Debates of May 9th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Legalization of Hard Drugs

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her participation and leadership on the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. With respect to her question, there is indeed an issue with illegal and toxic substances crossing our border.

We have put in over a billion dollars to reinforce officials at the border, the CBSA, and we have had to put in far more money because the Conservatives, when they were in power, not only reduced the amount of officials and funding at the border but also cut the programs to address the opioid crisis at the time in half. We are left to deal with the problem here, and the problem has become even worse.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's opinion on the impact of the Conservatives' rhetoric, demagoguery and lies and the lack of scientific content in the opioid file.

I would like my colleague to tell me what impact this could have on drug users.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, my riding is in downtown west Toronto, and I am an avid walker. I walk the streets all the time, and when I notice things, I raise the issues with the local superintendent of police. One of the key things we have talked about was whether there were discussions or any knowledge of the City of Toronto being interested in a similar program as to what is existing in Vancouver.

One of the things I find very problematic in the House is the fact there are no active discussions at all from the City of Toronto to put in a similar program to what Vancouver has right now. It is awful to be spreading that incorrect information and those lies, and it takes away our energy and our efforts from addressing the issue that is at hand. We need to do it from a medical perspective and from an evidence-based and fact-based perspective.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member has responded partly to what I was going to ask her regarding whether she thinks the opioid crisis is a health issue or a criminal justice issue, specifically because the NDP did introduce a bill that would treat the toxic drug crisis as a health issue. I wonder if the member could instead explain, if this is a health issue, why the Liberal government is spending 60% of the budget on law enforcement.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did mention in my speech that it absolutely is a health issue. I do not think it is a criminal issue.

One of the things I did not get a chance to mention when I was giving my prepared speech is that a lot of our $200 million of funding is also going into expanding the indigenous engagement platform to engage with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, including urban and indigenous communities. We know indigenous peoples continue to be disproportionately impacted by the overdose crisis, and it is essential that we have partnership with indigenous leaders to address this issue in indigenous communities across our country.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House.

I want to take a moment just before I begin my formal speech to recognize and honour a young friend of mine. I met him as an infant, and I performed his funeral last summer. He was 22 years of age, and his name is Marek Seamus Henderson Pekarik. He died as a victim, as a person who was addicted to opioids and other drugs. He died, really, in the prime of his very young life.

Marek came from a fine family. He was very close to both his parents and has a wonderful sister. He was really able to light up a room every time he walked in, with his imagination and his fun. However, there was always an insecurity there, and there was always something that led him to want to be part of a group. That part of the group that he got into led him onto a pathway that led to an addiction. Part of that addiction may have been hereditary; one never knows about addiction. Ultimately, a tainted drug supply led to his death just over a year ago.

His family is still grieving. His friends are still grieving. I am still grieving. I wanted to raise his name in the House today because this is not just about giving family and friends a nod to say that we acknowledge their grief or their pain. This pain and grief in this opioid crisis is very real for many people.

No pain or grief should ever be politicized. This is one of those issues where we should learn how to work together. We should find a way to look outside our political differences and to look at a crisis that is affecting people every day in our provinces, our communities and our cities. We need to open up a door to look at the fact that there is no silver bullet in this battle. There needs to be a multipronged approach in a way that we get best evidence and that we find a way to ensure that we use that best evidence to get a plethora of treatments, options and ideas to attack the problem, because one size does not fit all.

Let me be very clear. The ever-changing, illegal, toxic drug supply is a primary factor driving this crisis, and too many people are losing their lives as a result of it. That is why Marek died.

Of course, there are underlying issues all the time. Of course, there are easy and facile answers that are going to be offered to people. The reality is that we have to get bad drugs off our streets and away from Canadians, as 22 Canadians lose their lives every day in this unrelenting, tragic crisis. These are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, nieces and nephews, and aunts and uncles. They are grandparents. It is being driven by the increasingly toxic and unpredictable, illegal drug supply in Canada, which is killing, on average, 22 Canadians a day.

We have to use every tool at our disposal. That means we will not have perfection on any one tool. We have to find ways to do prevention, to find ways to address addiction in the very early stages, to understand that this is a health crisis and to help people as human beings. It means that we need to provide treatment.

That needs to be on-demand treatment, and we are not there yet. The federal government continues to supply money to provinces, to communities, to have more and better treatment. We are not there yet, but treatment is a critical part of this. Harm reduction is also part of it. We simply do not want people to die.

This is not a moral issue, and it is not primarily a legal issue. It is a health crisis, and people are dying. It is the same as people dying of cancer, of heart disease, of obesity and of so many factors in our world where people are dying. We need to have a medical approach that does not further stigmatize people who are already suffering in their lives.

This debate is doing nothing to further that issue. It is doing nothing to help the people who are the victims in this horrendous case. We need to focus on prevention. We need to focus on treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. All four factors are the central pillars of our government's approach. They need to be based on reason and on evidence. They need to develop best practices. We need to have an international lens to see what works and what does not work. We will make mistakes in things that work. We will honestly do that, but we will continue to learn every day as we try to solve this crisis together.

We need to look at emerging practices and solutions from around the globe, and we need to listen to the professionals who are engaged. That does mean law enforcement officers, but more than that, it means physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and therapists. It needs to engage psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and street workers, the people who are listening, and it needs to involve the families of victims, people who love their children, who love their parents and who see the day-to-day destruction in their lives.

Our policies are not driving this problem. Anyone who says that does not understand the problem and has not spent time on the streets, in hospitals, in treatment centres or in prisons, where we see the effects of this horrible overdose crisis. It means they have not been at the funerals where I have been and that I have performed to actually deal with the outcomes of this horrendous problem.

To say our policies are contributing to it is simply incorrect. We know what the factors are, not all the factors, but most of the factors of addictions, and we are addressing them as root causes. We understand the complex issue around police enforcement, and we are working around the clock, and around the world, on enforcement. We also want best practices in understanding how it is that we are to get to the victims to make sure they are not further stigmatized and further hurt. We want to help, not to hurt. We know, primarily, that we want to stop deaths. The first way to do that is to stop toxic, illegal drug supply, the kinds of drugs that are getting to people and that are killing people.

According to the latest national data, 82% of overdose deaths involved illegal fentanyl. This percentage has increased by 44% since 2016. That was when national surveillance actually began. I note that because it was just after the Liberal government took office. We were not getting the data we needed before the government took office. Now, we are getting better data to surveil this situation and to understand best practices. It is the illegal drug supply that is contaminated with toxic levels of illegal opioids, other drugs, that is at the root cause of the overdose crisis in Canada.

To suggest that our programs simply hand out prescription drugs to anyone, including youth, is simply not true. It is not a fact. It is wrong. The clients of those programs are already using drugs and are struggling with addictions. They need care. They need help. They need the ability to fight their disease and to be given time so that compassionate, hopeful people can embrace them in love and can work with them in a medical way to ensure that they combat their addictions.

It means we need roads to recovery as well. We need pathways to recovery and need treatment on demand, but it does not matter that treatment on demand is available if people are dead. They are dying from toxic drug supply. They have been marginalized in the medical system. They need to be brought home. They need to be recognized as part of the medical system in our country, where professionals are able to meet them with no judgment, no stigma and certainly not with the political jargon or rhetoric that we hear today from across the other side of the House. It means absolute training for primary caregivers and primary medical service providers to ensure that they have the best tools and the time to do their work.

We hear a concern from the other side that there is a diversion of drugs from these programs. That is simply not true. Diversion is illegal, and steps are always being taken to stop it. We take those concerns seriously. We take them very seriously, and we encourage law enforcement officers to do best practices to counter that at every opportunity.

The Conservatives are portraying a fiction that our streets are flooded by prescribed alternative medications. There is no data to say that. What we need to do is to continue to ensure that diversion does not happen and that people have a span of time in their lives to get the treatment they need, to work on the healthy lives they want to live, to make sure that people like young Marek do not meet their deaths without options for treatment.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that we need multiple tools, from prevention to recovery, to solve this issue. I also agree that we need to learn from our mistakes. Clearly, the decriminalization of hard drugs in B.C. tripled the death rate and the premier has asked the federal government to reverse the decision; it was a deadly mistake.

Can the member explain why the Prime Minister will not emphatically state that he will not repeat that deadly mistake elsewhere in Canada?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we actually believe in provincial jurisdiction, and we actually believe in the Constitution, which gives provinces rights and responsibilities.

This government listens to provinces. This government listens to best practices, and it will engage in pilot projects. Pilot projects are like an experiment; those are important things to be done. Safeguards are put around them. We listen to the provinces. The provinces invited us to engage in a pilot project. The government engaged in it. An evaluation took place.

We will continue to listen to provinces, to cities, to municipalities and to professional caregivers. We will not necessarily listen to rhetoric and ideology that is counterproductive and that only hurts people.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I want to thank the member for his excellent intervention.

Does the member agree that what needs to happen is for the Liberal government to declare a national emergency on the toxic drug crisis so that there is a pan-Canadian response to addressing it?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always have time to listen to the member for Nunavut. I am very glad she was able to ask a question.

There is a national crisis. It is clear. It is coast to coast to coast. It is hitting cities, communities, small towns, remote cities and remote villages. It is hitting everyone. It hits both rural and urban people. I will absolutely commit to working on best practices to ensure every part of this country, north, south, east and west, has an opportunity to engage in everything needed.

I do not really know what a national emergency means. I know it is a personal emergency. It has hit my family. It has hit other families in the House. We need to work on it.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke passionately on the matter; obviously, it has affected him personally, as it has so many Canadians. I wonder if he could expand on his point about stigma. He talked about how we have to address this as a health care issue, and then he talk about how unfortunate it is when it is politicized.

Can he talk more about stigma and about how we should not politicize these matters? We should look at it, first and foremost, as an issue of health care when responding.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that comment gives me a chance to give a shout-out to an organization in my riding called Families for Addiction Recovery, FAR. It is made up of parents whose kids have been in engaged in illegal drugs and often had addictions. This group particularly has talked about this as a medical crisis. As long as we do not see it as a medical crisis and do medical interventions, but see it as a legal crisis, we will never get ahead.

That further stigmatizes and pushes people away from getting the care the want. It excludes people from society. It pushes them away, and we need to bring them home. We need to bring them love. We need to bring them compassion. Stigma will never do that. What we need to do is to ensure that groups, like Families for Addiction Recovery, have the tools they need to be a community-based group, and we will do that work. I am proud to support them.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Today is my son's 22nd birthday and, oddly enough, my mother's 91st birthday. I say happy birthday to Zac and Zetta.

This is obviously a very contentious topic, and I certainly do not mean to be inflammatory in my remarks, because I do understand the nature of this illness and that it is a health care issue. However, we need to think of three different things: decriminalization, safe supply and banning precursor chemicals.

We studied the opioid epidemic in HESA, where the member for Yukon referred to the Liberal government's policy of delivering drugs to vulnerable Canadians as an “experiment”, and that is the study that we continue to undertake at the Standing Committee on Health. According to the Collins English Dictionary, one definition of “experiment” is “a scientific test which is done in order to discover what happens to something in particular conditions.” The natural conclusion is that, when something is shown to work in certain conditions, one should expand on it. The obvious converse point is related to the fact that, if it has a potentially harmful outcome, then one should bring it to an end. That is how experiments work. In the health committee, we very clearly heard the deputy chief from Vancouver telling us that the police officers believed that the decriminalization experiment needed to be curtailed, and then people actually began to stand up and take notice.

One of the difficulties we know of is that decriminalization has led to a lack of safety in downtowns across this country. I remember, perhaps a month ago, when I visited Sydney, Nova Scotia, that people were afraid to go into their downtowns. Of course, that goes all the way to Sidney, British Columbia, as well. Residents are scared. The police do not have the opportunity to attempt to make the areas around soccer fields, playgrounds, businesses or sidewalks safe for residents to use. I think that is certainly something to consider.

Brad West, the mayor of Port Coquitlam, was quoted during an interview with the BBC on March 29. The article is entitled “Success or failure? Canada's drug decriminalization test faces scrutiny”. The article goes on to say:

It is a debate felt not just in the bigger cities like Vancouver, but in places like Port Coquitlam, a suburb of 60,000 people east of Vancouver rich in walking trails, public parks and single-family homes.

There, it was an altercation during a child's birthday party that was “the last straw” for Mayor Brad West.

Mr. West told the BBC he had heard from a family who had spotted a person using drugs near the party, held in a local park. Confronted, the person refused to leave, he said.

“That to me is unacceptable,” he said, adding that police had the right to intervene in that situation.

Therefore, we know that this is a very difficult topic.

Greg Shea, adjunct professor of management and senior fellow at the Wharton School's Center for Leadership and Change Management, wrote an article dated September 5, 2023, entitled “Is Portugal’s Drug Decriminalization a Failure or Success? The Answer Isn’t So Simple.” The article goes on to say:

evidence of a fragmenting, even breaking, system abounds: Demoralized police no longer cite addicts to get them into treatment and at least some NGOs view the effort as less about treatment and more about framing lifetime drug use as a right.

The number of Portuguese adults who reported prior use of illicit adult drugs rose from 7.8% in 2001 to 12.8% in 2022 — still below European averages but a significant rise nonetheless. Overdose rates now stand at a 12-year high and have doubled in Lisbon since 2019. Crime, often seen as at least loosely related to illegal drug addiction, rose 14% just from 2021 to 2022. Sewage samples of cocaine and ketamine rank among the highest in Europe [strangely enough] (with weekend spikes) and drug encampments have appeared along with a European rarity: private security forces.

The decriminalization experiment is not working. Fortunately, I believe, for Canadians in British Columbia, that government has asked the NDP-Liberal government to reverse it, and that change appears to be coming.

On safe supply, where did this all begin? It began with Purdue Pharma, as we hear in the vernacular, supercharging the sales of OxyContin. That, of course, is evidenced by the family that owned Purdue Pharma being sued successfully for $6 billion to help pay for that crisis. We know that street prices of hydromorphone have plummeted all over Canada.

Around Ottawa, it has often been reported that the original street price for an eight-milligram hydromorphone pill was around $20; now it is around two dollars. In the last couple of days, we heard clearly in health committee from Dr. Sharon Koivu, an addiction medicine expert from London. She told us that safe supply has caused horrific suffering in her community. She also went on to talk about the plummeting price of hydromorphone. She believed that safe supply was diverting patients away from opioid agonist treatment, which we know has significant scientific evidence. We know that this therapy needs to be undertaken in this country as part of the suite of services to treat this terrible epidemic.

The former minister of addictions said in June last year, “It is hugely important, I think, to understand that the people using Dilaudid or hydromorphone have been known to be able to share it with their family and friends, which is a safe supply.” That is nonsensical, I am afraid to say. The sharing of prescription drugs is illegal.

We also know there has been significant diversion of Dilaudid or hydromorphone from so-called safe supply programs. For instance, in Prince George, police seized more than 10,000 pills, including hydromorphone, diverted from safe supply. In Campbell River, 3,500 government-issued hydromorphone pills were seized by the local RCMP, all of which were diverted from so-called safe supply; the pills had been in the possession of a “well-organized drug trafficking operation”.

We know that these things are happening. We have also heard, again from Prince George, that organized crime groups are actively involved in the redistribution of safe supply and prescription drugs. In Prince George, we have seen people taking prescribed medications, some of which are dedicated as safe supply prescription drugs, and selling them to organized crime groups in exchange for more potent illicit drugs.

The deputy chief of the Vancouver Police Department told HESA that half of the hydromorphone seizures in B.C. were diverted from safe supply. When we look at all these facts, we can clearly understand that safe supply is not working toward its intended consequence.

We know that substance use disorder is a very difficult problem; people who suffer with substance use disorder want the most potent medication or drug out there. It is difficult for an average Canadian to understand that, if I were an addict and someone over here had a near-death experience with a particular substance, then I would want that. I would be willing to do almost anything to get that same experience. It is very difficult to understand.

We know that precursor chemicals are the raw materials that are used to manufacture fentanyl and the like, and they are usually imported from abroad, often from the PRC. That is creating a significant problem. These precursors are difficult to seize, but banning them is something that we need to be mindful of.

In October 2023, the U.S. DEA added 28 substances to its special surveillance list. Sadly, in Canada, only four of those 28 substances are on our banned list.

This is a very difficult topic, but to paraphrase the great John F. Kennedy, we do not do things here because they are easy; we do them because they are hard. This is hard.

Clearly, some of the ideas put forward by the NDP-Liberal government are not working. On the Conservative side of the House, we have some excellent ideas. These include opioid agonist therapy, bringing people back to safer communities, bringing those who suffer with substance use disorder into treatment programs and, as the parliamentary secretary alluded to, bringing them home in a drug-free state.

On this side of the House, we do not believe that anybody was born hoping they would be addicted to substances. That is not what we want to see for the citizens of Canada in the future.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I was at the Standing Committee on Health this morning, and I was very disappointed to hear my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester adjourn the meeting rather than debate women's reproductive rights. His leader intends to attack Canadians' right to access the health care that they or their doctors deem necessary.

Do the Conservatives believe that they are in a better position than doctors or Canadians themselves to decide on their reproductive rights or health services? Would he, as a physician, have liked to be told what to do?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not think that question is relevant to the debate currently before the House. Since the hon. member is rising to respond, I will give him the opportunity to do so.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, oddly enough, there was disorder and chaos at the Standing Committee on Health today, much as there is on the streets in many parts of Canada because of the careless NDP-Liberal drug policies. Certainly, the NDP-Liberal coalition decided it wanted to be disruptive, and that is not the type of committee my colleagues and I wish to participate in. Of course, that is not the kind of room the Speaker wishes to run here either.

Again, on this side of the House, we believe the problem with substance use disorder is a medical problem. We will continue to put forth important and meaningful solutions based in science to help all Canadian citizens.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noted that the member, in his speech, talked about London. Of course, that is my constituency, and I am so incredibly proud to represent it.

One thing, though, that might be of note is that, in London, we do have safer supply programs. There is actually an organization, called the temporary overdose prevention site, that has been operating quite successfully for several years now. It did a survey, which is something it has to continue to do in order to meet Ontario Ministry of Health regulations, and 89% of clients who use this site responded they agreed that “staff have talked to them and helped them access other health and social services.”

The survey continues to say that examples of referrals included wound care at clinics or hospitals, primary care, addiction counselling, recovery and addiction treatment services, mental health services, pain management clinics, housing supports and testing and treatment for hep C and HIV.

In the qualitative feedback, many respondents highlighted the value of incorporating wraparound services at this site, as well as the benefits of having medical staff on site and building trusting relationships with officials at TOPS who help facilitate linkage and referrals to multiple health and social services.

These are the services the Conservatives are talking about destroying right now with this motion. Could the member respond to that?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am taken aback; the member for London—Fanshawe spoke in a very angry fashion, and I do not know why. I do not feel angry about this topic. Substance use disorder and opioid use disorder are very serious topics. They require significant resources and, in her terminology, wraparound services. I do not have an argument with any of that.

What I do have a problem with is how they want to go about it. They have an experiment, decriminalization, that has failed. It is over, it needs to be over, and it cannot be expanded.

I also have a significant problem with the member for London—Fanshawe supporting the Liberal government, which also committed to a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer. This would have been an excellent way to provide many of those services she discussed. However, to this day, not one penny has been allocated. It is a shame.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. He is a man I very much like and respect. He gave a nuanced and thoughtful speech with a few constructive aspects, which helps counterbalance a bit the speeches of many of his Conservative colleagues, who are firmly on the other end of the spectrum.

My question is very simple. Does he make a distinction between the concept of decriminalization and that of diversion?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is very complicated issue. There are many things we can do for Canadians. There are many other actions that are necessary for the future. On this side of the House, we want to take action and we will do so for the good of all Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Persons with Disabilities.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester for his great speech. Knowing his background, I think he has a lot of credibility. Even the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles confirmed this when he asked his question just now.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, the Conservative Party's shadow minister for addictions, for her work on this issue, which, let us not forget, has left ruined lives in its wake. The result of this experiment in legalizing hard drugs has been death and destruction, chaos and carnage in Canada's hospitals, playgrounds, parks and public transit.

This is an important issue that troubles me and many Canadians. We see it on our streets, in the Montreal metro, in our public places, and even in front of our local community service centres. It is front-page news from coast to coast to coast.

To make things very clear “for those watching at home”, as the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry would say, I would like to reread today's motion. Our opposition day is dedicated to this request:

That, given that since the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister took office, opioid overdose deaths across Canada have increased by 166% according to the most recent data available, the House call on the Prime Minister to:

(a) proactively reject the City of Toronto's request to the federal government to make deadly hard drugs like crack, cocaine, heroin, and meth legal;

(b) reject the City of Montreal's vote calling on the federal government to make deadly hard drugs legal;

(c) deny any active or future requests from provinces, territories and municipalities seeking federal approval to make deadly hard drugs legal in their jurisdiction; and

(d) end taxpayer funded narcotics and redirect this money into treatment and recovery programs for drug addiction.

The reality is that drugs exist, and we need to find solutions to help people who are addicted to them. I am no specialist; I do not pretend to be. I was listening to my colleague, who is a doctor, and I think we have to respect his credibility. I listened to the questions that were put to him, and it is clear that our colleague's comments are very relevant.

As I said, I am no an expert. However, I will provide some numbers. I am a family man and a father, but I will present a few facts about drugs. Drug-related deaths increased in British Columbia by 380% between 2015 and 2023, going from 529 to 2,546 deaths a year. More people in British Columbia died in the first three months of 2024 than in all of 2015. Deaths in British Columbia currently amount to 6.2 people a day. Right now, in British Columbia, more than six people die every day from these drugs. It is unbelievable. Why is this government not doing something?

According to the RCMP, nearly two-thirds of their detachments serve communities that have no rehabilitation or addiction treatment programs. That is exactly what the Conservative Party of Canada wants to fix. It wants to help people in need, to work for real people, who need the help. We need rehabilitation and support programs to get them out of a dark place.

According to one news report, local addicts are reselling up to 90% of their government-supplied drugs on the black market. Pardon the expression, but the government is now a pusher, a drug dealer. This is serious. The going price on the street for hydromorphone has reached rock bottom, making the market more affordable. That is a problem. When harmful things become more affordable, society suffers the consequences. Hydromorphone now costs just $2.

Here is another example. Fatal overdoses from opioids and other illicit drugs are now the leading cause of death for children aged 10 to 18 in British Columbia. Children are our future. They are the ones who will eventually be here in the House of Commons to make our country a better place. I hope that they will be Conservative Party members. That would give me more hope.

I could continue to give statistics, but I have some other things I want to mention. As I said, I am not an expert, but I have plenty of newspaper articles. One headline reads, “Horror stories continue to come out of Montreal's crack alley”. That story was published on TVA Nouvelles on May 8. The Conservatives are not the ones saying this. The Liberals need to step out of their bubble and go out on the streets to see what is really happening. We saw how things went in British Columbia and we are asking that the same mistake not be made again in Toronto, in Montreal, or in the other provinces and territories. Let us work to prevent that from happening.

Here is the headline of another article from the Journal de Montréal, dated May 7, “Presence of a homeless shelter near an early childhood centre is troubling”. I hope so. There are needles on the ground on soccer pitches, in public parks, in hospitals, everywhere the public goes.

Here is the headline of another article, “Crack in a CHSLD”. It says, “Residents of a long-term care facility are selling and using crack in their own institution, even at the front entrance, say occupants of the Paul-Émile-Léger care centre”.

The Montreal police have their hands full. Let us take preventive measures to block this expansion, this offer for a pilot project that would give Montreal and Toronto the opportunity to experience what British Columbia has gone through. We are not the ones who decided this. We noted something. Even the Premier of British Columbia, who is a member of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, made this request. He saw that the situation was problematic and simply wanted to protect his community.

“Decriminalizing hard drugs: in Montreal, no thank you”. Do you know who said that? It was Régine Laurent. Who is Régine Laurent? Ms. Laurent is a woman who is a force in Quebec society. She was the president of the Special Commission on the Rights of the Child and Youth Protection. I think she has quite a bit of credibility.

I will stop there to give my colleagues a chance to speak. I am ready to answer questions. In closing, I would say that I think this is just common sense. I urge my colleagues to be open and to support our motion.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made an observation, noting that drugs do exist. I would add a second part to that observation: Diversion will always exist as well, for all substances, whether they are used for pain, anxiety or ADHD.

I would like to know whether the member thinks it is still better to have access to these substances. Does he think that doctors are well positioned to make these decisions? What does he see as the threshold for diversion? Would it be zero?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not an expert, as I mentioned in my speech. I trust the experts, the professionals and the doctors.

The debate is not about what level is tolerable. We need to aim for zero, but that would be hard to achieve. However, if pilot projects are set up, if markets are expanded, if hard drugs are normalized in Toronto and Montreal, then we have a social problem. British Columbia was a test case. Let us learn from it.

This is a no-brainer. I urge the government to reflect on this before voting, and to vote with us in favour of this motion.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is urging us to vote in favour of the Conservative motion. The problem is that the motion muddies the waters. Legalization is not decriminalization. Only Vancouver tried decriminalization. Toronto and Montreal have not done it, nor have they decided to do it. They are trying to set up diversion measures instead.

Here is the problem. My colleague may not be an expert, but he should at least be able to define these three concepts, these three tools, so that everyone understands what is happening and what measures are being implemented. I see why my colleague cannot do that: Even his own leader cannot do it. They member's colleague may well be a doctor, but that does not give the member the authority to say that his colleague's comments were accurate when they were not. That is my comment.

Is my colleague saying that Montreal wants to legalize hard drugs? Is that what he is saying?