HEALTH MEETS IDEOLOGY IN INSITE CASE

It was standing room only in the small B.C. Court of Appeal hearing
room Monday as a case that will not only determine the future of
North America's sole supervised injection site but the very nature of
health care and addiction treatment in Canada kicked off.

Two decisions are being appealed, both the result of a case decided a
year ago before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield. The case was
brought before Pitfield by two drug addicts who were joined in their
actions by the PHS Community Services Society, which operates Insite
under contract with the Vancouver Health Authority.

At the time, you may recall, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority
government was endlessly dithering over whether to extend a federal
exemption under Canada's Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA) to
allow Insite to carry on with the practice of assisting addicts to
possess and inject illegal drugs, heroin and cocaine. Harper's
obvious inclination was to close Insite.

The first decision by Justice Pitfield was the one that got the most
attention and sparked the appeal by the federal government being
heard this week. Pitfield decided the CDSA prohibitions of drug use
violated the charter rights of addicts intent on using Insite as a
health care facility. In Pitfield's most pointed comment on the
matter, he said: "The blanket prohibition contributes to the harm it
seeks to prevent."

Pitfield ordered the federal law struck down, but suspended his
ruling until June 30 of this year to give Ottawa time to redraft the
law to bring it in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights.

The second decision by Pitfield went in favour of the federal
government: Essentially he ruled that even though health care is
funded by the province, the federal government still has control over
standards set in the facilities operated by the provincial
government. That decision is being appealed by PHS and the various
interveners, which include VANDU, the Vancouver Area Network of Drug
Users, Vancouver Coastal Health, the provincial government and The
Dr. Peter Centre.

The Monday hearing I sat through concerned itself entirely with the
federal appeal on the Charter issue. While it may not indicate
anything about what Ottawa thinks, lawyer Robert Frater, representing
Canada's Attorney General said early on, that in the event his side
loses he will seek an extension of that June 30 deadline.

The guts of his argument, which all has to do with why Pitfield was
wrong in his judgment, is simply this: The government is under no
obligation to provide citizens with a facility to possess and consume
illegal drugs. The fact that, without a place like Insite, an
injection drug user's life may be more stressful--because the
possibility their lives are at greater risk--is to be expected. "It
should be stressful to break the law," he told the court.

Joseph Arvay, representing PHS, said Frater was mischaracterizing his
client's position and Pitfield's reasoning.

He said in this case addicts are sick people whose illness compels
them to inject drugs. Part of the responsibility of the government
and health care providers is to ensure they can do that in as safe an
environment as possible. "When the law stands between ill people and
the health care they need, that law deprives those people of their
rights to life and security of person."

"Our submission," Arvay said, "makes the value of life paramount over
any ideology about doing drugs."

In this view he is supported by the vast majority of British
Columbians if not Canadians. The odd one out in this debate, the one
intent on pursuing an ideology that denies sick people health care
and puts their lives at greater risk, is Harper and his government in Ottawa.

The hearing ends today. The court's decision will be some time off.