Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 458
View Barry Devolin Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 1213--
Mr. François Lapointe:
With regard to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, specifically for each of the following constituencies, Beauce, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lévis-Bellechasse, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madelaine, Beauport—Côte-deBeaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, Manicouagan, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Jonquière—Alma: (a) for all submitted projects, (i) how many projects were submitted, (ii) what is the description of each project, (iii) what is the total financial contribution for these projects; (b) for all approved projects, (i) how many projects were approved, (ii) what is the description of each project, (iii) what is the total financial contribution for these projects; (c) among the projects that were approved, (i) what is the total number and description of projects benefitting from a non-repayable financial contribution, (ii) what is the total amount and the amounts broken down by non-repayable financial contribution; (d) among the projects that were approved, (i) what is the total number and description of projects benefitting from a repayable financial contribution or loan, (ii) what is the total amount and broken down by repayable financial contribution or loan; (e) among the projects that were submitted, (i) what is the total number and description of rejected projects, (ii) what is the total amount and the amount broken down by requested financial contribution for rejected projects; and (f) for each rejected project, what are the reasons for the refusal?
Response
Hon. Denis Lebel (Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, tThe Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec does not gather data by electoral district for most of its programs.
However, information on the projects financed by the aAgency since January 1st, 2006, can be found on its website at: http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/eng/disclosure/grant-contribution-awards/index.html.

Question No. 1225--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to the January 2014 final report to the government on the noise disturbance, commonly referred to as the Windsor-Essex Hum: (a) what measures has the government undertaken to address this problem; and (b) are there future plans to work towards mitigating this issue?
Response
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is well aware of the seriousness of the complaints from residents in the city of Windsor as a result of the noise and has acted on these concerns.
In 2013, following consultation with the International Joint Commission, two experts in the field of acoustic and infrasound monitoring from the University of Western Ontario, UWO, and the University of Windsor, UW, were contracted by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada to undertake acoustic monitoring and other analysis to help determine the source of the disturbance.
The UWO study was completed in June 2013 but did not find signals which could be plausibly associated with the Hum. In contrast, the UW study, submitted in January 2014, found that a disturbance does exist that is consistent with characteristics of industrial operations on Zug Island, Michigan. The UW study recommended that further noise monitoring be undertaken in closer proximity to Zug Island. Although the results of the study were inconclusive, they demonstrate that in order to precisely determine the source of the Windsor Hum, further work must also take place on the U.S. side of the Detroit River.
Prior to the May 23, 2014, public release of the two studies, the Government of Canada provided a copy of the study to the Governor of the State of Michigan, the Mayor of River Rouge, in whose jurisdiction Zug Island exists, and other key stakeholders. In July 2014, Canada’s Consul General in Detroit met with officials from U.S. Steel and the Mayor of River Rouge to discuss the report’s results and options for a mutually agreeable resolution to this issue.
The Government of Canada continues to follow up on area resident concerns. Through several written exchanges and numerous phone calls, departmental officials continue to push for a constructive dialogue with representatives from U.S. Steel. Officials are also liaising with the author of the University of Windsor report and the City of River Rouge on appropriate next steps, including with our American partners, on further pinpointing the source and acoustic and other characteristics of the Hum.

Question No. 1227--
Mr. Brian Masse:
With regard to harmful algae blooms in the Great Lakes: (a) what government initiatives are in place to study and mitigate the impact of these; and (b) are there future plans to address this problem?
Response
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Government of Canada is working with its American and Ontario partners to address this issue. In September 2012, the governments of Canada and the United States renewed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. In December 2014, the governments of Canada and Ontario renewed the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement committed both governments to take actions that would result in a reduction of algal blooms. The Canada-Ontario agreement outlines how the Government of Canada will work with the Government of Ontario to address the issue of excess nutrients and reduce harmful and nuisance algal blooms.
Environment Canada allocated $16 million to implement the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative to meet our commitment to reduce algal blooms. Through the initiative, focused on Lake Erie, we are working in concert with our partners to advance the science to understand and address the complex problem of recurrent toxic and nuisance algae in the Great Lakes; review the effectiveness of current nutrient management programs, policies and legislation; assess the economic impact of algal blooms; propose new loading targets for phosphorus; and provide recommendations to improve nutrient management in the Canadian portion of the Lake Erie watershed.
In addition to the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative, the Government Canada has allocated $8 million per year to support the restoration of water quality and impaired uses at 17 locations, or areas of concern, that have experienced high levels of environmental harm. Some of these locations experience excess growth of algae.
In budget 2012 the Government of Canada announced $29 million to support a new Lake Simcoe and southeastern Georgian Bay cleanup fund. The fund supports community-based projects to reduce phosphorous inputs from urban and rural sources that contribute to the algae issue.
With regard to (b), Environment Canada will be working closely with other federal and provincial partners to fulfill our commitments to address harmful algal blooms in both the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health.
The 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement sets out key activities. They include the following: develop, within three years, by 2016, binational substance objectives for phosphorus concentrations, loading targets and loading allocations for Lake Erie; and develop, within five years, by 2018, binational phosphorus reduction strategies and domestic action plans to meet the objectives for phosphorus concentrations and loading targets in Lake Erie. They also include the following: assess, develop and implement programs to reduce phosphorus loadings from urban, rural, industrial and agricultural sources. This will include proven best management practices, along with new approaches and technologies. They also include the following: identify priority watersheds that contribute significantly to lake-wide or local algae development, and develop and implement management plans to achieve phosphorus load reduction targets and controls; and undertake and share research, monitoring and modelling necessary to establish, report on and assess the management of phosphorus and other nutrients, and improve the understanding of relevant issues associated with nutrients and excessive algal blooms.
Commitments in the 2014-19 Canada-Ontario agreement will support achievement of the following results: improved understanding of sources, transport and fate of nutrients in the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on Lake Erie; improved understanding of nutrient levels and environmental conditions that trigger nuisance and harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on Lake Erie; establishment of phosphorus concentration and loading targets for priority tributaries, nearshore and offshore waters of Lake Erie by 2016; action plans to work towards meeting phosphorus concentration and loading targets for the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on Lake Erie; reduction in excess nutrient loadings from stormwater and wastewater collection and treatment facilities in urban and rural communities; improved understanding and development of practices and technologies for nutrient use efficiency; and increased adoption of cost-effective practices and technologies to improve nutrient use efficiency and reduce the risk of loss of excess nutrients from agricultural production

Question No. 1233--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to Transport Canada and the Crown corporation, Marine Atlantic: (a) what is this year’s total operating budget; (b) what is the federal subsidy for the 2015-2016 fiscal year; and (c) how much of the federal subsidy that has been set aside for Marine Atlantic over the past five years has not been spent?
Response
Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), this year’s 2015-16 total operating budget is $237.4 million.
With regard to (b), the federal subsidy for the 2015-16 fiscal year is $374.3 million.
With regard to (c), less than 2% of the federal subsidy that has been set aside for Marine Atlantic over the past five years has not been spent, approximately $17 million.

Question No. 1234--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the recreational cod and food fishery off Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what is the estimated amount of cod caught in the recreational fisheries in each of the past five years; (b) what is the proportion of the codfish caught in recreational fisheries compared to commercial catches in each of the past five years; and (c) what is the estimated number of participants in the recreational cod fishery in each of the past five years?
Response
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (c), the Newfoundland and Labrador recreational groundfish fishery’s current management allows for two fishing periods during the year, a 23-day summer season, and a 9-day fall season. During these fishing periods, recreational fishers are permitted to catch up to 5 groundfish per day, including cod. However, the maximum boat limit when three or more people are fishing is 15 groundfish. There is no requirement for licence or tags, and the fishery is open to both resident and non-resident recreational fishers. Fishing is only permitted using angling gear and handlines with a maximum of three hooks. Retention of Atlantic halibut, northern and spotted wolffish, and any species of shark is prohibited.
There is no reporting system for landings for the recreational groundfish fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and exact estimates are uncertain; however, the department monitors the fishery to ensure compliance with conservation measures. An analysis of Fisheries and Oceans science cod tags returned over the past seven years suggests that recreational landings may be substantial.
With regard to (b), there is no data related to landings in the recreational fishery, therefore this question is not applicable.

Question No. 1235--
Mr. Ryan Cleary:
With regard to the Department of National Revenue and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS): what is the number of constituents in the federal riding of St. John’s South—Mount Pearl who have qualified for the GIS in each of the last ten years?
Response
Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, is not a program administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA. The CRA does not have the necessary data to identify who qualifies for the GIS nor can it identify who receives it. As the CRA does not track this information, it is unable to respond to this question.

Question No. 1258--
Ms. Joyce Murray:
With regard to National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: (a) what are the policies concerning visits to Canadian Armed Forces Bases, other Canadian Armed Forces establishments, or Royal Canadian Navy ships, by Canadian federal Parliamentarians, members of provincial or territorial legislatures, municipal or other elected officials in Canada, or elected officials from outside Canada; (b) in what directive, manual, order, regulation, or other document are the current versions of the relevant policies set forth or promulgated; (c) what are the reference numbers and effective dates of the most recent iteration of the documents, referred to in (b), in which the policies are set forth or promulgated; (d) in what directive, manual, order, regulation, or other document were superseded versions of the relevant policies set forth or promulgated at any time since April 1, 2006; and (e) what are the reference numbers and effective dates of the superseded iterations of the documents referred to in (d), in which the policies were formerly set forth or promulgated?
Response
Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are in the process of finalizing revised direction on visits by dignitaries, parliamentarians and federal parliamentary committees and associations to their establishments. The objective of this revised direction is to provide an interim update to existing policy until a new defence administrative order and directive is issued, and delegates the approval of visits to all organizations that report directly to the Deputy Minister and/or the Chief of the Defence Staff.
This policy is expected to supersede elements of the Canadian Forces administrative order 61-16, promulgated on July 24, 1987, on visits by members of the royal family and Canadian dignitaries to Canadian Forces elements and installations, and a 2010 direction from the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff requiring the Minister of National Defence to approve visits of dignitaries and parliamentarians to National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces establishments.
View Jean-François Fortin Profile
(QC)
Mr. Speaker, with support from the Government of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal, the public health authority just submitted an exemption application to Health Canada in order to set up supervised injection sites in the city. This will help addicts, reduce the number of people who inject drugs on the street and reduce the number of syringes that are left in parks where children play. The only thing the project needs now is approval from Health Canada.
Can the Minister of Health guarantee that her government will not derail the project, as it tried to do in the case of InSite in Vancouver?
View Rona Ambrose Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is an exemption for illegal street heroin to be injected in a site. Therefore, we have put forward legislation that will be moving through the Senate very shortly to ensure that neighbourhoods, where the mayor of Montreal might like to put a heroin injection site, actually have a say on whether they want a heroin injection site. It is an illegal drug. In addition, I want to know from the mayor of Montreal what kind of drug prevention and drug treatment services he has available for those who are addicted.
View Libby Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
View Libby Davies Profile
2015-06-02 10:35 [p.14444]
Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are having this debate today on the report from the Standing Committee on Health, which was produced in October 2014, because it is a very important subject in terms of public policy as it relates to marijuana. The first thing I want to say is that the report we are debating is unfortunately completely biased.
The name of the report is “Marijuana's Health Risks and Harms”. We can see from its title that in looking at the subject of marijuana, the majority of the members of the committee, the government members, were only interested in building a political case for themselves to show what they believe to be risks and harms. From day one, the study and the report were very suspect, because they were actually not based on evidence and a scientific approach in terms of how we should be conducting studies by standing committees of Parliament.
We heard from a number of witnesses. It is regrettable that the government members tried to prevent witnesses from coming forward who hold evidence-based views on marijuana based on a health approach. It was very difficult to get that point of view across in the committee. However, I am pleased to say that we were able to get some witnesses who gave us a very balanced picture of what is taking place in terms of public policy. I would say that the approach that was put forward, and certainly the approach the NDP favours, is an approach that focuses on health promotion and on public education and safety. We need to have an approach to marijuana that is more balanced. That is something that did not result from the study and this report.
We produced what is called a dissenting or minority report for this study. Our number one recommendation to the Government of Canada was that it is essential to pursue a public health approach to marijuana that is focused on education, and where necessary, treatment and harm reduction. This is something we heard from witnesses. It is something that is sensible.
We understand that there is a broad consensus now in this country that the Conservatives' approach of a war on drugs and prohibition has been a catastrophic failure economically, socially, and through the justice system. Giving people criminal records, having a zero-tolerance policy, and denying the reality of what is going on in terms of marijuana in this country is something that is producing more harm than good. That is the Conservatives' approach.
We have a different approach in the NDP. It is based on focusing on public health and health promotion.
We heard from a number of witnesses, like Dr. Evan Wood, Dr. Tony George, the Canadian Public Health Association, Philippe Lucas, and Dr. Perry Kendall. These are all eminent doctors and scientists who have actually studied this issue, and they all told us that a public health approach to the non-medical use of drugs is necessary, and in fact critical, to minimize the risks and the harms.
I spoke a bit earlier and questioned the minister about the fact that very limited research has gone on. We heard at the committee that approximately 50% of people who use medical marijuana do so to relieve chronic pain. This came from Dr. Perry Kendall, who was a very credible witness. We also heard from Veterans Affairs Canada that the department pays for medical marijuana for the treatment of PTSD in veterans. The witnesses all said that we need to have more research on medical marijuana, but it has been very difficult to do so because of the approach of the government.
I find it contradictory that on the one hand, the Conservatives are willing to encourage research to look at risks and harms, yet there is not one recommendation in the majority government report that calls for research on medical marijuana and some of the benefits that have already been shown. So much for a parliamentary study. It is actually shameful that it is so biased and prejudicial.
We believe that we need have more research done. We believe that we need to take a broad public health approach. In fact, what we think should happen, and this is one of our recommendations in our report, is that we should:
Establish an independent commission with a broad mandate, including safety and public health, to consult Canadians on all aspects of the non-medical use of marijuana and to provide guidance to Parliament on the institution of an appropriate regulatory regime to govern such use.
Why do we come to this conclusion? We come to this conclusion because it is very clear that the current unregulated market has been a complete failure. It produces violence, stigma, and, in fact, control by organized crime. It is very clear.
I think most Canadians understand that criminalization is not the answer. In fact, criminalization produces a huge amount of harm in and of itself. The reality is that whether the Conservatives can see it or not, they know that it is there. It is very clear that they politically choose to deny it. Our marijuana laws need to be modernized, and they need to be based on evidence and public health principles.
This is something that is taking place throughout the world. We only have to look south of the border to see that different states, whether it is Colorado or Washington, are taking a much more realistic public health approach to marijuana based on a balance of prevention, public health, well-being, harm reduction, community safety, and public education.
That is the kind of approach we need in Canada. It is something the government has politically decided it wants to reject. It simply wants to play a little political game. All it talks about is youth. I have not heard anyone in this House or any witness who came forward say that they think marijuana should be available to youth. In fact, that is precisely the reason we need a regulatory approach; it is so we can set clear rules as to where use can take place, and it should be adults who look at issues of commercialization. We need to look at issues of distribution, just as they have done in some of the states south of the border.
The government's sort of political mantra on this focuses on youth. There are issues around the use of any substance, whether it is alcohol, marijuana, or any other substance, but that is only part of the question we are looking at. I would argue strenuously that a regulatory approach, a public health approach, would enable us to have much better coordination and an overview of what we need to do in terms of ensuring that youth do not have access to substances, whether it is marijuana or anything else, that are harmful.
It is staring us in the face that this is the classic example of the response of the Conservative government to an issue. It is tougher laws and bringing in mandatory minimum sentences. That is what it did for drug crimes. However, everything we see before us is telling us that criminalization of drug use, whether it is marijuana or other substances, is actually producing more harm.
It is abundantly clear that what is needed is a public health approach, which has been adopted by the medical health officers across the county and has been supported by many major cities across the county. Certainly the city of Vancouver has led the way on this issue.
I find it astounding that, still today, as this report comes forward, the Conservatives are using this as a political hammer. I want to say that I do not think it is going to work. It is a failure.
Canadians actually understand what this debate is about. Canadians understand that criminalization is something that has failed in this country. The so-called war on drugs, just as we saw with Prohibition in the 1930s, actually produces more crime and violence. That is what we are facing in Canada today. We can look at what has been happening in Surrey or Vancouver. We can see the gang violence and the violence that comes about as a result of prohibition.
In this party, we would rather be on the side of evidence. We would rather be on the side of reality. We would rather be on the side of a proper regulatory approach that produces a coherent response, based on public policy and public health, to the issue of marijuana.
The Conservatives can rant all they want and try to create a black and white situation in which people are either with them or against them, as we have heard so often in the House, but Canadians are not fooled. Canadians know that we need to have these laws modernized. They know that we need to have proper oversight and a regulatory approach that will actually help young people be safer.
We need a regulatory approach that would ensure that we have proper rules, regulations, and guidelines about where marijuana use can take place. These are all very important questions.
I am very proud of the fact that the NDP produced a brief report in the overall Standing Committee of Health report in October. It lays out very clearly the principles and the direction that we believe are absolutely necessary in dealing with the issue of marijuana use in Canada.
To conclude, I will again reiterate that, one, we think it should be pursued as a public health approach; two, we believe that we need to fund research to examine the potential effectiveness of medical marijuana; and three, we call for an independent commission with a broad mandate to provide guidance to Parliament on the institution of an appropriate regulatory regime to govern such use.
View Paul Calandra Profile
CPC (ON)
View Paul Calandra Profile
2015-04-24 12:25 [p.13000]
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today from the community of Markham, which is suffering from the consequences of a marijuana home grow-op across the street from a school. The petitioners call on the government to do everything in its power to make sure that all facilities like these in communities are closed down. The petitioners also support this government's actions to do just that, and I support the petitioners in this.
View Kevin Sorenson Profile
CPC (AB)
View Kevin Sorenson Profile
2015-03-13 10:03 [p.12093]
moved that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the third time and passed.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my voice to the ongoing dialogue on Bill C-2, the respect for communities act.
Since Bill C-2 was introduced in the House of Commons, it has been the subject of much debate. Over the past few months, we have heard many different opinions about the proposed legislation. At the same time, there are aspects of the bill I believe we should now all agree on. They relate to the bill's contribution to maintaining public health and public safety in all of our communities.
As this is my first opportunity to speak about the bill, I will take some time to review the important points raised by the members of the House, the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, who led the consideration of this bill at committee stage, and the expert witnesses who were called before that committee to share their knowledge and views on the substance of this bill.
The health and safety of Canadians is something our government is committed to protecting and maintaining. It is an important issue, which we campaigned on. It is why Canadians elected this government and why we stand on this side of the House working to bring forward bills that allow us to do just that.
What is this bill about? In its decision regarding Insite in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Minister of Health's discretion to grant or deny exemption applications and to request information for that purpose. In exercising her discretion, the Minister of Health must take into account public health and public safety considerations in accordance with the charter.
The Supreme Court of Canada decision also stated that the Minister of Health must consider evidence, if any, of the five following factors when assessing an exemption application related to activities at a supervised injection site: one, the impact of such a facility on crime rates; two, the local conditions indicating a need for such a supervised injection site; three, the regulatory structure in place to support the facility; four, the resources available to support its maintenance; and five, the expression of community support or opposition.
Why are supervised consumption sites considered to impact both public health and public safety? Let us look at what is actually at play when it comes to providing an application for an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or CDSA, for activities at a supervised consumption site.
As we have all heard, the CDSA controls activities involving controlled substances and precursors to minimize the risk of diversion to an illegal use. The CDSA and its regulations do, however, allow access to controlled substances for medical, scientific, and public interest purposes. One way the CDSA makes this possible is through exemptions under section 56 of the act. Section 56 provides the Minister of Health with the authority to grant an exemption from provisions of the CDSA for activities involving controlled substances.
Bill C-2 would amend section 56 to create a distinct regime for an exemption for activities involving illegal substances that are obtained on the streets and are then used in supervised injection sites. This is the reality of what is going on now, every day, at Insite. I hope we can all agree that a solid framework is needed when we are overseeing the use of street drugs in this way.
According to a 2008 report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, supervised consumption sites are described as specialized facilities that provide injection drug users with sterile consumption equipment and “a clean, unhurried environment”. The clients frequenting these sites typically have a long history of drug use and drug abuse and often live on the margins of Canadian society, untouched by traditional health or social services.
It has been argued that these types of sites serve to meet the needs of those who use drugs by serving as a point of entry into health and social services. However, it is also important to remind listeners that the drugs used on the grounds of the facility are illegal and that these pre-obtained illegal drugs are acquired on the black market, usually from drug dealers and others who are exploiting the addictions of Canadians. This market presents obvious health and safety risks, so it is only right that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act should lay out a framework to address this.
That is why the bill is clearly needed. The current system does not provide the tools needed to adequately consider the complex risks associated with supervised drug injection sites.
The respect for communities act would provide the minister of health with information needed to properly assess section 56 exemption applications and to balance public health and public safety considerations, in accordance with the charter.
To be more specific, the bill sets out the criteria that build upon the five factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. These criteria would provide clarity to the applicants on the type of information the minister would consider in an exemption application related to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Given the serious risks to human health and public safety associated with illegal drugs, and given that substances obtained from illegal sources are known to contribute to organized crime, our government believes that exemptions to undertake activities with them should be granted only once rigorous criteria, identified in Bill C-2, have been addressed.
Under Bill C-2, the minister of health would continue to have responsibility for granting the exemptions. However, to provide clarity and transparency in the application process, the bill sets out the information requirements to inform these decisions.
I have looked at this very carefully through the lens of being both a former mayor of a small town and a health care practitioner. I believe that what the minister has created in the bill is a positive and appropriate framework for these decisions.
Bill C-2 specifically identifies the type of information the minister would need to support informed decision-making. It would ensure that the Minister of Health would have access to community perspectives from a broad range of relevant stakeholders so as to give consideration to the potential impact a site could have on a particular community. To take that local government perspective, they are often looking at zoning applications and uses for different pieces of property, and there are frequently very strong opinions on both sides. Again, it is the community that has the ability to express those opinions. The ability of people to express their opinions to help inform the decision-making is absolutely critical.
Applicants would have to provide a report on consultations with the licensing authorities for physicians and nurses as well as with local community groups. As well, letters of opinion would be required from, for example, provincial ministers of health and public safety, the head of the local police force, and the lead health professionals of the government of the province. These individuals would be consulted in their professional capacities so that the minister's decision could be informed by leading experts from the local area. These letters would contain their opinions on the proposed activities and any public health and public safety concerns they might have.
The applicant would need to provide a report outlining the views of these groups and describing how they would respond to any relevant concerns raised during the consultations. The applicant would also be required to describe proposed measures to address relevant concerns raised by the head of the local police force, the local government, and community groups.
Available information about crime and public nuisance, public use of illicit drugs, or inappropriately discarded drug-related litter, such as needles, would also have to be submitted, along with any law enforcement research or statistics on the subject.
In addition, to address the safety of individuals and communities, the applicants would need to provide a description of the potential impact of the proposed activities at the site on public safety. This would include available information on crime in the vicinity of the site and in the municipality and a description of measures to be taken to minimize the impacts.
Applicants would also be required to provide information on security measures, record keeping, and the establishment of procedures for the safe disposal of any controlled substances or the devices that facilitate their consumption. Criminal record checks for key employees would also need to be provided.
Members on the other side of the House have raised a variety of concerns regarding the proposed legislation and the information required to support an application for an exemption for activities conducted at a supervised consumption site.
I would like to point out that we need to balance the obligations being placed on applicants with the needs of the Canadian public, meaning the individuals, organizations, and businesses that would become the eventual neighbours of any supervised consumption site in their communities.
A typical and appropriate community process should happen at a local level. That is what this bill is about. It would set up clear parameters and would require a thorough consultation process to ensure that applications for these supervised drug-injection sites were thoroughly reviewed by local experts and community members as part of any decision.
Our government believes that it is important to give members of the public an opportunity to provide input into proposed activities that could impact their communities. That is why, under Bill C-2, the minister would also have the authority to post a notice of application for a 90-day public comment period to seek direct input from community members. It is not unlike a rezoning application, whereby a large sign is posted to inform everyone who is local that it will happen. It is part of the local community consultation process.
That is what I have found so surprising about the debate on this bill until now. The opposition members continue to delay and drag out the debate, when the single largest accomplishment of the bill is simply consultation with local communities. To be quite frank, to me it is incomprehensible. Members in this House need to pride themselves on local grassroots input, whether it is for an environmental assessment process or a rezoning, so I am surprised that there seems to be such resistance to providing what is normal due process in important decisions a community makes. I am pleased to see that we are making some progress on this today.
Consultations are not the only improvement contained in the bill. There are also important new clarifications that would be brought to the inspection regime to monitor these sites following their establishment. This would ensure that the government had the tools needed to monitor any injection site that may be established following the new consultation process.
One of Health Canada's responsibilities under the CDSA is to monitor the distribution of controlled substances and to inspect facilities, as needed, to verify compliance with the act, its regulations, and the terms and conditions of an exemption. This is done to minimize the risk of diversion and any negative impact on public safety. I do not think anyone should argue about the importance of having that measure in the bill. As someone who was responsible for a health centre, there were many different groups that had the ability to come in and monitor the work we were doing, whether it was on our work with controlled drugs and substances or the privacy commission. Again, these are appropriate and necessary safeguards.
The proposed legislation would amend the CDSA, which sets out the powers of inspectors. The amendments would provide authority for inspectors to enter supervised consumption sites for inspections to validate information on any exemption application received by Health Canada. These amendments would also authorize inspectors to enter a site for which an exemption was granted at any reasonable time to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of the exemption. Again, these are appropriate measures and safeguards that would be put in place. If the conditions of the exemption were not followed or the act or regulations were not complied with, there could be a danger to public health or safety, and an exemption could be revoked.
That brings us back to the real issue at play, which is the danger to public health and public safety. It is no secret that when illicit drug activities take root in neighbourhoods, the health and safety of individuals, families, and communities are put at risk. Illicit drugs that are bought and sold on the streets are inherently dangerous and present dangers in the communities in which they are found. For example, we know that the proceeds from the sale of illicit substances often contribute to organized crime, and the use of these substances can increase the risk of harm to health and safety, especially when these substances are unregulated and untested.
While a supervised consumption site aims to reduce the risk of illegal drug use, it is also important to keep in mind that no level of oversight can ever make illegal, untested street drugs completely safe.
That is why I also want to note that the bill will require applicants to provide information regarding the drug treatment facilities that may be associated with the injection site. I think all members of this House can agree that the true goal of the program designed to help those of us struggling with addictions is to end drug use in a safe way. That is what any of us would hope for family or friends fighting an addiction. It is only right to analyze the drug treatment facilities that are proposed and associated.
We often hear about safe injection sites being a pathway to treatment, to care. As someone involved in the health care business, I too frequently saw people who were desperate to have detox, to have rehabilitation, to have support with nothing being available to them. If this is to be a pathway to supporting people in their recovery, then it has to be associated with those pieces of the treatment puzzle.
Everyone in this House probably has family and friends who are aware of enormous dollars that have been spent to send their loved ones to treatment centres because there are no public options available as they were desperately struggling with recovery.
These changes are in line with our government's balanced approach to tackling illegal drug use in Canada. In 2007 we introduced a national anti-drug strategy. The strategy focuses on drug prevention and access to treatment for individuals who suffer from drug dependencies. It also focuses on combatting the production and distribution of illicit drugs by targeting drug dealers and producers who threaten the health and public safety of our communities, and more particularly important, of our youth.
One of the key components of the strategy is the enforcement action plan, which has increased the capacity of law enforcement to proactively target organized criminal activities. For example, under this plan, funding was provided to the RCMP to expand its dedicated anti-drug team to help locate, investigate and shut down organizations involved in the production and distribution of illicit drugs. Funding was also provided to enhance the capacity of the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute offenders.
Through these and many other activities under the national anti-drug strategy, we have made great progress in helping to protect public health and safety.
To emphasize just how much the issues related to public health and public safety are intertwined, both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Safety appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to address questions raised by members in their consideration of this bill.
During her testimony, the Minister of Health clearly stated that, “This legislation was not prepared overnight or on a whim”. It was “...drafted to specifically codify a detailed ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in September 2011 on a supervised injection site”. As I have said, that ruling identified the specific factors the Minister of Health must consider when reviewing applications that grant exemptions from Canada's drug laws to allow such sites to be established.
There are many things I could say about the process. I know 20 minutes is a long time, but it can also be a short time. Most people in the House, I expect, have had families and friends who have struggled with addiction. We heard a very powerful statement yesterday from one of our colleagues. We are trying to create a balanced piece of legislation that will really, as I say, take care of the public safety issues, to look at the public health issues and respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision.
View Jamie Nicholls Profile
NDP (QC)
View Jamie Nicholls Profile
2015-03-13 10:23 [p.12096]
Mr. Speaker, the member across talks about the opposition dragging out the debate, and she also underlined the importance of consulting with community groups.
In terms of the consultative process regarding Bill C-2, has she gone to the grassroots community partners around her, places such as ASK Wellness, Henry Leland House, Crossroads Inn, the Phoenix Centre? Has she talked to the president of ASK Wellness, Elizabeth Harris, about the bill? Has she talked to the president of the Phoenix Centre, Fawn Holland?
I am just wondering what their input was in her own community and whether she has consulted closely with them in Kamloops.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I have ongoing dialogue with many members in Kamloops, including ASK Wellness, on many pieces of legislation, whether it is our prostitution legislation or others.
The member is missing the point. The point is that there are criteria giving consistency to how applications will be received. Most importantly, what it would do is say that if there is ever a proposed site in Kamloops, all of the groups that the member mentioned would have the ability to speak very directly to it, as would the local government and police force.
Again, what we are talking about is the ability of communities to have consultation and be able to determine what is appropriate and what is going to be helpful to deal with what is a very difficult challenge.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2015-03-13 10:25 [p.12096]
Mr. Speaker, it is clear with this particular bill that the Prime Minister's Office is trying to give the impression that we are going to have all of these injection sites scattered across the country unless we pass this legislation.
If we take a look at the one injection site that we have here in Canada, there was immense consultation. We had federal, provincial and municipal cooperation that had all sorts of other stakeholder and community involvement. The stakeholders included first responders, health care professionals and police agencies. The whole nine yards was brought in together to put this one site into being.
It is ludicrous to believe that communities and others would not be consulted. The real reason is that this is nothing more than Conservative spin to try to create an issue that is just not there.
Why does the member believe that this legislation is even necessary?
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the member is making my own point. This legislation would take the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which lays out five things that need to be looked out. The Minister of Health needs to give the exemption.
It is our responsibility to ensure that with those criteria, there are processes and systems around it. Again, to be quite frank, the member is making my point that this legislation would create the system that is needed to address the important issues.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-03-13 10:27 [p.12096]
Mr. Speaker, we talked a little bit about barriers in getting programs like this off the ground and having community confidence. Some of that is a lack of legislative direction. What we would provide here is that legislative direction, which has that criteria.
One of the pieces of criteria that I was most interested in hearing about, and I wonder if the hon. member could expand on it a little, is the criteria around ensuring that plans includes treatment plans to go along with the safe injection sites. Communities can understand and invest in that. Could my hon. colleague expand a little bit on that piece in plainer English terms?
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I have worked in small northern communities and I have seen the decimation that addictions can create in those communities. I also saw the huge lack of appropriate detoxification and rehabilitation services. I can remember time after time when people came to me and said, “Listen, we are ready to quit”. I had to say, “I am sorry, but there no are beds or services available”. I told them that in six months, we may be able to give them the support that they need. That was a shame, because six months later, those people might not have been ready anymore.
Treatment and prevention services that are directly associated with the site is an enormous and absolutely critical piece of this complex and comprehensive puzzle.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-03-13 10:29 [p.12096]
Mr. Speaker, I would like the member's comments on a speech given by Dr. Julio Montaner, the director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He said that the government “just doesn't get it”. He said:
...instead of complying with the Supreme Court of Canada, they are making it even more difficult for people to access a service that has been shown to be lifesaving.
Dr. Montaner is one of our leading world experts on AIDS and believes that this bill is wrong-headed. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to comment on that, and ask her how many safe injection sites the department of health is projecting to be exempted in the first year after this law is proclaimed.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest of respect for Dr. Montaner in terms of some of the work he has done around HIV/AIDS. I have listened to him speak here on Parliament Hill.
The point of this legislation is that we would put in place some appropriate parameters around the minister determining whether to give an exemption. There is even a process around rezoning applications. When a mining company is looking at establishing a mine, there is a process around it. We have created straightforward criteria that look at a balance, include prevention and safety, and include community consultation. To be quite frank, I think all opposition members should be on board with us on this particular piece of legislation.
Results: 1 - 15 of 458 | Page: 1 of 31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data