tax credits. He mentioned that his organization spent over $1 million last year to raise public awareness. As things now stand, private promoters are obviously providing a completely legal and legitimate service. The fact remains that this organization has spent $1 million to advertise its services to the public and receives commissions that could reach up to 30% of the tax credit that the persons with disabilities would get after applying.

These persons would have received nothing without this information. In this sense, this government initiative that aims to help people with disabilities struggling with higher costs is a bit problematic. Once again I would like to acknowledge the member for Montcalm 's great work on the issue of persons with disabilities, which raises all these problems, including the lack of accessibility and higher costs for Canadians with disabilities.

We are facing a situation where the government, by failing to do its work to provide information or to simplify taxation, is effectively delegating authority to promoters and consultants. There is some abuse, although this is not generally the case. However, the bottom line is that people who learn about this credit and wish to claim it, but who feel vulnerable and not necessarily equipped to deal with bureaucratic challenges, have to forego up to 30% of the sum they are entitled to. In that sense, it is very problematic. This form represents a process that lacks transparency. We condemn that.

At the Standing Committee on Finance, and here in the House too, we really hope that tax simplification will one day be the subject of a comprehensive study. Someone mentioned a certain form, but this applies to the entire tax system. The Income Tax Act, which was only about 10 pages long when it was created in 1917, is now over 3,000 pages long. It is really hard to navigate. That is why some lawyers and financial experts work exclusively on tax issues, since they have to be able to sort through all the complexities and the labyrinth created by the Income Tax Act. I applaud the hon. member's initiative.

I will be voting in favour of this bill, and I encourage all members of the official opposition to do the same. However, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the bill deals with only the symptoms of the problem. There are two issues causing this problem: the lack of information available to Canadian taxpayers and the complexity of the tax system, and in particular the form needed for this tax credit.

I urge the government to look very closely at both of these problems, and then to propose alternatives in order to ensure that people receive the money they are entitled to in the form of a tax refund so they can have better lives despite the situation they are in. (1150) [ English ] Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is my pleasure to rise today and conclude the debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-462,

an act restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit and making consequential amendments to the Tax Court of Canada Act . My bill seeks to balance the needs of Canadians with disabilities and promoters alike by also contributing to a fair, functioning marketplace for those who do wish to use the services of a disability tax credit promoter. Bill C-462 is necessary because changes that were made in 2005 placed benefits receivable on a retroactive basis.

This change created a new incentive for those claiming to be consultants to work with Canadians on their applications, as the dollar amounts on a 10-year retroactive tax refund can be significant and can reach $10,000 to $15,000. Let me be clear: this is not an attempt to crack down on those who are legitimately claiming the credit or to deny claims; rather, it is an attempt to make sure that those who do qualify and those who require the tax credit are able to receive it without paying unfair charges.

The disability tax credit promoters' industry is currently totally unregulated and has produced a system that is increasingly ripe for abuse. In the past, government has determined it appropriate to regulate the tax preparation marketplace. The hon. members for Kings—Hants , Jeanne-Le Ber , and Cape Breton—Canso are concerned that the legislation does not specify what the maximum fees would be or how they would be set.

I chose not to set a maximum fee in the legislation because I want to allow for consultations with disability groups, medical professionals, and legitimate tax professionals to help inform this decision. I want to ensure that those disabled Canadians who need help with their applications can get it. We are not imposing unnecessary red tape on doctors or legitimate tax preparers. I would be pleased to receive direction from tax professionals with respect to the fee level, and I agree with the member for Kings—Hants that the maximum fee should reflect the complexity of the case in hand.

We will ensure that the maximum fee structure will be set in an open and transparent process, involving a broad range of stakeholders. Members of the public and tax credit promoters will also be given a chance to share their views once the regulations are drafted. They will be given plenty of notice so that they can adapt to the new regulations when they come into effect. I know that the hon. members from Montcalm and Abitibi—Témiscamingue also raised concerns about this issue in second reading debate.

As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which includes CFB Petawawa, I am acutely aware of the effect that disabilities can have on the livelihoods of Canadians. The soldiers of my community are at greater risk for a number of disabilities because of the unique challenges of their duties. My decision to introduce this legislation is a direct result of the aggressive tactics employed by some promoters, who objected to my decision to issue consumer alerts.

I started issuing consumer alerts in my riding last year when I found out that some individuals were being charged 20%, 30%, or as much as 40% of the tax credit. Based on the unanimous vote that Bill C-462 received to be referred to committee, I know that other members agree with my concerns. These kinds of charges are unfair, especially when we consider that the purpose of the disability tax credit is to support Canadians living with disabilities.

(1155) I want my constituents and indeed all Canadians to know that they can access their federal member of Parliament for assistance regarding any federal tax credit without being charged a percentage of the credit. In conclusion, I wish to thank all members for their support of Bill C-462 . [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1200) [ English ] Respect for Communities Act The House resumed from October 18 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 amendment. Bill C-2. Second reading Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-2 . What the Conservatives are trying to do with the bill is quite clear, despite their pretending to do something quite the opposite. The consequences of the bill will prove to be very dire for the most vulnerable in our society and very costly for our health care system.

While the bill pretends to address public health and safety concerns about safe injection sites, in fact it has three other completely different goals. I believe the bill aims to shut down InSite, the supervised injection site in east Vancouver, and to prevent any other supervised sites from operating. I believe it aims to nullify the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour safe injection sites, and I believe it constitutes a further attack on the principle of harm reduction. The question of why the government would pretend to facilitate safe injection sites is in some respects easy to answer.

Conservatives know the bill flies in the face of informed public opinion, so it is necessary to create false distractions by manufacturing concern over safe injection sites as threats to public health and safety, when in fact the evidence shows directly the opposite to be true. The bill raises the spectre of neighbourhood opposition to safe injection sites when surveys show that 80% of those living and working in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside support InSite, the existing safe injection site. Bill C-2 pretends to implement the 2011 unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the case of Canada v.

PHS Community Services Society, the decision upholding the right of InSite to operate and upholding the charter rights of those who are addicted to receive health care services. Yet in its “principles”, Bill C-2 makes no reference to public health and no reference to any of the principles on which the Supreme Court of Canada decision was based. This indeed is a bill that will result in litigation, as its intent seems to be an end run around the Supreme Court decision on safe injection sites.

Cynics might even say the government might welcome endless litigation, which would not only delay new safe injection sites but also consume the scarce resources of organizations that have a different view from the government on how best to address the addiction crisis in our communities. The Conservatives also know that the false concerns about public health and safety that Bill C-2 raises will appeal to their narrow base who believe with a near religious fervour and a clear disdain for evidence that being tough on crime will somehow solve addiction problems.

Let me talk a little about each of these three not-so-hidden aims of Bill C-2 : shutting down safe injection sites, getting around the Supreme Court ruling and destroying harm reduction programs. Bill C-2 pretends to facilitate the licensing of safe consumption sites, while instead creating a long list of criteria for licensing and setting up a system without any requirement for the timely disposition of those applications. The bill lists 26 criteria on which applications will be judged, literally A to Z in that section.

It establishes long timelines for public consultation on an application, but imposes no timelines on the minister for actually making decisions. Perhaps my greatest concern about the bill is the ultimate discretion granted to the minister. In the bill, the minister “may” grant a permit for a safe injection site that has met all the criteria, when in fact what I believe the bill should read is that the minister “must” grant a permit if the criteria are met. As I said, Bill C-2 purports to implement the 2011 unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour of safe injection sites.

In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly found that safe injection sites save lives. The court ruled that the existing site should remain open with a

section 56 exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The court ruled that InSite users have a charter right to access the service and that similar services elsewhere should be allowed to operate with an exemption. The court did not say we need a new bill and a new process. Finally, Bill C-2 pretends to be about public health and safety, when it actually aims to dismantle an important harm reduction program. It ignores the very evidence that exists on the positive impacts of InSite.

More than 300 peer-reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated that safe injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, as well as reducing deaths to zero from overdoses. In a study conducted over a one-year period, there were 273 overdoses at InSite. None of these resulted in fatality.

(1205) Bill C-2 also ignores the real savings to both health care and public safety budgets that come from safe injection sites. They ignore the real savings in terms of reduced demand on first responders and emergency rooms with the reduction in overdoses, and they ignore the increased number of clients who actually get into treatment programs as a result of visiting save injection sites. My colleague from Vancouver East pointed out in her speech on Bill C-2 last week: Dr. Evan Wood, a renowned scientist who works for the B.C.

Centre of Excellence in HIV/AIDS, points out that one of the important aspects of a safe injection site is that, given that each HIV infection costs on average approximately $500,000 in medical costs, [InSite] has contributed to a 90% reduction in new HIV cases caused by intravenous drug use in British Columbia, which is why the B.C. government has been such a strong supporter of the program. When the evidence is clear, how can we proceed with a bill such as this, which intends to frustrate the creation of new safe injection sites?

Unfortunately, I believe Bill C-2 is part of the Conservative agenda to eliminate harm reduction programs. We saw this agenda begin in 2007, when the government removed the term “harm reduction” from the list of goals of Canada's national drug strategy. I am standing here today because there is a need for action to address the crisis in overdoses in my own community that the provincial health authority, social service agencies and local police are trying to address. The most recent B.C.

Coroner's Report from October 2012 found that there were 44 deaths from illicit drug use on Vancouver Island in 2011, with 16 of those occurring in greater Victoria. This makes Vancouver Island the region with the highest rate of deaths related to illicit drug use in British Columbia at 7.88 per 100,000 residents. According to the Centre for Addictions Research at the University of Victoria, this makes the local per capita death rate nearly 30% higher than that in the Lower Mainland.

If people need evidence of the positive impact of InSite versus a community such as mine, which does not have access to a safe injection site, they should keep that figure in mind. There is a 30% higher death rate from overdoses on Vancouver Island than where a safe injection site exists in the Lower Mainland. The need for action in my community is very clear, yet Bill C-2 would take away the best tool for responding to this health crisis. It would take a safe injection site off the table for my community. I have one last question. Why the rush?

It was surprising to see Bill C-2 as the first bill the Conservative government brought forward for debate in the second session of the 41st Parliament. Yes, it would help re-establish its tough-on-crime credentials, but more importantly I suspect the Conservatives are in a rush to bring in this new law to head off the opening of new safe injection sites, as there are some applications for

section 56 exemptions that are quite advanced. What they want to do is change the law and send the applicants back to the drawing board under this new legislation with its long delays and near impossible criteria. The real threat to public health and safety in my community turns out to be the narrow ideological agenda of the Conservative government, which ignores the evidence of the real contribution that safe injection sites make to public health and safety. It has already sent a fundraising letter to its base talking about donating to the Conservatives to help them keep drugs out of our backyards.

Ironically, of course, that is exactly what safe injection sites do. They move drug use off the streets and out of our backyards into a safer setting for both those who are injection drug users and our communities as a whole. New Democrats are opposing the bill at second reading and sending the bill to the Standing Committee on Public Safety. I would say this is another piece of Conservative propaganda around safe injection sites. Why is the bill not going to the health committee where it belongs? This, as the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out, is clearly a health issue and not a public safety issue.

The NDP will be calling witnesses in committee to bring the evidence, once again, to the attention of Conservatives of the very positive role that safe injection sites play in both public health and safety. The very fact that the Conservatives have chosen to send the bill to the public safety committee illustrates to me their intention to distract the public by characterizing safe injection sites as a threat to public safety rather than an important health measure that would save both lives and money.

(1210) Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I agree with pretty well everything the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has said. I spent some time at the injection site in Downtown Eastside Hastings a number of years ago. They are there for health and for making progress in getting peoples' lives relatively back in order. These are people who are on drugs for whatever reason. We certainly do not want to see people on drugs. Injection sites do not encourage the use of drugs. They are recognizing the reality of the world and trying to find a reasonable solution to drug addiction.

The member makes a number of good points. Especially when the British Columbia government is on side, what is the reason, from his perspective, for the government going this way? Is it just that it believes in punishment or in ideology? These drug injection sites make sense from a health perspective, and I also believe they made sense from a crime perspective by reducing crime and trying to prevent peoples' lives from being destroyed. Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I really do suspect the government's motives with Bill C-2 .

I really believe it is trying to get around the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which found there was a charter right to access health services that save lives. Therefore, my hope is that when we get to committee with the bill and present the government once again with the evidence of the very positive role that safe injection sites play in communities—the very opposite of what it is alleging here, that they are somehow a threat to public safety and a threat to public health by encouraging drug use—that it will reconsider. We know what the record is at InSite.

We get far more injection drug users into treatment when there is a safe injection site where they can establish relationships with health care workers and counsellors, and establish the confidence to get the help they need to do something about their drug addiction. When we leave people on the street, it causes all the various public disorder problems that are associated with injection drug use. Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has given a very excellent overview of not only how InSite operates but why it is needed in his own community.

I am very curious. I believe that if we canvassed residents in B.C., generally, we would be hard pressed to find people who oppose InSite. They see it as part of the solution, not part of the problem. The members of Parliament from metro Vancouver here in the House, whether West Vancouver or the North Shore or wherever it might be, I bet their own constituents also understand and support InSite. That makes it all the more perplexing and distressing that the government has taken such a rigid hard line, such a politically motivated line where it is basically politics over medicine.

I would like to ask the member what he thinks about local representatives on Vancouver Island. I know in Vancouver one would be hard pressed to find any elected representative who would oppose what InSite has done. Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her question and I want to applaud her for her constant advocacy for safe injection sites in the Downtown Eastside. I am a former city councillor. We had these discussions when I was on council.

The council that I sat on said it was much better for us to zone for public health care services, such as injection sites, and have public hearings and get the public out to express where they would like to see these services located. My council felt it had a responsibility to take its share of those public health services and address these problems, rather than trying to leave them to the police to address or leave them to neighbourhoods where they became a problem with things such as needles in parks and school playgrounds.

Therefore, we would have been hard pressed to find people in my community who were opposed to this reasonable approach to dealing with injection drug use.

(1215) Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale . Mr. Speaker, as Canadians, we are blessed with safe streets and communities in which to live our lives and raise our children. Indeed, Canadian families expect and deserve safe and healthy communities in which to live and work. That is why our government has consistently delivered the tools needed for all parties to contribute to keeping our streets and communities safe.

These include legislation passed during this Parliament, such as the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Other acts, such as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are important tools for ensuring that our communities remain safe. This act provides the legal framework for the control of dangerous and addictive drugs that can tear families apart, lead to criminal behaviour, and destroy lives.

What is important to appreciate in framing this whole debate on the bill before us and the NDP's amendment is that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act applies to both substances that can be obtained legally and those that cannot, both licit and illicit substances. All controlled substances have the potential to be abused. That is why they are called controlled substances. However, the risks are increased when those substances are unregulated and untested and are bought on the street, as illegal drugs often are.

For this reason, our government is recommending amendments to the act, through the bill currently before the House, that would strengthen the legislation and better protect Canadian families and communities. Before I get to the substance of my speech, I would just like to mention how disappointed I am with the NDP. I find it completely irresponsible that the NDP, through the member for Vancouver East , has chosen to try to prevent Canadian parents, through the amendment tabled just recently, from having a say before drug injection sites open in their communities.

Now, as highlighted by my colleagues earlier, under our current laws, activities involving controlled substances are strictly prohibited. These include possession, import, export, production, and distribution. However, there is a caveat to the prohibition, which is the minister's ability to issue an exemption under

section 56 of the act. This

section allows the Minister of Health to grant exemptions from the application of the act or its regulations for activities that, in the opinion of the minister, are necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or are otherwise in the public interest. Today we are proposing changes to this

section to ensure that Canadian families and communities are shown the respect they deserve in the process. Through the respect for communities act, those who are seeking an exemption to use controlled substances obtained from legal, or licit, sources would follow the same process set out in

section 56 today. Most of the exemption requests received by Health Canada are for routine activities, such as clinical trials and university research. These trials involve controlled substances obtained through licensed pharmaceuticals, pharmacists, and hospitals. What is being proposed in our bill is a new approach to dealing with exemption applications for activities involving dangerous and addictive drugs sold on our streets. Currently, exemption requests for illicit substances are assessed in the same manner as licit ones are. The respect for communities act would include a new regime to assess applications for activities involving these illicit substances. It would include a

section specific to supervised injection sites that would outline rigorous criteria derived from the 2011 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. These drugs are inherently dangerous. They are illegal for a reason. We know that the proceeds from the sale of these substances contribute to organized crime and make our streets and communities less safe.

(1220) In the 2011 Supreme Court decision, five factors were identified that must be considered by the Minister of Health when assessing any further exemption applications for supervised injection sites. The factors that must be considered include evidence, if any, on the impact of such a site on crime rates; local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support the site; resources available to support its maintenance; and expressions of community support and opposition.

These criteria need to be addressed by an applicant seeking an exemption to undertake activities involving illicit substances at a supervised injection site before the Minister of Health can properly consider the application. Ensuring that families and communities are kept safe has been an important consideration when assessing an application. For example, the applicant has to provide detailed information on how public safety risks will be mitigated.

They have to provide information on security measures, criminal record checks, record-keeping, and procedures for the safe disposal of any controlled substances, and anything that facilitates their consumption, left on-site. I find that when using catch-all word phrases, such as “substances”, “consumption”, and “facilitation”, it is easy to lose sight of what we are talking about. I can tell members, from personal experience in my former career as a police officer, that heroin is, without a doubt, one of the most addictive drugs known. It is physically and psychologically addictive.

It is one of the worst, if not the worst, drugs to come off of. Think about the worst days and times anyone in this place has had, and multiply it by 100. People addicted to this drug will do anything for their next fix, including, but not limited to, shoplifting, robbery, break and enter, assault, and many other Criminal Code offences. That is why the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Minister of Health needs to hear from those who put their lives on the line every day to protect communities from harm.

They include local police and social workers as well as other key stakeholders in the area where the proposed site would be located. The applicant has to respond to the concerns outlined by local police. Information about crime, public nuisance, public use of illicit drugs, or inappropriately discarded drug-related paraphernalia, such as needles, also has to be provided in the application. I have highlighted some of the criteria in the new regime that address matters related to public safety.

The respect for communities act considers the issue from multiple perspectives and requests that information be provided on a wide range of relevant topics so that potential threats are identified and addressed. One of Health Canada's related responsibilities under the current Controlled Drug Substances Act is to monitor the distribution of controlled substances and to inspect facilities, as needed, to verify compliance with the act and the terms and conditions of the exemption. This is done to minimize the risk of diversion and any negative impacts on public safety.

Through the respect for communities act, we would make changes to extend these inspection authorities to validate information on any exemption application related to supervised injection sites. These amendments would authorize inspectors to enter any supervised injection site for which an exemption was granted to verify compliance with current laws. Our government also believes that the public should have a voice in the process. Every community is different, and public consultations provide a unique window into understanding the public health and safety impacts on that community.

Valuable input and local perspectives would be sought from provincial ministers responsible for health and public safety, the head of local police, the lead public health professional in the province, and the licensing bodies for physicians and nurses in that province. All of this information would need to be collected as part of the consultation required under this bill. I urge all members of this House to stand and support the respect for communities act and help give Canadian families safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children.

(1225) Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. If there is support in the local community, whether it is Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton, Toronto, or Victoria, where we know there has been a lot of consideration given to setting up safer injection facilities, would the member be supporting those applications? I know that the Minister of Health has that decision to make.

However, if it were in the member's local community, and he could see that it had local support, if he could see the statistics from East Vancouver, where the rate of overdose deaths has dropped by 35% since InSite opened, would he then be supporting such a facility in his own community? Mr. David Wilks : Mr. Speaker, I personally would not support any safe injection site anywhere in Canada. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, that was the essence of the question I was going to ask, and I appreciate the boldness of the answer.

I am a little surprised, given the many stakeholders who have a caring, compassionate attitude and want to deal with the social issues surrounding substance abuse, which destroys lives and families. It is a cancer within the community. A fairly significant group of people believe that safe injection sites will not resolve all the issues but that they are a step in the right direction. Some communities want to see this happen. I now know what the member's position is. Can he indicate whether his position is the same as the government's position? Mr. David Wilks : Mr.

Speaker, I cannot speak for the Minister of Health or any other member of Parliament in this place, but I do know, from personal experience, as a police officer for 20 years as well as three years in drug enforcement, that heroin is, if not the worst drug, one of the worst drugs people can inject or ingest. It is a dangerous drug. As far as I am concerned, it has no useful purpose in society. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We served together on the Standing Committee on Health. In an

article on the Conservatives' website, the government is asking for our help in keeping heroin out of our backyards. How does it propose to do that, when this bill will send injection drug users back onto our streets and into our neighbourhoods? [ English ] Mr. David Wilks : Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that heroin is illegal, and whether we have safe injection sites or not, it is still purchased illegally and taken to that safe injection site illegally, because it is an illegal substance. We are not going to stop anything with safe injection sites. [ Translation ] Mr.

Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member may have worked with youth, but he is not the only one. I, too, have done work with youth shelters and street outreach workers, who often meet people involved in the drug scene to try and get them to leave it. There is broad consensus in Quebec: the best way to do that is to offer people places where they can meet with someone who is there to help them get out of that hell.

If they do not have an appropriate spot, there will still be the parks, the barns, and all of those other places where we do not want to see those people. That is my comment. I find the member's attitude appalling. (1230) [ English ] Mr. David Wilks : Mr. Speaker, I think there is a difference between providing a place to go for recovery and providing an area where people can safely inject an illegal substance. Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here today and address Bill C-2 .

Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. That is why our Conservative government is moving forward with the respect for communities act to ensure that parents have a say before any drug injection sites open in their communities and the most rigorous criteria apply. Why is this necessary?

It stems from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in 2011, which rendered that any application for a supervised injection site must, among other factors, be considered with an understanding of the circumstances in the community that had led to the need for a site, as well as the opinions of the community in which it would operate. However, the court was also clear in its ruling that it was not “an invitation for anyone who so chooses to open a facility for drug use under the banner of a “safe injection facility”. That is why the government is acting on this Supreme Court ruling.

Given the inherent risks in using dangerous and addictive drugs obtained on the street, exemptions to use them at a supervised injection site should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, once rigorous criteria have been addressed by an applicant. Specifically, the bill would amend the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the federal statute that restricts the usage of dangerous and addictive drugs. Under this act, activities involving controlled substances, including possession, import, export, production and distribution, are prohibited, except as authorized through an exemption obtained through

section 56. As I just said, we believe that exemptions should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and subject to rigorous criteria. That is why this bill, the respect for communities act, would divide

section 56 into two distinct categories. Street drugs, or illicit substances, would have a

section specific to supervised injection sites. Applications to use illicit substances at such a site would need to address rigorous criteria before such an application would even be considered by the Minister of Health . One of the criteria an applicant would have to address would relate to the treatments for the proposed site's users.

The applicants would have to provide letters from their provincial minister responsible for health, describing their opinion on the proposed activities, how the activities would be integrated in the provincial health care system and any treatment services that would be available in the province for individuals who would use the site. An application would not be considered by the Minister of Health without this information.

In addition, an applicant would have to provide a description of the drug treatment services available at the site, if any, for persons who would use this site and the information that would be made available to them in relation to drug treatment services available elsewhere. These criteria demonstrate that our Conservative government takes the harm caused by dangerous and addictive drugs very seriously. We need to support those in need with treatment and recovery programs. Drug treatment and recovery programs must be focused on ending drug use.

That said, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of other actions the Government of Canada is taking to address dangerous and addictive drug use. In 2007, we launched the national anti-drug strategy. The strategy's goal is to contribute to safer and healthier communities by reducing and eliminating illicit drug use in Canada. Like the bill before us today, the national anti-drug strategy is designed to protect public health and maintain public safety. That is why its three pillars are prevention, treatment and enforcement.

Today, I would like to focus specifically on the treatment aspect of the national anti-drug strategy and outline some of the services that are part of it. The strategy supports innovative approaches to treating and rehabilitating those with illicit drug addiction who pose a risk to themselves and the community. Health Canada also works to increase access to and improve the quality and effectiveness of addiction services for first nations and Inuit youth and their families.

Specifically, it aims to enhance treatment and support for first nations and Inuit people, support treatment programs for young offenders with drug-related problem, enable the RCMP to refer youth with drug-related problems to treatment programs and support research on new treatment models.

While responsibility for the delivery of most treatment and rehabilitation services remains with provincial and territorial governments, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of continued investments in drug treatment programming and works closely with the provincial and territorial governments and other key stakeholders. Our end goal is always to help treat and end the scourge of drug addiction that plagues communities and families. The drug treatment funding program is one such example of this multilateral approach.

This program supports provincial and territorial governments, as well as other stakeholders, in making strategic investments in three key areas.

(1235) The first area is through the implementation of evidence-informed practice. Health Canada supports the uptake of best practices such as continuous knowledge development and information sharing to improve service delivery. The second is in strengthening the evaluation and performance measurement capacity and activities. While all jurisdictions collect performance information pertaining to their treatment, services and programs, the type and nature of the data collected as well as the approach to data collection and analysis vary considerably.

With the funding in this area, projects are in place to identify and standardize best practices, evaluation and performance measurements. Third, the program supports linkages and exchange among the funded projects. This is an essential element of the work undertaken in the first two investment areas and includes enhancing knowledge sharing and disseminating lessons learned. For example, in some of these projects, work is under way to implement knowledge-exchange mechanisms for concurrent mental health and substance use best practices.

Other tools are also being developed to improve linkages between the specialized addiction sector and other health and community service providers. Since 2007, this program has provided over $100 million in funding to provinces, territories and key stakeholders. To highlight one particular project in Alberta, community agencies that serve youth were supported by providing a manual and curriculum to improve staff skills around basic addiction counselling, and screening practices as well as mental health knowledge.

The result of this project demonstrated that community service providers improved their skills and confidence in evidence-based addiction practices. In addition, at-risk youth had greater access to addiction information and basic services through the community agencies that they frequented. Another approach has been taken by Saskatchewan, a project enabled services directed at youth by building upon a strong pre-existing framework. Through these services, individual assessment plans are developed followed by brief interventions and referral to more formal services.

Through community partnerships, the project is tracking the impact of its services and moving youth into recovery programs. The program provides between 30 to 50 brief interventions every month with between 200 to 335 participants. Additionally, as part of the national anti-drug strategy, our government provides almost $10 million annually to improve access to quality addiction treatment services for aboriginals.

These investments are targeted in four key areas: improving the quality of services by increasing access to certified training and supporting treatment centres to become accredited; increasing the effectiveness and relevancy of services by supporting these centres to re-profile or strengthen services in response to recognized service gaps; improving access to services by piloting community-based multidisciplinary teams to provide comprehensive additions and mental health services to aboriginal communities; and a comprehensive review renewal process for first nation addiction services carried out in partnership with first nation communities and leadership.

Our government remains committed to addressing dangerous and addictive drug use through the national anti-drug strategy and will continue to invest in prevention and treatment. The respect for communities act is consistent with this strategy and, once more, it takes action in the wake of the Supreme Court decision ensuring that parents have a say before drug injection sites open in their communities. To me, this is an important point in the bill. It gives local law enforcement, municipal leaders and local residents a voice before a permit is granted for supervised drug consumption sites.

Communities must have a say. All told, the bill would provide the Minister of Health with the information necessary to balance public health and public safety considerations, including how the proposed site would fit within a province's overall approach to treatment services. Why the NDP, through the motion of the member for Vancouver East , is seeking to kill this bill is beyond me.

What NDP members are saying through their motion is that they are against giving parents a say before drug injection sites open in their communities, that they are against the Supreme Court's ruling on this matter and that they are against ensuring that addicts are provided the treatment and support they need at these sites. I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of the respect for communities act and give the Minister of Health the tools she needs to do her job. (1240) [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague a question.

In writing a bill, we always look to achieve some kind of balance. In this case, it is a balance between public safety and health. However, it seems to me that the Conservatives are shifting the balance in favour of public safety, away from health. Places such as InSite, which are found around the world, are safe and give due consideration to the importance of health. I would like to ask my colleague to talk some more about the importance of health in this type of project. [ English ] Mr. David Sweet : Mr. Speaker, the member referenced the bill. I have the bill in my hand and I am on page 8.

I am trying to figure out what criteria the member feels is too onerous. Here is how the bill begins, as far as the criteria is concerned. Scientific evidence is one of them. I wonder if the opposition is okay with our obtaining scientific evidence. The provincial minister is one of them. Is the opposition okay with the provincial minister weighing in on a safe injection site? Local government, municipal governments and, I am certain, my councillors would want to have a say in what goes on as far as supervised injection sites. The police force is one. I am certain my police chief wants to have a say.

The list goes on. I am reading directly from the bill. What criteria do the opposition members want to remove? Frankly, there was virtually no framework at all for these sites before. If we were to go to average people, certainly my neighbours in the community, and say that there was no framework for this, no legislative criteria to be met, they would be appalled. Finally, we are getting the job done, as the Supreme Court asked us to do. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague opposite who said that the NDP does not support this bill as it pertains to regulating drug use. The NDP finds that Bill C-2 flies in the face of the 2011 Supreme Court ruling. The NDP believes that harm reduction programs, including supervised injection sites, must be based on evidence that they will improve public health and save lives, not on ideology. We are talking about supervised sites, sites that will prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as hepatitis A, B and C, HIV-AIDS, and others.

How can we reach injection drug users in the future without these supervised sites? [ English ] Mr. David Sweet : Mr. Speaker, people who go to these sites commit an illegal act of purchasing the drug first. Then they go to the site to inject it and they leave the site jacked up on drugs. In the past I was attacked by a person, who was jacked up on drugs, with a razor knife. It was not a fun proposition. That is what we have to deal with along with all the other issues within communities. The member says that the bill somehow does not meet the criteria of the Supreme Court.

The fact is the Supreme Court specifically said that we had to address things like the impact on crime rates, wherever it was going to be sited; local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place to support such a site, and I already mentioned that this is finally putting some structure there; resources available to support its maintenance; and expressions of community support or opposition. If we look at the bill, it does all of that. (1245) [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, before I start my presentation, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from LaSalle—Émard . I am very proud to rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-2 and to support the very important amendment presented by my colleague from Vancouver East . I would like to thank and congratulate her, first for presenting this amendment, and also for the work she does in representing her constituents in the riding of Vancouver East. We have seen in this chamber that she cares about all her constituents, whether they are the most vulnerable or from different walks of life.

My colleague knows very well what is at stake with Bill C-2 because, in her riding, there is a major problem when it comes to people living with addictions. Unlike the health minister of this and former governments, she has visited InSite. She does a good job, and I would like to congratulate her. To be frank, I am disappointed to have to speak to Bill C-2 today. We should not have to deal with such a bill, particularly given the very clear decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 2011.

Supervised injection sites, such as InSite in Vancouver, are an important way to guarantee better public health and safety, and the closure of such sites would be detrimental to those who benefit from these services. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a new and fairly underhanded attempt by the Conservative government to violate the Supreme Court's 2011 decision. The government is trying to meet its objective of closing InSite in Vancouver, and to make it impossible to open any new sites. Before I became an MP, I earned a bachelor's degree in psychology from Université Laval.

During my studies, I spent some time learning about addictions, including alcohol and drug addictions. Today, the harm reduction approach is scientifically recognized, and many of that approach's techniques are currently being used by the scientific and medical community. They produce proven results. InSite in Vancouver is a very practical and effective application of the harm reduction approach, which was unfortunately rejected by the Conservatives in 2007 when they reviewed the national drug strategy.

They decided to simply do away with the harm reduction approach, despite scientific evidence and conclusive data showing how effective it is. As someone with a degree in psychology and expertise in that area, I am extremely disappointed to see the Conservatives ignoring proven scientific studies that show the importance and the effectiveness of supervised injection sites such as InSite.

If the bill is passed as it exists today, there will be a long and tedious list of criteria that new supervised injection sites will have to meet in order for the minister to grant them an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These criteria will make it extremely difficult to open new supervised injection sites, even though there is a demand for them. Other municipalities in the country are considering setting up such sites to help people with addictions—people who deserve our support and compassion—and to give them access to the resources they need to overcome their addictions.

These resources are offered at InSite when people make use of those services. In fact, more than 30 studies, some of which were reviewed by peers in the scientific community, were published in renowned, highly esteemed journals. I am talking about The New England Journal of Medicine and the British Medical Journal . We should not disregard these authoritative sources, which have described at length the benefits of supervised injection sites, more specifically, the benefits of InSite in Vancouver, the only supervised injection site in Canada at this time.

Studies have also looked at the more than 70 similar supervised injection sites in Europe and Australia. Those studies show similar results. They were able to prove that the supervised injections sites are a major breakthrough in terms of public health, that they provide important benefits and must continue to exist in order to provide their services under appropriate supervision.

(1250) The most ironic thing I have heard so far in the Conservatives' comments is that to them, closing supervised injection centres, which help people with addictions and give addicts a safe place to use the substances they need, is a way of protecting children and families. The Conservatives are suggesting closing these sites and sending addicts back into the streets instead of giving them an enclosed space that would be out of sight from children and mothers who are going shopping or running errands. We will end up in the same situation Vancouver was in at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s.

At the time, between 1987 and 1993, the number of deaths by heroin overdose went from 16 a year to 200 a year. However, with the arrival of InSite, the overdose death rate was reduced by 35%. That is significant because they also managed to reduce the waste that comes from drug use, including the problem of used needles. In addition to reducing waste, they also managed to reduce the spread of disease among those who inject drugs. Having fewer people share needles means fewer cases of hepatitis A, B and C and of HIV-AIDS.

To put this in economic terms the Conservatives will understand, this is a way to significantly lower our health care costs. However, last week I heard one of the parliamentary secretaries tell us that our emergency rooms offered the best care available to treat these people. I had the opportunity to attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a few weeks last session. We were looking at how to reduce demand for police and health care services in order to save money on public safety, while still maintaining the most effective public services possible.

One thing we heard from many police chiefs from across the country was that police forces, social services and health care services should work together to avoid revolving door situations, in which people end up on the street, then back in the ER, then back on the street, and so on. That is a huge burden on our health care system and costs taxpayers a lot of money, considering that health care is available in the community and can truly help people living with addictions.

I think it is completely ridiculous that the Conservatives are once again trying to circumvent a Supreme Court decision to guarantee public safety and security for Canadians, not only those living with addictions, but also the Canadian families who may have to deal with problems involving addicts. One way to improve the quality of life in our communities is to offer appropriate services to people living with addictions, and that is what centres like InSite do.

Mere hours after introducing the bill, the Conservatives launched a fundraising campaign among party members, encouraging them to keep heroin out of their backyards. That is misleading. Members joined this campaign and perhaps even donated to the Conservatives thinking, somewhat naively, that this bill was intended to enhance public safety. However, the Conservatives failed to tell them that, as a result, people living with addictions would have to go back out on the street to inject themselves rather than using the InSite services.

When people use these services, they are often referred to detox centres and manage to finally attain the lifestyle of abstinence that the Conservatives would like them to have. However, the Conservatives are now closing the door in their faces and asking them to fend for themselves and to go back out on the streets in full view of the children, families and mothers doing their grocery shopping. This bill makes no sense at all. This is indisputable evidence of the backward nature of the Conservatives' anti-drug program.

They are willing to completely discard an evidence-based approach that has been proven to reduce harm, for the sole purpose of pleasing their base. I find this really disappointing.

(1255) I again thank my colleague for the amendment she proposed. A bill like this should never go to second reading. [ English ] Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if we look closely, the real objective of the bill is to give the health minister the basic information he or she needs to make an informed decision on protecting the public. My colleague also commented in her speech that there are many communities that want to open these sites. The bill allows for those communities to have hearings, to have a say. It allows parents to have input into those communications.

My question to the member is this. Why would she not agree to at least allow parents to have a say into whether or not an injection site opens down the street from them? Why would she deny parents that right? [ Translation ] Ms. Élaine Michaud : Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, no one in the NDP is trying to limit consultation with our communities. I find it particularly ironic to hear this from a Conservative government that routinely abuses in camera meetings and omnibus bills and tries to limit consultation opportunities in the development of new pipelines and natural resource projects.

He is telling us that we are trying to restrict consultations with Canadians? How shocking. Furthermore, what this government is not telling us is that even if the organizations wishing to open new supervised injection sites meet all the criteria, something they already find hard to do, the minister of health may still refuse their application, even if it is supported by the provincial or territorial health ministers. That is the problem. Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier gave a very nice speech on what the Conservatives are trying to hide from us. She talked about the Conservatives’ economy. We know the Conservatives’ economy is only on paper. We are not talking about an economy that would bring in any money. Earlier, a Conservative MP told us that he had been attacked by someone who was on drugs. In all likelihood, if this person had been in a centre, he would not have attacked him. I therefore think that the proposed legislation is contrary to public safety. Could my colleague discuss this in a little more detail? Ms.

Élaine Michaud : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. What I described in my speech is the probability—because it is in fact rather more than a possibility—that people living with addiction problems, which sometimes entail mental health issues or homelessness, could have access to resources and assistance from health care professionals, social workers and other health practitioners. They even had access to a drug treatment centre, Onsite, which is located right above InSite. All this could go up in smoke. Those people are going to find themselves out on the street again.

On the street, people living with addiction problems can get into difficult situations and perhaps even cause harm to other people or to themselves. It is to prevent such situations, among other things, that supervised injection facilities like InSite are set up. There are some communities in Canada, including Montreal and Quebec City, that were considering opening supervised injection facilities and received no opposition from the provincial health minister.

This is a sign that there is a community will to open such a facility, and it could be hindered by the ideological and dogmatic vision of this government, which is prepared to deprive the most vulnerable Canadians of services simply to please its base of support and establish its ideology in the country. I find this utterly deplorable.

(1300) Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am going to surprise you: Bill C-2,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , is not in the interests of public safety. Despite the assertions of the hon. Minister of Health , if we take a close look at this bill, we can see that it aims to prevent supervised injection facilities from functioning. The health minister wants to tighten the criteria for injection facilities in Canada. However, according to the new rules, those who wish to open an injection facility must first give consideration to the opinions of local community groups and police services and obtain support from municipal and provincial authorities.

With their so-called democratic consultations, the Conservatives say they are worried about the welfare of their fellow Canadians, without giving any consideration to opinions expressed by the people most directly involved. The people who are addicted to drugs and other substances belong to Canadian society just as much as anyone else. We are not only talking about places where drug addicts are going to inject heroin and use other illegal drugs, but safe and hygienic places where they can do so under medical supervision. That is what InSite in Vancouver has been trying to do for the past 10 years.

It is a safe, health-focused place where people inject drugs and connect to health care services to treat disease and infection. They also have access to addiction counselling and treatment, as well as housing and community supports. Under the leadership of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, InSite is striving to decrease the adverse health, social and economic consequences of illicit drug use. With Bill C-2 , the government is limiting the beneficial actions of such supervised injection sites, which work to integrate people with addictions into society.

Let us recall once again that this debate went as far as the Supreme Court, which decided that InSite was a very important health facility. I would like to quote a key excerpt from the Supreme Court's decision, since the bill that is before us today is supposedly based on that decision. Here is what the Supreme Court of Canada had to say: Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

The court therefore ruled that InSite should remain open under the exemption set out in

section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is important that all new legislation pertaining to these sites take into account the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions. These findings indicate that supervised injection sites reduce the harm associated with the use of illicit drugs. They must therefore be subject to exemptions. Given this solid evidence, why are the Conservatives still refusing to take into account the facts that have been presented?

The bill reduces the possibility that such sites will be set up by requiring the submission of a great deal of evidence and many documents related to the financial viability of the site, the need for it in the community and its potential impact on public safety. Bill C-2 jeopardizes the public safety it claims to defend. Supervised injection sites reduce the presence of used needles in public places and reduce the spread of disease simply because they are medical facilities supervised by trained personnel.

(1305) The argument made by the Minister of Health is therefore invalid and once again constitutes a false pretence to hide the real motive: to strengthen a Conservative ideology by ostracizing a certain segment of the population. [ English ] I would like to strengthen this argument. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, and Pivot Legal Society criticize the bill's negative impacts.

A statement published in June when the government tabled Bill C-65 mentioned that this is “a bill that aims to make it even more difficult for health authorities and community agencies to offer supervised drug consumption services, such as Vancouver’s InSite, to Canadians who are among those most at risk of HIV infection and fatal overdose”. The official opposition considers the government's initiative a deeply flawed bill based on an anti-drug ideology and false fears for public safety.

This is another attempt to rally the Conservative base, as evidenced by the “Keep heroin out of our backyards” fundraising drive that started hours after Bill C-2 was introduced in Parliament, but by endangering supervised sites, this bill will actually put heroin back in our neighbourhoods. This is why this bill has been described by the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition as “...an irresponsible initiative that ignores both the extensive evidence that such health services are needed and effective, and the human rights of Canadians with addictions”.

The evidence has demonstrated that safe injection sites effectively reduce the risk of contracting and spreading blood-borne diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C, and death from overdose. It has also been shown that they do not undermine public safety and in some instances have proven to promote it by reducing public drug-injecting, reducing violence associated to it, and reducing drug-related litter. Safe injection sites, therefore, strike the balance between public health and public safety.

The government and all members of the House have a public responsibility to see Canadians with drug addiction problems as citizens in need of medical treatment, not as criminals. We have the responsibility to offer them assistance, primary health services, and addiction treatment. There is evidence that allows us to say that supervised injection sites have promoted entry into treatment for drug dependence.

One study published in 2006 mentioned that 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, and in 2010, 5,268 people were referred by InSite to other social and health services. The vast majority of them were for detox and drug dependence treatment. As the Canadian Medical Association stated: Supervised injection programs are an important harm reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a central pillar in a comprehensive public health approach to disease prevention and health promotion.

[ Translation ] Lastly, supervised injection sites could cause problems for some people because along with these sites come people with substance abuse problems and drug addictions. However, seeing the issue from only that one angle would be misinformation, pure and simple. I presented a number of points that the government needs to take into account before amending any legislation dealing with supervised injection sites. For all of the reasons I mentioned, the official opposition opposes Bill C-2 , which is designed to put an end to centres that not only help a certain segment of the population both medically and socially, but also protect communities.

(1310) [ English ] Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. She mentioned in part that heroin is already in our neighbourhoods. With the InSite program it would go back into the neighbourhoods. May I remind the member that heroin is illegal and is bought on the streets? It is not bought at InSite. Users buy it on the street, bring it to InSite, and inject.

If we are looking at the issue from the perspective of heroin as an illegal drug and InSite as a place where heroin can be injected, and not injected legally but injected in a safe place, would the member agree with me that InSite, from the perspective of heroin use, is a safe haven for users to inject, as opposed to a place where we could try to get treatment for these people and get them off the drug? Some of these people have no intention of leaving the heroin drug trade. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I would like to clarify one point.

In fact, places like InSite are safe places that also offer other services, such as detox services. I mentioned that, but I wanted to reiterate it. As I said in my conclusion, people who are unfortunately addicted to hard drugs and visit a supervised injection site on a regular basis are more likely to use services that will get them on a path of treatment and rehabilitation, so that they can contribute to society. I would like to reiterate that these places provide a number of services. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to pick up on a point that I referred to earlier, which is that injection sites can be of great benefit for communities where there are serious issues dealing with crime and safety as a direct result of illegal drugs. Sites of this nature can have a positive impact on many of our communities. My comment for the member is in regard to that aspect of making our communities safer places. If done right, safe injection sites can actually complement a community, in that fewer needles are found and there are fewer environments where individuals are injecting around kids and so forth.

There are many social benefits to having a safe facility, let alone being able to assist individuals to possibly get off drugs in the first place. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc : Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague, who once again mentioned some of the positive impacts that supervised injection sites can have. I would like to add some more. These sites reach out to the most vulnerable groups. They help improve the health of people who use them, and as I mentioned, those who visit such sites regularly are more likely to use other services, such as detox services.

These sites also help reduce the incidence of diseases often associated with this kind of drug use. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, first I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the exuberant, energetic member for Newton—North Delta . This issue affects us all, but perhaps more particularly those of us who are lucky enough to be parents. I live in a fairly densely populated urban area, where our children ride around on their bikes and play with their friends in the sandboxes in the park or with neighbours in the lane behind our house.

One of our fears as parents is that they might get their hands on drugs or on needles, which could prick them and give them very serious diseases. As a community and as a government, how can we act to ensure that our streets, lanes and parks are safe for us all and for our children, who are not always very well informed about these kinds of dangers? A place like InSite in Vancouver is a good example of how we can work together to enhance public safety while improving public health. The two are not mutually exclusive. They go together.

I much prefer to have someone inject drugs in a safe place rather than an unsafe place where there a risk of violence and a risk that objects may be left behind that can potentially harm our children. One might think the idea of a centre where people can get help in injecting drugs is counterintuitive. Why help someone who injects an illegal drug that endangers his or her health? It is counterintuitive if the question is put that way. However, sometimes in life, after in-depth studies and scientific tests are conducted, or after the facts are checked, what seems counterintuitive just may work.

There are some fairly simple examples of that. A metal boat, for example, is counterintuitive because metal sinks, and yet it works. Another completely counterintuitive notion is that the earth is round, because everyone might initially think it is flat. However, that is not true; it is round. The most important thing when it comes to public health is that we rely on facts, studies and evidence. That is also true of supervised injection sites, like InSite in Vancouver, which other municipalities would like to set up to combat substance abuse and addiction and enhance public safety.

Over 30 studies published in major scientific journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine , The Lancet and the British Medical Journal , describe the benefits of a centre like InSite in Vancouver. Furthermore, other studies show the positive impact of more than 70 supervised injection facilities across Europe and Australia. Why not look at the positive experiences, such as the fact that these sites really help people, that they reduce the number of needles on the streets, that they decrease violence and that they reduce the number of deaths from drug overdose?

This is an important debate because people’s lives are at stake. In Vancouver, before InSite was set up, there was a 12-fold increase in the number of people who died from a drug overdose between 1987 and 1993. Twelve! Dozens of people died because of their drug addiction. Since InSite opened, the number of people who died from a drug overdose has dropped by 35%. The facts are clear. Injection facilities can save lives.

Unfortunately, in order to satisfy their electoral base, with a purely ideological perspective based on fear and prejudice, the Conservatives are trying to lock these successful experiments up so tightly that no other municipality in Canada will be able to set up this type of proven facility.

(1315) We have clearly seen the lengths they will go to to please some of their electorate. Just a few hours after introducing Bill C-2 , the Conservative Party launched a campaign called “Keep heroin out of our backyards”, which made people believe that stopping the establishment of a supervised injection facility would improve public safety, while in fact the exact opposite is true. It is a shame that they are trying to score points in the polls by using an issue that affects public health and people’s lives. Furthermore, the Conservatives’ position in Bill C-2 goes against a 2011 Supreme Court ruling.

This is not exactly insignificant. The Supreme Court ordered the minister to consider granting exemptions for supervised injection facilities in order to strike a balance between public health and public safety. In our view, the Conservatives should respect the spirit of this ruling and move in the direction shown by the Supreme Court. I would like to quote from a few documents.

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the minister’s decision to shut down InSite was a violation of its clients’ charter rights, that the decision was arbitrary and that it undermined the purpose of the law, which includes public health and safety. The Supreme Court based its decision on

section 7 of the charter, which says that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Supreme Court said the following: The infringement at stake is serious; it threatens the health, indeed the lives, of the claimants and others like them. The grave consequences that might result from a lapse in the current constitutional exemption for Insite cannot be ignored.

These claimants would be cast back into the application process they have tried and failed at, and made to await the Minister’s decision based on a reconsideration of the same facts. We need to protect those who suffer from addiction and direct them to programs that can help them get off drugs. There are undeniable facts, and I want to mention some of them because it is important to rely on facts, not fear. In one year, InSite referred 2,171 hard drug users to addiction counselling and other support services.

That is more than 2,000 people who were referred through a process to help them escape their situation and their misery. People who use InSite's services at least once a week are almost twice as likely to enter a detox program as those who visit the centre rarely or not at all. Visiting the centre therefore encourages people to seek the help of health care professionals in resolving their situation. Just one year after InSite opened in Vancouver, there was also a substantial decline in the quantity of needles and drug-related waste discarded by people injecting drugs on the street.

Why would anyone want to prevent other municipalities in Quebec and Canada from adopting this tool, which has proven itself here in Canada and in Europe and Australia? Why indeed, except in an unfortunate attempt to please a certain Conservative electorate that, in wanting to do the right thing, is preventing us from moving forward? We are all opposed to the use of hard drugs, but it is important to understand that we must support and help these people, not adopt a solely repressive vision. That vision will not help us improve public health or make our streets and laneways safer.

I would emphasize that the NDP is not the only group that has adopted this view. Most nurses' and physicians' associations support our position: here we have something that has proven itself, something that saves lives and improves public health and safety. I therefore call on the Conservative Party to take off its blinkers, look at the facts, read the studies and amend Bill C-2 so that we can live in safer communities. (1320) [ English ] Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in his speech that, in a form, this is reducing public safety.

However, the reality is, that drug is bought on the street from a dealer, then taken to the safe injection site to be injected illegally, and then the person goes back onto the street. I would like to understand his definition of public safety and how he thinks it has reduced anything. It has not done anything. (1325) [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his question. My impression, unfortunately, is that he listened to my speech rather distractedly.

The essential aim of what I am proposing is to ensure that people do not inject drugs in parks or laneways where children go to play soccer with their neighbours. That is precisely why we need this tool, which the community and the medical profession are calling for. It is a tool that works. To ensure our children's safety and to increase public safety, we need resources such as these, which help the poor people who are struggling with drug addiction. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the member for Kootenay—Columbia has addressed this issue on numerous occasion, but the bottom line is that the Conservative Party does not want to be confused by the facts. Conservatives do not want to listen to what the professionals or the many stakeholders have to say about why safe injection sites could prove to be a very valuable asset in terms of fighting crime or assisting abusers. This is something that is a real need and can be substantiated. All that being said, no matter what sort of factual information is provided to the Conservatives, they say, “It is not good enough. It does not matter.

We will have it our way, and our way means no injection sites”. Would the member comment on how frustrating it can be when Conservatives do not want to listen to scientific facts and put blinders on and feel they have to go this— [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Since obtaining its majority mandate, this government has proven to be blind and driven by ideology. Furthermore, it has difficulty dealing with something as basic as reality.

When reality is not aligned with its ideology, this government ignores facts, studies and science because it wants to go in a particular direction. The government should make decisions based on scientific evidence and facts in order to improve society. Unfortunately, that does not happen with the Conservatives. I would like to remind them that The Flintstones is not a documentary. [ English ] Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague for bringing in the very important element of public health.

This debate is about protecting public health and the health of the community. It is quite astounding that we have heard from one Conservative, the member for Kootenay—Columbia , that even if there were support in his local community he would still say no. This is very illuminating. It tells us that the Conservative government does not want to look at the evidence, at public health. In fact, public health is one of the principles that the minister has to consider when she is looking at applications.

If the member's community supported it, would he expect the elected representatives to then agree that a facility should go ahead? [ Translation ] Mr. Alexandre Boulerice : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very simple question. In a democracy, should elected representatives listen to the people? Quite simply, I believe they should. Unfortunately, the government is not listening to the people or the scientists. The government likes to muzzle scientists at every turn.

In my opinion, it is important to quote from the following statement issued by the Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition: The bill is an irresponsible initiative that ignores both the extensive evidence that such health services are needed and effective, and the human rights of Canadians with addictions....It is unethical, unconstitutional and damaging to both public health and the public purse to block access to supervised consumption services which save lives and prevent the spread of infections.

Will the Conservatives listen one day? (1330) [ English ] Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work done by my hon. colleague from Vancouver East . When it comes to this file, workin