Pesticides and the Environment
Pesticides and the Environment
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): – I am proud of the fact that the NDP has introduced this motion today. It reminds me of a similar significant initiative that we undertook a couple of years ago, and that was our motion on trans fats that was approved by the House. We did that, as we do this today, on the basis of responding to the significant concerns in Canada about public health, and about the impact on people’s personal health with the use of pesticides.
I am proud of the fact that the NDP has taken a very strong approach here and is in effect calling for a ban of non-essential cosmetic pesticides.
We all want a good quality of life. We all share this planet. Therefore, in this federal jurisdiction, surely, the most significant thing we can do is to bring forward something like this, to build on what has taken place in Quebec, who legislated the first province wide ban on pesticides. I would expect to see these members opposite supporting an initiative that would ensure that what has happened in Quebec would take place in other jurisdictions across the country. In the future we will have another debate about what we need to do there in terms of looking at alternatives and organic farming and looking at the agricultural sector, but today we are focused on the cosmetic use of pesticides.
I think the motion establishes two very important principles that have been mentioned today. One is reversing the burden of proof. That is very important in terms of public policy. It has been up to individuals and organizations to challenge what is going on and to show that something is unsafe. Now the burden of proof would be on the manufacturers to show that if they want a product to come into use they have to be able to demonstrate that it is safe.
The second important principle is that of reducing exposure. We know there is a huge amount of evidence to say that exposure to all of these chemicals and pesticides is dangerous. It is ironic that we send kids out to play and to the playground to get fresh air and get them outside, yet we are sending them into a risk zone.
We know that over 100 municipalities have adopted pesticide bylaws including, I’m pleased to say, the City of Vancouver. We know that the province of Quebec has done that as well. Let us see this right across Canada. What is wrong with that, for heaven’s sake?
Libby Davies calls for an end to the criminalization of medical marijuana users
Libby Davies calls for an end to the criminalization of medical marijuana users
Libby Davies calls for an end to the criminalization of medical marijuana users
“The raids on Canada’s Compassion Clubs are an attack on patient’s rights and must stop,” said NDP MP Libby Davies (Vancouver East).
After years of openly supporting medical marijuana users in their communities, a number of compassion clubs in Quebec and Toronto have been shut down.
The clubs serve patients with chronic illnesses and have emerged largely in response to the gaps and problems with federal Marijuana Medical Access Regulations. The BC Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the program is unconstitutional and needs to be changed, yet the Conservatives have failed to respond beyond the most minimal legally necessary changes.
“The recent raids will only serve to punish legitimate patients whose medical needs are being ignored by the federal government,” said Davies, the NDP Spokesperson for Drug Policy.
Davies has called on the current Conservative government as well as previous Liberal governments for an overhaul of the federal program that is costly and so difficult for patients to navigate, they are forced to turn to compassion clubs.
“Compassion Clubs must be allowed to operate and the federal Health Minister must immediately address the concerns of the BC Supreme Court, and ensures accessible, accountable Marijuana Medical Access Regulations,” said Davies.
-30-
Libby on Bill C-475 an Act to Amend the Controlled Drug and Substances Act
Libby on Bill C-475 an Act to Amend the Controlled Drug and Substances Act
MARCH 9, 2010
HANSARD
House of Commons
Debate on Bill C-475 an Act to Amend the Controlled Drug and Substances Act (Methamphetamines and Ecstasy)
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-475. I would like to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for introducing the bill. It is very similar to a bill that was introduced awhile ago. I spoke to that bill and it went to committee. The fact that it is back before the House is evidence of the hon. member’s serious intent to bring forward this issue. We certainly appreciate that.
I want to make a few general points about the bill as it relates to the larger issue of drug policy and what we have seen from the government. While on the one hand the bill deals very specifically with substances that are involved in the selling, production or import of amphetamines and ecstasy, as it relates to the larger issue, we have to be aware that reliance on an enforcement strategy and an approach that is focused on the Criminal Code is not going to solve the very major issues we are facing with drug addiction and substance use in our society.
Because the hon. member is from the metro Vancouver area, I am sure he is familiar with what the city of Vancouver is calling the four pillar approach. It is an approach that is more comprehensive. It focuses on prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement.
One thing that really concerns us is that we have seen from the current government an overemphasis on enforcement. This bill would very much be a part of that. For example, we know that Canada spends about 73% of its drug policy budget on enforcement; only about 14% goes to treatment, 7% to research, 2.6% to prevention and 2.6% to harm reduction.
When we look at the real picture of what is going on in Canadian society, based on reports that have been produced, we know that in 1994, 28% of Canadians reported to have used illicit drugs, but by 2004 that number had gone up to 45%. That is pretty staggering. I would say that even the United Nations now recognizes that a broader approach including harm reduction is a very important component in a comprehensive drug policy.
While on the one hand there is this bill which has a very narrow spectrum, I would hope that the hon. member would also advocate for a broader approach and that we would not see the kind of penalization on things around harm reduction. I am sure the hon. member is familiar with Insite in Vancouver, the only safe injection facility in North America. To me the real issue is about prevention and about approaching this as a health issue.
We see that the Conservative government relies heavily on the enforcement mechanism. In fact, in 2007 the government dropped harm reduction from Canada’s drug strategy. I really feel that the statistics are only going to get worse.
One real problem we are facing is this illusion, this political stance being put forward of continually seeking tougher laws on enforcement. Of course, there was Bill C-15 in the last session of Parliament, which called for mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. The political stance that somehow this is going to solve very complex issues in our society is an illusion. It is just a political stance because the reality, research, and scientific work that is being done shows us that only when all of the components are present do we begin to actually make changes.
For example, I would point to the National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs and Substances in Canada 2008 working group. The working group is made up of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, first nations, the Canadian Executive Council on Addictions, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and BC Mental Health and Addiction Services. It is a very professional body. It points out in its national framework for action that research findings suggest that providing appropriate services and supports across a range of systems not only reduces substance use problems, but also improves a wide range of outcomes related to health, social functioning and criminal justice.
I use this information because it is further evidence that unless we have some kind of equilibrium and common sense approach to drug policy in this country, we are actually not going to change anything. If we continue along a path of criminalizing drug users, which is what Bill C-15 would do, an over-emphasis on an enforcement strategy, and somehow fooling people into believing that we are going to deal with this issue by having more cops or tougher enforcement, the evidence in this country shows us that is not the case. I wanted to paint that slightly bigger picture because it is very relevant in this debate.
As my hon. colleague from the Bloc has pointed out, the fact that the bill does not name the products and that the various substances that go into making these drugs are so readily available makes enforcement very challenging. That is all the more reason, particularly when talking about drug use by young people, it is very critical to emphasize the prevention and education, particularly realistic education about drug use.
I have had a lot of concerns and qualms about sending police officers into schools regarding drug education. I ask myself whether we would send police officers into schools to provide sex education. No, we would not, so why would we do it for drug use? It is because these substances are illegal and I do not think kids get a very realistic and honest education about what these substances are, that they need to be aware of their own health and what they need to take care of.
I hope the member and other members of the Conservative caucus would focus on some of those issues and bring them forward in bills as well. We in the NDP will certainly support the bill going to committee because it requires examination, but I want to emphasize that this is just a tiny piece of a much bigger issue that is not being dealt with in any kind of appropriate way by the Conservative government, and that is what we need to focus on.
We will certainly support it going to committee. We want witnesses to be heard. We would like to look at the details of the bill and examine some of the issues about what the products are and why it is that the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not adequate to deal with this issue that the member has brought forward.
Let us not lose sight of the bigger picture. Let us not get so caught up in the spin, political manoeuvring, and the stance that takes place that we have seen with the Conservatives, that they see this as somehow the be-all and end-all because it is not. It is quite shameful that in this country we would have a drug policy that is now so unbalanced, over-focused on enforcement, and under-supported in terms of treatment, research, prevention and harm reduction. Those are very critical elements.
If we are really genuine about supporting local communities and helping the kids who need to go into treatment, then federal dollars have to go there, too. I appreciate the member reading some of the comments by people who are involved in treatment, but let us listen to what they are really saying. One of the things they are really saying is that there is not enough treatment available. We do not have treatment on demand in this country and we need to have it.
We in the NDP will support the bill going to committee, but let us also focus on the much bigger picture.