Bill C-216

Health-based Approach to Substance Use Act

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to enact the Expungement of Certain Drug-related Convictions Act and the National Strategy on Substance Use Act

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal a provision that makes it an offence to possess certain substances. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
In addition, it enacts the Expungement of Certain Drug-related Convictions Act , which establishes a procedure for expunging certain drug-related convictions and provides for the destruction or removal of the judicial records of those convictions that are in federal repositories and systems.
Finally, it enacts the National Strategy on Substance Use Act , which requires the Minister of Health to develop a national strategy to address the harm caused by problematic substance use.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you for being here and for the work that you're doing.

I want to reiterate what Dr. Hanley said about what's working and what's not working. Clearly, what we're doing isn't working. I like the idea of not only talking about models of innovation and success, but also using sound data so that we have evidence-based decision-making and policies that are going to respond to this crisis.

One thing we heard from doctors at the beginning, in 2016, when B.C. declared a public health emergency, was that they were calling for the federal government to also declare a national public health emergency. Can you explain why that hasn't happened?

The reason, and you've heard me talk about this many times—I met with all of you on this panel—is the need for a plan and a timeline, and that is not in the renewed Canadian drugs and substances strategy. It was something I outlined in Bill C-216, which was defeated by the Conservatives and most Liberals. That would have provided a timeline. That bill directed government to provide a timeline and a plan.

Why has no national public health emergency been declared?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

Minister, I really appreciate your framing the poisoned drug crisis as one of public health. In my community alone this year to date, we've lost 74 community members to poisoned drugs. Each one is a preventable death, as you know.

My concern is that recommendations from Health Canada's expert task force on substance use from 2021—like ending criminal penalties related to simple possession and expunging criminal records from previous offences related to simple possession—haven't been acted on. In fact, they were in Mr. Johns' Bill C-216, so they were actively voted down by our Parliament.

Deaths go up, and it allows others to then demonize programs that do work—like safe supply, for example.

I wonder if this has you at all reconsidering the governing party's position on what was already recommended by the expert task force from 2021.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in support of Bill S-202. It is a two-page document. It is very straightforward.

It basically asks the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons to select the parliamentary visual artist laureate. It would ensure that the person would hold office for a term not exceeding two years. It would ensure that their mandate would be to promote the arts and culture in Canada, and I will come back to that in a moment, because it is for that reason that I am supportive and the NDP is supportive of this bill.

The visual artist laureate would produce artistic creations, sponsor artistic events, give advice to the parliamentary librarian and perform other related duties. Therefore, the visual artist laureate could play an important role in fostering the arts. This is important; there is no doubt, and I will come back to why this is important in just a moment.

Because it is a brief bill, it is important to comment on what we do in this place. The reality is that private members' legislation can make a huge difference in people's lives. I am going to talk about two bills that have performed that, really responding to the needs of people in a way that is fundamentally important. I am not suggesting the visual arts laureate is not responding to some need. It does help to foster the arts sector, and for that reason we support it.

Last night I was at a vigil on Parliament Hill, just a few steps from this place. Moms Stop the Harm had a vigil for members of their families who had passed away due to the toxic drug supply in this country. It was a profoundly moving event as we listened to each of the families step forward to speak about how toxic drugs had had an impact on their family and about the devastating loss of their loved one. Members will recall that the member for Courtenay—Alberni brought forward Bill C-216, a health-based response to substance use. This bill would have helped those families immeasurably, right across the length and breadth of our country.

This bill on the visual arts laureate will pass easily. I have no doubt that members of all parties will support it, and the visual laureate will be put into place. It is a good thing. I am not suggesting it is a bad thing. It will make a difference in fostering the arts, and, for a number of reasons, that is important.

However, the reality is that Bill C-216, which would have saved people's lives, was defeated in the House, with Conservatives and Liberals voting against it. The Moms Stop the Harm family members who have lost a loved one lament the fact that in this place we are willing to vote for legislation that is sometimes symbolic and sometimes positive symbolism, and that sometimes makes a difference, but we are unwilling to take the courageous step of adopting legislation that would literally save people's lives.

I experienced the same thing in presenting as a private member's bill the Canada pharmacare act. Members will recall that two years ago we had a vote in this place on that. There is no doubt that universal pharmacare saves people's lives. Every single country that has universal health care has universal pharmacare. In Canada, the Canadian Nurses Association tells us that hundreds of Canadians die every year because they do not have the financial resources to pay for the medication that will keep them in life. There is no doubt that a private member's bill putting the foundation in place for universal pharmacare would have made an enormous difference in people's lives, yet, again, Conservatives and Liberals in this place voted that down.

We have a symbolic piece of legislation, a private member's bill that we do not oppose, to establish a visual artist laureate. It will be adopted by all members of Parliament voting together. We will vote unanimously, perhaps, to put in place a visual artist laureate, but what about universal pharmacare? What about putting in place health care measures that would actually save people's lives and provide support to those who have addictions and are struggling with substance use?

This is what I find difficult: It is that while we can reach unanimity around things that do not necessarily make a difference in people's lives, time and time again, as a House, as members of Parliament, a majority of us vote against the essential measures that would actually make a difference.

With that caveat, I would like to return to Bill S-202 and what I hope will come out of this.

The reality is that the arts sector in Canada has been a major motor of the economy. I would particularly like to shout out, as the member of Parliament for New Westminster—Burnaby, to the Arts Council of New Westminster and the Burnaby Arts Council for the work they do each and every day to foster the arts and to foster community togetherness in our communities.

The two communities I represent have very strong artistic sectors, and it is the volunteer work that folks have been doing over years that has led to that. We have been very fortunate in the communities I represent.

However, with COVID we have seen how the arts sector has been hard hit, right across the country, with a 25% decrease in employment levels in arts, entertainment and recreation. In many cases, we are seeing a one-third loss or a 50% loss of gate receipts for festivals and for performing arts, so there is no doubt that the arts sector particularly suffered through COVID and has not been fully revived.

For that reason, it makes sense to ensure that a parliamentary visual artist laureate position is put in place and that the laureate immediately starts to work to help publicize the arts sector, to help make a difference in the arts sector, and in a sense to help to revive the arts sector.

I believe fundamentally that we need to contribute to the arts sector and make that difference right across the country, and the member for Nunavut just agreed with me. The member for Nunavut is a huge supporter of the arts. As we know, Nunavut is a major engine of the arts but is not receiving the support from the federal government that I think other parts of the country should be receiving.

The federal government needs to step up far beyond the issue of putting in place the parliamentary visual artist laureate. There is also the restoration of funding that needs to take place right across the country, I would suggest in New Westminster—Burnaby, Nunavut, North Island—Powell River, Nanaimo—Ladysmith and South Okanagan—West Kootenay, as well as right across the country. I have colleagues who represent very vibrant arts sectors in those communities. In fact, I have been to every one of them. It is amazing what the arts sector does in every one of those communities—shepherded and supported by strong members of Parliament, I would add.

The reality is that the federal government has not been there since COVID. There was support that the NDP forced through during COVID to ensure that much of the arts sector that was hard hit by COVID made it through, but now the federal government is stepping back and saying that they are on their own.

There is the exception, in that we will have a parliamentary visual artist laureate, but that is only a small step in what is actually needed to provide supports to the performing arts and the festivals of arts and culture right across this country.

This is fundamentally important. It goes far beyond the private member's bill. We are sometimes called upon to speak to private member's bills that are symbolic; in some cases they are symbolic, but they have added elements. In this case, there is a symbolism that does provide for other elements, the promotion of the arts on Parliament Hill. Hopefully it will make a difference in the federal government's response to the artistic sector, because ultimately, the federal government needs to step up and go beyond this private member's bill.

Health

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago tomorrow, most of the Liberal caucus and all Conservatives teamed up to defeat Bill C-216 for a health-based approach to substance use. If it had passed, today we would have a multi-faceted plan to fight the toxic drug crisis, based on the recommendations of the government's own expert task force. Instead, thousands more families have lost loved ones because of poisoned drugs purchased on the street.

When will the government deliver a comprehensive plan to keep people who use drugs alive and provide no-fee, on-demand treatment for those who need help now?

Opposition Motion—Opioid Crisis

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Richmond Centre.

I am pleased to speak in the House once again on the opioid epidemic in Canada, an issue that has long been close to me personally both as a northern public health physician and as Yukon's former chief medical officer of health. I always appreciate the opportunity to bring the issue to Parliament, so I appreciate the efforts of the official opposition, although I cannot agree with the motion itself at hand. It is blatantly ignoring the recommendations made by health and social service professionals, law enforcement leaders and both national and international best practices.

I know how busy the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been of late and perhaps the hon. leader has not found the time in his schedule to review the most up-to-date data on best practices to respond to the opioid crisis. We know he has had trouble with scheduling of late, but I am happy to take some time to give him a bit more information on the subject matter.

Let us start with the beginning of this motion. Yes, Canada, we are in the midst of a devastating toxic drug crisis and one that hits my territory of the Yukon particularly hard. In Yukon we are struggling with the highest per capita rate of toxic drug-related deaths in Canada. While the loss of any life is keenly felt around them in smaller and remote communities, when not only one person but sometimes two or more are succumbing at once, it hits all of us in a way that is difficult to describe. Yukon's chief coroner reported 25 deaths last year attributed to toxic substances. On a per capita basis, this is worse than B.C. About two-thirds identified as first nations, so they are greatly overrepresented in these tragic figures. Our government did introduce a substance use and addiction strategy in 2017 and we have invested heavily in it, including in harm reduction, which was excluded in the drug strategy of the previous Conservative government, in which the hon. member served as a minister.

The approach our government has taken to the crisis is much more comprehensive and multi-faceted than simply handing out legal drugs. The approach has been to support all pillars of the response: prevention; harm reduction, including safe supply; treatment; and enforcement. A multiplex approach like this is far more effective at saving lives than simply locking up people up. Treatment is one important part of the solution but not the entire solution.

While a comprehensive approach includes harm reduction, including safe supply, it also focuses on education, access to life-saving treatments such as naloxone, and reducing stigma. It is connected to investments made in culturally appropriate treatment and prevention programs across multiple government departments, including working with public safety to ensure border services and law enforcement to identify and detect toxic drugs illegally before they get onto our streets. Is it enough? No, clearly not, not while we continue to lose 20 Canadians per day from toxic drug overdoses.

Let me be clear. Canadians are dying from a market awash in illegal drugs. Safe supply is not causing deaths. Safe supply is part of a life-saving treatment. Data from coroners in both B.C. and Ontario have found no link between prescribed hydromorphone and drug-related overdose deaths. The opposition leader's story on a link appears to be entirely speculative and we know that this speculative tendency is often within his purview.

What safe supply, as one of the many responses to the crisis, achieves is for those people who use, diverting use of the drugs from the unregulated street supply and thereby reducing overdose risk. What else is achieved? Here are many benefits, according to a recent review: improved control for that person over drug use so that they can control their dosing, avoid withdrawal symptoms and manage pain; lower costs for health care; better engagement in retention and health care programs and housing; improved physical and mental health; fewer emergency department visits and hospitalizations; decrease in infections and complications; improvements in social well-being and, guess what, decline in health care costs. It all works, but we need to scale up the efforts along with all of the other pillars to match the scale of this epidemic.

During this debate and others, there is also far too little consideration of the urgency that we need to apply to prevention. What does that mean? That means equipping our children, our youth, our citizens to avoid dangerous, risk-taking and addictive behaviours, not by saying no to drugs but by starting life with quality early child care and parental support; avenues for organized physical activity and recreations throughout life; cultural connection and mental support at all transition points in life. In this vein, our government's investment in quality early learning and child care is transformational and, when combined with other aspects of prevention, will have an enduring impact.

Now some words about decriminalization. I was proud last year to support the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni's Bill C-216, which called for a national drug strategy and called for Canada to move toward decriminalization. That bill did not pass, but I still support its intent.

The other day, the hon. Leader of the Opposition referenced the Portuguese model quite favourably, and he is quite right. Portugal's drug-related deaths have been below the EU average since 2001, and there are many other markers of success. It is a model, but its success hinges upon the decriminalization of simple possession of drugs, non-mandatory access to treatment and harm reduction.

I am wondering if the Leader of the Opposition endorses, through his fondness for the Portuguese model, its central tenets of decriminalization of personal possession and substance use; harm reduction, including opioid substitution; and needle exchanges. I would suggest that the answer is no. Decriminalization is another one of those concepts that members of the opposition want to weaponize and use to make it seem like those who support decriminalization want to let criminals run amok, but that simplistic reasoning is not the case.

Portugal pursued decriminalization in the early 2000s. Illegal drugs in Portugal are still confiscated, and possession still results in penalties such as fines, community services or recommended intervention, but penalties for simple possession are redirected from the criminal justice system to district-level panels to determine the best course forward for the individuals. There are 30 countries around the world that have adopted aspects of decriminalization, including Australia and Chile, in addition to Portugal.

Public health experts have long called for fundamentally changing our approach from the criminal justice approach. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police noted in 2020 that evidence from around the world suggests that our current criminal justice approach to substance use could be enhanced using health care diversion approaches proven to be effective.

I wonder if the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are among the hon. Leader of the Opposition's “pie-in-the-sky theorists” or purveyors of the “misery industry”. I think parents, children and first responders who have witnessed loved ones and patients die of toxic drugs before their eyes might have another opinion.

I know there are Conservative Canadians who do get it. For example, I refer my colleagues to the fact check Ben Perrin has been doing on the Leader of the Opposition's motion this morning. Mr. Perrin is a lawyer and a UBC law professor who was an adviser on justice-related issues to former prime minister Harper. Over the past number of years, he has written extensively about why and how his position on decriminalization has changed. As Perrin notes, in a 2022 article in the Calgary Herald, “There isn’t any evidence to back Kenney and [the Leader of the Opposition]'s 'war on drugs' policies. Their ideologically driven crusade is cruel, costly, ineffective and deadly.”

Under a system of decriminalization, those who are using can get help, and under safe supply, drug users are at least using substances less likely to lead to death. This also offers a chance for intervention when they are ready and better health outcomes.

Let us not go back to the 1980s and the days of “just say no”, which sounds so simple and tempting. The war on drugs, a gauntlet which, with this motion, the Leader of the Opposition wants to take up again, has long been lost, and we need to look at evidence, not emotion and rhetoric, to address it.

Some months ago, in the health committee, I brought forward a motion to study the opioid epidemic in Canada, specifically responses to it including B.C.'s trial focused on decriminalization. I hope to see the study move forward in the fall. Perhaps bringing together some of the evidence in one place will help adjust the hearts and minds of those across the aisle on this issue.

The hon. members opposite know that they are misleading Canadians by trying to connect the government's policies to the toxic drug crisis. This approach is frankly shameful. I suggest that, in the interest of defending the lives and families of Canadians, the opposition party seriously reconsider its ill-founded approach.

As devastating as the toxic drug crisis is, there is another issue at play here and that is the dismissing of evidence and scientific analysis when the evidence is not convenient. Our job as politicians is to make decisions based on what the evidence, and its ever-evolving journey, is telling us and to adapt our decisions when the evidence changes. If we are changing science on a political whim, then we are heading into a dangerous world.

We have seen the shuttering of science under a previous Conservative regime. Especially in an age when false information is so cheap, we must not let that happen again.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, much as I am disappointed to see this motion come forward in the manner it has, I am also happy to see that we are having this conversation and debate today, because over 35,000 people have died from a toxic drug supply in this country since 2016.

This is not an opioid crisis as the motion states; rather, these deaths have occurred because of a toxic, unregulated drug supply, and I am going to speak to a couple of things in the motion.

First, (iii) of the motion states:

since tax-funded drug supply was ramped up in 2020, opioid deaths have only gone up, according to the Public Health Agency

Yes, of course, they have. Between 2016 and 2020, fentanyl became the predominant drug on the market, meaning more people were accessing it instead of pills like oxycontin. Fentanyl analogs, like carfentanil and benzodiazepines, also appeared in the drug supply at this time. More people have died because the fentanyl supply has become more widely accessible and more volatile.

There were fewer than 1,000 people across Canada, probably around 500, accessing safe supply in 2020, with a denominator of tens of thousands of people were using fentanyl, and probably hundreds of thousands. There were 22,000 people who died from an overdose by 2020 under the current government. It is impossible that the 500 people or fewer who were on safe supply, the mass majority of whom are alive in 2023, drove those 22,000 deaths. Conservatives need to learn to do the math and listen to the experts.

It states in (iv) of the motion:

in 2020, slightly less than 7,000 people died of opioid overdoses, while only 3,000 died of overdoses in 2016, according to the Library of Parliament

Again, Conservatives cannot back that up. Those people died from a toxic drug supply. We know these deaths are not occurring because of the government's safe supply and safe injection programs, and to assert that is disinformation.

I am going to talk about some of the activists the government has highlighted. It said that activists are leading the safe supply charge. We know that provincial chief coroners and chief medical health officers across the country, like in my home province, and the police have said that.

I will read a quote from the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, which made it very clear that its members cannot police their way out of this because it is a health issue. It proposed “diverting people dealing with substance abuse or addiction issues away from the criminal system and toward social services and health care. The association stipulated such a change would need to be synchronized nationally.” The government has not done this.

It also cited in its report that it “endorsed access to users of a safe supply pharmaceutical-grade opioids to combat the uncertain composition of illegal street drugs, which is the cause of many opioid overdoses.”

“It further made a recommendation in favour of supervised consumption sites — where people could use drugs in a clean, safe environment, under the supervision of health professionals trained in emergency intervention.”

The activists are supporting safe supply. This is deeply concerning when I see the Conservative leader cite that it is only activists who are advocating.

Also, there is one thing in the speech by the Conservative leader that I would like to correct. He talked about incidents of youth being trafficked safer supply.

Today, in The Globe and Mail:

Vancouver Police, asked...about the possible sale of such narcotics, said in a recent statement that “there's always a potential” for safe-supply medication to be sold on the illicit market.

However, the force added they are not aware of any incidents in Vancouver in which safe supply has been trafficked to youth...

This was in response to the comments the Conservative leader has made here in the House of Commons. I can assure the House that the members of the Vancouver police know and are certain that youth are being targeted with illegal, unregulated, poisoned drugs, such as fentanyl, which is not regulated. This is what we are dealing with.

In (vi) of the motion it states:

recently, a Global News reporter in East Vancouver was able to buy 26 hits for $30 in just 30 minutes of a dangerous and highly addictive opioid that is distributed in tax-funded drug supply programs and flooding our streets with cheap opioids,

People can buy anything on that corner and have been able to for decades, at least over 50 years, so it is not great evidence if they go to the most robust drug-selling corner in Canada and that is what they come back with.

The photos of what they purchased show that most drugs were in a blister pack. A blister pack is issued to one patient. So, the Global reporter bought most of the 26 pills from just one person, and it is not evidence of a wide-scale diversion to buy from one person.

The motion today could have been about calling on the government to create an emergency committee of Parliament to deal with the toxic drug crisis. It is the leading cause of unnatural death in my home province; more than motor vehicle accidents, more than homicide and more than death by suicide. However, the Conservatives did not do that. They chose to bring forward this motion, which creates more stigma and more harm actually.

A person who decides to use a single dose of a toxic drug at a weekend party is as vulnerable as any struggling person with problematic substance use, and the result can be the same: a fatal, toxic drug overdose. I know this, because in my home community, we have seen lots of people die, and lots of young men. The average age of people who are dying is 44, and the majority of them are men dying at home alone.

Guy Felicella, a peer clinical supervisor at the B.C. Centre on Substance Use, said that “People who aren't ready, able or interested in addressing their addiction don't deserve to die from the toxic drug supply.” I agree.

I have risen in the House on many occasions, as members know very well, in support of a health-based approach to substance use. I would like to welcome all members from all sides of the House who are joining our call for increased investment to respond to this crisis and for people who are suffering with substance use disorder. The sooner we can actually come together across political lines to make this happen, the sooner we are going to save lives.

This is a national health crisis, and we are not acting like that. However, we need to understand what we are dealing with when looking at this crisis. It is not the easy, simplistic approach that the Conservatives are bringing forward. This crisis will never end through just investing in treatment and recovery without recognizing that this is a complex emergency, it is multi-faceted and it requires harm reduction as well, which go hand in hand; they are not pitted against each other.

Government members want to say that they are doing everything they can, but they spent less than 1% of what they spent on the COVID-19 health crisis. This is not responding to a health crisis in the way that needs to happen. We saw how they responded to SARS, HIV and COVID, and they need to do what they did there. They need to pull everyone together. They cannot just download treatment and recovery to the provinces. We saw what Portugal did. It stepped up and showed us what courage looks like and what is needed: investments in therapeutic treatment, housing and ensuring that we are dealing with this issue as a health crisis, not a criminal issue. It takes a multi-faceted approach, and I am really encouraging that today, but we need to simply do more of what we talked about.

We need to listen to experts. It is so important that everybody in the House listen to the experts. I travelled across this country when I was talking about my bill, Bill C-216, which was just a reflection of the Expert Task Force on Substance Use. I was able to meet with people on the front line of this crisis, such as people who use substance and experts, and the whole time they encouraged us to listen to the report.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police of Canada, as I have cited, has come forward very much in alignment with the expert task force, and actually had a seat on that task force. The task force was unanimous in that we need to stop criminalizing people who use substances, we need to expunge records of people who have been charged with personal possession, and we need to ensure that people have access to a safe supply and treatment on demand. So, we meet them where they are at and we invest in recovery, education and prevention, because we know that when people relapse, we need to catch them, but we also need to meet them where they are at through the whole thing.

My bill was defeated, as members know. The Conservatives teamed up with the majority of the Liberals and they voted against my bill, which was supported by the Bloc, the Greens and the NDP. I know that members of the Bloc had some issues with my bill, but they wanted to at least get it to committee and listen to the experts, which both the Conservatives and Liberals would not do, despite the fact that it just reflected the government's own Expert Task Force on Substance Use.

Moms Stop the Harm is coming to the Hill on the anniversary of the bill, which comes up not next week, our break week, but when we come back. It will be June 1. They are coming here because they are upset that, a year later, not a lot has changed. That bill would have given the government 12 months to come back with a strategy on how to respond to the expert task force on substance use, but they voted against it. I am hoping that every member in this House will at least meet the moms, and when they go back to their riding, talk to their chief medical health officer. I have not found one chief medical health officer, or a coroner, who does not support taking a multi-faceted approach and supporting safer supply.

I also urge the leader of the official opposition to meet with the chiefs of police. Hopefully, again, he will meet with the moms from Moms Stop the Harm. I know that the leader of the official opposition has been using Global News reports, the National Post and even Conrad Black to get his advice on how to move forward in terms of this toxic drug crisis.

We really need to get back to ensuring that we are listening to the report by the expert task force. I want to talk about who was on it. There were public health officials; indigenous health leaders; community health leaders; business, labour, university and social service agencies; the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs; public policy thinkers; and people with lived and living experience. They were unanimous in their recommendations. I want to give huge credit and thanks to that task force, because they put a lot of work in. Again, they embraced the four-pillar approach.

I understand that it takes courage to make this journey. We saw courage in Vancouver under former senator Larry Campbell. He was a police officer, then the chief coroner for British Columbia and then the mayor of Vancouver. He was the one who brought in Insite and safe consumption sites to save lives. That is the kind of courage we need today from everybody here. Again, we can look to other countries, such as Portugal, for their treatment and recovery programs. We can look at Switzerland, which has a safe supply model. There are models around the world.

I hope that we can come together today and talk about how we can find a pathway to actually work together. However, the stigma that is attached to substances is a huge barrier for people when it comes to getting help. We know that even today's motion is triggering a lot of people who use substances and were looking at safe supply as a pathway out of supporting the unregulated toxic drug supply that is coming from the streets. This supply is manufactured, distributed and marketed through organized crime.

We know we need to go further. We have to invest in a full spectrum to support people who use substances, including supervised consumption sites; real-time, on-demand public treatment options; and pharmaceutical-grade options and alternatives to illegal street drugs. We also have to ensure that people have housing. I was in the riding of my good colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and we went to a no-barrier housing place. It was great to see some of the people there being able to access OAT or safer supply, which they could not do when they were homeless, living in the bush or living wherever they could. We need to make sure that this is included.

When we call for more treatment services, let us recognize that, first, we must keep people alive by reducing their exposure to the toxicity of illegal street drugs. My good friend, the member for Vancouver East, represents the Downtown Eastside, a community struggling for survival and ravaged by toxic drug deaths. She once told this House that dead people cannot be treated. How true is that?

I just want to also do some fact checking here. I am going to read a quote from Corey Ranger. He is a clinical nurse specialist from AIDS Vancouver Island. He cites that there are “more sensationalist media hit-pieces about safe supply than actual safe supply. In BC, well-over 101,000 people are at risk of fatal drug poisonings, and less than 5% of those individuals are able to get a ‘safe supply’”. That is exactly what is happening. This incremental approach by the government is failing people who use substances. We know incrementalism costs lives in a health crisis.

However, the Conservatives' misinformation also costs lives. It is deadly. I do appreciate the Conservatives bringing forward this notion to move money from harm reduction to treatment, but even that is not close to enough money.

I want to read a quote from Guy Felicella. He says, “I've been to/left treatment over a dozen times to try & stay sober. If it wasn't for harm reduction services like supervised consumption sites, safer alternatives, naloxone and clean supplies to protect me in my relapses, I wouldn't be alive today or have the decade of sobriety that I do. Don't listen to people who attempt to misinform you that harm reduction enables drug use; it enables people to stay alive and for many to try recovery again.”

I want to make sure that we talk about the importance of trauma-informed treatment and ensure that it is available to people. A constituent wrote to me and said he was going to have to sell his house to keep his son in treatment; it was $300 a day. That is completely unacceptable. We can look to Portugal, which has taken huge steps on this. In my home community of the Alberni Valley, we lost 20 people by the eight-month mark last year. It is a community of 30,000 people. We are four times the national average, and this disproportionately impacts indigenous people.

I think we all know the numbers. I do not need to get too heavily into that. I hope every member of this House will read the report from the expert task force on substance use. I hope everyone will reach out to their community leaders, to their chief medical health officer, to their law enforcement, to the experts in their community and, most importantly, the moms who have lost loved ones, in the week ahead. This is something that I will be advocating for.

I am going to talk about safe supply and the pilots that have been happening. Ottawa has had a significant increase. There is a claim that people do not actually use their safe supply and that they just sell it to others. This is a quote from the former Stephen Harper legal adviser, Professor Ben Perrin. He stated, “Participants in the Ottawa safer supply program reduced their use of illicit fentanyl by 85% while on the program.”

We have seen great results at Parkdale Queen West. In London, Dr. Sereda has been running a really important program. We know that safer supply reduces the risk of death and overdose, reduces reliance on an unregulated supply of drugs, increases access to engagement with health and social services, improves social well-being and stability, reduces ER visits and hospitalizations, improves physical and mental health, and reduces health care costs. It also reduces criminal activity. Those are the facts from these studies. It certainly helps people get their life back.

We have heard some participants speak about what safe supply has done for them. These are some of the things people have said: “My whole lifestyle improved”, “Got my life back”, “My life has improved drastically”, “It saved my life”, “I function productively in society”, “My life is getting better”, “Frees time to do more constructive things”, “More energy and confidence to focus on my art” and “Opened a whole new outlook and positive way of living”. The list is long.

I know that what we are doing is not working. We are seeing a government take a very weak approach in responding to a health crisis; the lack of investments and the lack of urgency show the underlying stigma. This is the stigma, right there with the government and its failed approach, as well as its inability to pull together all parties in this crisis.

One thing I understand about the Conservatives and what they are bringing forward is frustration. Canadians are frustrated by the lack of action by the government to respond to this crisis. However, this does not mean that the response should be guided by misinformation. It does not mean we cut off safe supply as a tool to keep people alive, to ensure that people are able to get the help they need and to find a pathway to recovery and to treatment.

This motion today, to gut the harm reduction program and to stop safe supply in its tracks without proper evidence and science, does not make sense. It goes against what police, chief medical officers, coroners, moms, experts, those the Conservatives deem as activists, and the expert task force on substance use say.

I hope this dialogue, this conversation, can be turned around. I hope we can try to come together and find some common ground to deal with this crisis that is right before us. It is impacting everybody here.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

I really appreciate your desire to have this funded appropriately. I agree; it needs to be done appropriately alongside provinces and territories. People are dying, and the funding needs to be allocated, so I would like to reiterate the concerns by constituents in my riding—and that I'm hearing across Canada, of course—that this funding is much delayed and needs to be implemented.

In addition to that, I just want to segue to the toxic substance crisis we are seeing. In B.C. just in September alone, we saw 171 people die. I'm hearing a lot of promises being made by the Liberal government to address the toxic drug supply crisis. However, unfortunately, over and over I'm not seeing the actual solutions being proposed and the funding being allocated appropriately.

For example, my colleague MP Gord Johns' bill—the actual title of which is the Health-based approach to substance use act and which the Liberals did not support, unfortunately—recently came forward, and these are recommendations—

Public Sector Integrity Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, as pleased as I am to join the debate this evening to speak on Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, I am sad I have to be doing it from my home.

I have had to come back to the unceded land of Tseshaht and Hupacasath and the homelands of the Nuu-chah-nulth people to attend the funeral of the Tla-o-qui-aht Chief Muuchinink, also know as Bruce Frank, who suddenly passed away on Sunday. I will be travelling through his Ha-Hoothlee, his territory, tonight to join his family and his community. I will bring greetings from all of us from Ottawa, and condolences to his people. It is a very sad time for the people in our communities and for all Nuu-chah-nulth people. He was a great man who loved his people.

I want to thank the hon. member for Mirabel for bringing forward this bill and prompting this important discussion. It is very important, and I really appreciate his work in doing this.

When the new Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, was a minister under the Harper government, he brought forth legislation that he repeatedly said would offer “ironclad protection” for whistle-blowers in the federal public service. Instead, after 15 years in force, it is clear this law is a complete failure.

I am going to talk about David Hutton, a whistle-blower protection expert and senior fellow at the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University. He recently wrote in The Hill Times:

After studying this system closely for the past 15 years, I have come to believe that it was never intended to protect whistleblowers. It does not look like a regrettable accident resulting in an ineffective system. In reality, it functions as a highly effective, finely tuned offensive weapon against whistleblowers. It lures them into a trap, where their disclosures of wrongdoing are disregarded and buried forever, the promises of protection made to them prove to be false, and their efforts to obtain justice place them on a treadmill of endless, costly and ultimately fruitless rigged processes.

Indeed, after 15 years, the results of Canada’s whistle-blower regime speaks for itself. The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner has found a mere 18 cases of wrongdoing out of more than 1,500 disclosures from whistle-blowers. While 500 whistle-blowers have submitted complaints of reprisals, the tribunal set up to address these complaints has never once awarded a remedy.

In another article, David Hutton wrote, “there have been no happy endings for whistleblowers, who nearly always lose their job, their career, and their livelihood.”

The failure of this law does not just cost whistle-blowers. It costs all of us when wrongdoings and mismanagement are allowed to continue unchecked. We see this all the time in procurement, and the failure for whistle-blowers to be able to come forward. I will cite one, which is the disastrous Phoenix pay system. It was supposed to save money, but it has resulted in at least $2.4 billion in unexpected costs so far. It is an example of what can happen when there is a culture of fear in the public service.

This started under the Conservatives, and it has carried on under the federal Liberals. It is unacceptable. That culture of fear is reflected in the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s own findings. In March 2022, the Office published a report it commissioned entitled “Exploring the Culture of Whistleblowing and the Fear of Reprisal in the Federal Public Sector”. The report was based on focus groups drawn from a selection of departments, and it echoed the findings of similar surveys conducted in 2011 and 2015. This latest report found that fear of reprisals remains a major concern in the federal public service.

It also contained some other concerning findings: first, that most workers and managers surveyed did not know of the office’s existence; second, there is increasing disillusionment and cynicism about whistle-blowing; and, third, increased activity around whistle-blowing, such as awareness raising and education, is seen mainly as window dressing instead of actual change. We could make a long list here.

It is disappointing to read these findings in 2022. The need for change in how we deal with whistle-blowers has been well known for years. There are serious deficiencies in the existing act, including a narrow definition of wrongdoing and a focus on procedures for dealing with allegations rather than protecting whistle-blowers.

In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates tabled a unanimous report recommending sweeping changes to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. This report was prepared at the request of the Treasury Board to fulfill the requirement for statutory review that should have been conducted five years earlier. It sounds familiar. It has been five years since, and the government has not implemented the legislative changes the committee recommended, and we heard the member for Mirabel talk about it earlier. Instead, in the most recent federal budget, the government committed $2.4 million over five years for the Treasury Board Secretariat to launch a new review of the act.

It is a positive development to see the federal government finally acknowledge the need for legislative reform, but I am concerned whether there is genuine political will to move forward and make real changes or if this is simply a face-saving exercise. As the member for Mirabel talked about, the government did not even start this until Friday, just as this bill came up for debate.

It reminds me of how the government acts suddenly when private members' bills come up, like my bill, Bill C-216, on substance use. The government did nothing on the Province of B.C.'s request for an exemption for people who are caught with a small possession of substances to not be criminally charged. The government announced that B.C.'s exemption would be granted the day before the vote on my bill. It is just all too familiar. I have seen this happen a lot.

To get back to the bill, its latest review was likely prompted by a 2021 analysis by the International Bar Association, which compared countries with whistle-blower protection laws and ranked Canada as tied for last place. This is an international embarrassment. It is about transparency and trust, and it is a clear call for action, yet in September, Canada failed to send any representatives to an International Labour Organization meeting to discuss the protection of whistle-blowers in the public sector. Surely some helpful information could have been gleaned from this meeting to inform the government's new review. It could have gained a lot.

Again, I am glad that the member for Mirabel has brought forward this bill, which acknowledges the failure of the current act and will hopefully help generate momentum for much-needed change. My office has engaged with public sector unions regarding the bill. The general sentiment is that this is a step in the right direction, but further changes will be required to truly protect whistle-blowers and the Canadian public.

The bill does not address all of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in 2017. However, it does propose some significant improvements that are worth noting.

The bill would expand protections to more people, including contractors and former employees, and cover more types of wrongdoing, including political interference. I believe the bill has merit and should proceed to committee where members can hear from public service workers and experts and see if there are opportunities for amendments that could offer more protection for whistle-blowers.

I will note that I do not believe the Treasury Board's new review of the act should preclude moving forward with improvements now. It is not clear when this review might be completed, but it is clear that Canada's whistle-blower protection regime is broken and is in desperate need of reform to protect brave public service workers and the Canadian public who disclose wrongdoings.

In 2015, the Liberals promised that transparency would be a hallmark of their government, but that promise has fallen to the wayside, just like the Conservatives. Under the frequent cloud of scandal, I question whether the government is truly motivated to improve protections for whistle-blowers who could shine a light on government wrongdoing or mismanagement of public funds.

In closing, I want to thank the member for Mirabel for bringing the bill forward, and I look forward to engaging in further debate on this issue.

Criminal Code

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who tabled this bill for bringing it forward and for recognizing that we must do more to support people dealing with substance use disorders.

As we know, Canada is experiencing multiple crises: a mental health crisis, a toxic drug crisis, a housing crisis and a worsening affordability crisis. There are links between these crises, and they are impacting the quality of life for Canadians in communities across the country. It is incumbent upon us, as parliamentarians, to present and debate solutions so we can move forward in the best interests of Canadians.

In developing possible solutions, I believe it is critical to listen to both experts and those with lived or living experience. Last year, I was honoured to be named the NDP critic for mental health and harm reduction. I promptly tabled Bill C-216, the health-based approach to substance use act. This bill was aligned with the recommendations of the expert task force on substance use that was commissioned by Health Canada to make recommendations on federal drug policy.

Earlier this year, as I travelled across the country to speak to Canadians about Bill C-216, I had the opportunity to meet with many individuals directly affected by the toxic drug crisis, either personally, through someone they love, or because they were working on the front lines. I consistently heard that we need more supports for people struggling with mental illness, trauma, problematic substance use and housing precarity.

I also heard that there is no silver bullet. We know these are complex issues that require multi-faceted solutions, such as investing in the social determinants of health like housing and income security, increasing the focus on prevention and early prevention, and making a full range of mental health and substance use supports available on demand.

While Canada is facing an intersecting crisis, we are not making adequate investments into urgently needed solutions. Relative to the disease burden caused by mental illness, and compared to some of our G7 peers, Canada is underspending on mental health. France spends 15% of its health care budget on mental health, whereas the U.K. spends 13%. By comparison, mental health spending makes up between 5% to 7% of health care budgets in Canada, depending on the province or territory, so underinvestment in prevention and evidence-based care has come at a tragic cost to our communities.

Canada has now lost more 30,000 lives since 2016 because of drug poisonings, in addition to more than 44,000 hospitalizations. This public health emergency has been escalating for seven years, yet the government has only committed $800 million to date for its substance use and addictions program. Meanwhile, the expert task force on substance use found that current ineffective policies are costing us billions every year in health care, policing and criminal justice expenses.

I appreciate the bill's intent. It seems to provide a route of access to treatment for those with substance use disorders and reduces the impacts of problematic substance use on individuals and their communities. However, I have some concerns about some of the assumptions that may have been made in formulating the bill, and I cited some of them earlier, as well as how it may play out in practice if passed.

In doing research and consultation on this bill, a theme that has come up consistently is that prisons are currently places of punishment and not care. The United Nations Nelson Mandela rules provide that the quality of health care provided to incarcerated persons must be equivalent to that available to the general population. However, concerns have long been raised about the quality of care in Canadian prisons and inherent conflicts that arise when correctional authorities are responsible for delivering health care.

Catherine Latimer, the executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada, has explained this conflict as follows, “Whenever you have correctional authorities delivering health care, there’s going to be irreconcilable conflict between the institution and the health-care needs of the individual”. She continues, “Security issues will always trump the health needs of the individuals.”

Emilie Coyle, the executive director of the Canadian Association of the Elizabeth Fry Societies, echoed that perspective in conversation in my office and commented that, if we try to insert care into prisons, people will continue to be harmed by our overly punitive prison systems.

Today, my office spoke with an individual with lived experience of opioid use disorder and criminal justice involvement. This individual is now doing advocacy work in recovery and shared the perspective, “Prisons do not breed success.” Indeed, the shortcomings of mental health care in federal penitentiaries has been well documented, such as reports by the correctional investigator and the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Before establishing a regime of designated addictions treatment facilities in penitentiaries that will necessarily require significant investments, it is important to pause and ask: Where can someone get the best care? Where will they receive care that is evidence-based, trauma informed and culturally appropriate? Where are they most likely to achieve their treatment or recovery goals?

The answer we have heard consistently from those working with incarcerated individuals or with lived experience is that people are better served by accessing mental health and substance use care in their communities. Unfortunately, across Canada, there are barriers to accessing community-based mental health and substance use services, such as stigma, out-of-pocket costs, lengthy wait-lists, admission criteria and lack of detox facilities. Last year, the Expert Task Force on Substance Use recommended that the government make significant new investments to provide supports to people who use drugs, but that call has not been heeded, and the level of funding committed to date remains inadequate to meet the needs in communities across the country.

I welcome the opportunity to work with the member on initiatives that will remove barriers to substance use treatment and recovery services so that all Canadians can get the support they need in their communities. No one should have to go to jail to get help. That is just a fact.

I am also concerned that the bill may prevent people who want help from accessing it. In its current form, the bill proposes to exclude individuals convicted of certain offences, including drug trafficking offences, from its scope. This seems to ignore the fact that some individuals with substance use disorders become involved in subsistence trafficking. Exclusions in the bill could create barriers to accessing treatment in federal prisons.

Indeed, the individual with lived experience I spoke of earlier would not have benefited from the bill, having been convicted of trafficking. He was, fortunately, able to access treatment prior to sentencing and while in recovery, he has remained gainfully employed and involved in community service. After reviewing the bill, he asked how many people serving federal sentences might benefit from the bill, given the excluded offences. It is a good question, and a question that needs to be answered.

While I appreciate the bill's intent to create pathways to treatment, I think we must be careful to avoid introducing new barriers. We must also think about where we can make criminal justice reforms and investments in substance use services that will increase the likelihood of successful outcomes.

I really want to thank the member for prompting this debate. I look forward to further dialogue with my colleague and other colleagues in the House. We have to work together. This is a parallel crisis right now, which we have been dealing with throughout COVID, and the government has not paid enough attention to it. It has not acted with a sense of urgency. People's lives are at stake. This is impacting our communities, our health care system, penitentiaries, policing and the judicial system. Most of all, it is impacting people's lives and those of their families.

Again, I look forward to working with all members in the House to try to provide solutions so that we can tackle this crisis. It does require a sense of urgency and immediacy.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that we are here to discuss Bill C‑283 today. This bill reminds me of Bill C‑216, which was introduced by our colleague from Courtenay—Alberni not so long ago. We supported that bill, but unfortunately it was not supported by the majority of the House. I hope this bill will go a little further this time around.

Bill C‑283 makes certain amendments to the Criminal Code, including, for example, a provision that would allow a federal inmate to be sent to an addiction treatment facility if the court finds the inmate eligible.

The bill also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to allow a penitentiary to be designated as an addiction treatment facility. When a court recommends that a person serve his or her sentence there, Correctional Service Canada will be required to ensure that the inmate is placed there as soon as possible.

In Quebec, we have long decided to favour rehabilitation. However, in 2014, 50% of prisoners in federal penitentiaries had a drug addiction problem. According to experts, drug addiction is what drives most of those people into committing a crime, which brings them back to prison, where drugs are very easy to get, despite what people might think.

In 2021, Frédérick Lebeau, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers for the Quebec region, said, “There's a major issue, a problem of delivery [of drugs and other prohibited items] inside the penitentiaries. It's too easy. It's got to get harder.”

With the advent of drones, it will be easier than ever to deliver drugs into prisons. By 2020, officers at Donnacona's 451-inmate maximum-security penitentiary had detected 60 drones, but they estimated that was just the tip of the iceberg.

penitentiaries will have to implement new drone detection technology in November, but the union is under no illusions. Drugs will continue to come into prisons. In short, incarceration does not solve drug abuse problems, quite the opposite.

We must also take into consideration that recidivism rates among drug addicts is very high. When they get out of prison, many immediately try to obtain drugs and often turn to crime to finance their purchases.

Federal penitentiaries do a poor job of rehabilitating inmates, so this bill could be the step in the right direction that we have been waiting for.

According to a study by the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations published in 2019, Quebec is an example to the world when it comes to rehabilitating inmates. According to the study, Quebec's reintegration programs for inmates in Quebec-run prisons reduce the risk of recidivism and perform significantly better than elsewhere in the world. These reintegration programs, which are not only aimed at drug addicts, reduce the recidivism rate from 50% to 10% among participating prisoners.

Quebec's drug treatment courts have existed since 2012 and have been so successful that they served as a model for a pilot project to address recidivism among drug addicts in France. By comparison, federal penitentiaries are failing miserably at the rehabilitation of inmates. According to the 2020 annual report of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, inmates in federal institutions do not receive useful training or work experience during their incarceration and do not have access to necessary care. In short, they are very poorly equipped to reintegrate into civil society.

Another fact to note is that indigenous people are overrepresented in federal penitentiaries. They represent less than 5% of Canada's population, but 32% of the prison population.

Worse still, according to the Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, women represent 50% of this prison population. Addiction issues and the absence of effective programs to treat them probably go a long way to explaining why indigenous peoples are overrepresented in our prisons.

In committee, during the study of the various bills that were passed previously, including on the issue of mandatory minimums, we saw that the need to curb the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples among inmates is a major concern for the government.

We did not agree that abolishing mandatory minimums would help reduce the percentage of indigenous people in prison populations. In my view, there is no logical corollary. The existence of mandatory minimums does not lead to more indigenous inmates.

The problem lies elsewhere, and this may be our chance to correct it. Bill C-283 would allow for an addict to be placed in custody and receive follow-up care in a place that specializes in treating addictions, which could reduce the risk of recidivism for the inmate and improve their chances of successfully reintegrating society.

Under this legislation, the onus would be on inmates to ask the court to put them in an addiction treatment facility. Inmates would thereby acknowledge their addiction, which we all agree is the first step toward healing. The court would then determine whether the inmates could serve part or all of their sentence in such a facility. The Bloc Québécois sees only benefits to this.

The Bloc will therefore vote in favour of Bill C‑283, just as we did last spring for Bill C‑216, which was introduced by the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

The bill, as it is worded, is not perfect, of course, so it needs amending. I am sure that the members of the committee tasked with studying it will be very eager to improve it.

Opioids

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of people from my riding. They cite that over 27,000 Canadians have died since 2016 due to preventable drug poisoning from a toxic drug supply.

They cite that our current drug policy has proven to be ineffective in the prevention of substance use and exasperates its harmful effects, and that the war on drugs has resulted in widespread stigma toward those who use controlled substances. The war on drugs has allowed organized crime to be the sole provider of substances. They cite that problematic substance use is a health issue that is not resolved through criminalizing personal possession and consumption.

Petitioners call on the government to reform drug policy to decriminalize simple possession of drugs listed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; to provide a path for expungement of conviction records for those convicted of simple possession; with urgency, to implement a health-based national strategy for providing access to a regulated safer supply of drugs; to expand trauma-informed treatment, recovery and harm-reduction services and public education awareness campaigns throughout Canada; and to support the health-based approach to substance use act.

Mental Health

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Chair, I have worked with my colleague. He as well had the courage to support moving forward on substance use with a health-based response and listening to Canada's leading experts. The Bloc voted for Bill C-216. I am very appreciative of the opportunity to work with my colleague, who cares. He is open to learning and working together. We may not agree on everything, but he is trying to find ways to work together and we can do a lot more. We are just embarking on that conversation.

When it comes to people making decisions about suicide or suicide by accident when they are really struggling and maybe using substances, we have all heard of those stories or know somebody who has been impacted by that. We need to provide people with supports so they have a pathway out. We talk about the stigma. When people cannot get help in their own communities, they are going to make bad choices.

There are 500,000 Canadians right now who are off work due to mental health alone, and it is getting worse. We need to make sure we are providing supports and services for people. That is what we are calling for, to ensure that we get the $4.5-billion transfer in place and get the resources out to community-based organizations so that they can provide the supports and people can access the help they need.

Do I think it is perfect? Do I think everybody can get all the help they need? That might not be possible, but I can assure everyone that if we do this transfer, we are going to save thousands and thousands of lives. We know it is the right thing to do because mental health is health, and we need parity between physical and mental health.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Chair, that is an excellent question. I want to thank my colleague who had the courage to support my bill and listen to the experts on substance use, Bill C-216, a health-based response to substance use.

We need to listen to the experts, listen to the local knowledge in this country and listen to indigenous knowledge about how we move forward. Those 67 leading organizations are ready to deliver mental health now, but they are running on fumes as I stated. Injecting the mental health transfer, getting it out the door to those local experts, will save lives.

We have an opportunity to save lives right now if we come together, collectively, and not wait for everything to be perfect. It will not be. What we do know is that those organizations save lives now and they can prevent the loss of further life. We need their help and we need to listen to them.

Health

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to say thanks to my friend from Courtenay—Alberni. He is a tremendously passionate, outspoken and dogged ambassador, advocate and spokesperson for this cause. He knows that I respect him. He knows that I think he is doing incredible work here in the House, in his community and across the country regarding the overdose crisis. I am proud to be in the House with him and am proud to have an opportunity to discuss this important issue here tonight.

First, our hearts go out to all of the families and communities that have lost loved ones to the opioid crisis and through the tainted, poisoned drug supply that exists in our country. The Government of Canada remains deeply concerned about the devastating impact that the overdose crisis continues to have on people, families and communities across the country, and we recognize that substance use is first and foremost a health issue.

We are committed to a public health approach to substance use that is comprehensive, collaborative and compassionate, and are working with our key stakeholders, including people with lived and living experiences regarding substance use. It is a foundational part of our government's work. We continue to work with partners to look at ways to support programs and services and divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and toward supportive and trusted relationships and health and social services, such as, as my colleague suggested, supervised consumption sites and safe supply.

Since January 1, 2016, the number of supervised consumption sites operating in Canada has increased from just one to 39. We have also funded a number of safer supply pilot projects that provide people who are at high risk of overdose with prescribed pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to the toxic and illegal drug supply on the streets. This emerging practice is a key area of interest for the Government of Canada, and evaluation efforts for these services are already under way. Indeed, there has been great progress in the last six months in British Columbia due in part to advocates like my friend from Courtenay—Alberni.

I want to reiterate that we have lost too many Canadians to overdose. We have heard from stakeholders that the criminalization of possession of drugs for personal use perpetuates stigma. It increases the risk of overdose and other harms and creates barriers to care. This government has been clear in its actions that substance use must be treated as a health issue first.

Recently, the House sent Bill C-5 to committee for review. Among other measures, Bill C-5 would require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to laying charges or prosecuting individuals for drug possession, such as diversion to treatment, a warning or taking no further action.

I have spoken to police officers in my riding specifically about Bill C-216 and how we can face this crisis head-on with compassion and find a solution, not just lock people in jail. I will say that officers at Halton police services in Milton, the ones I spoke to, have been employing these practices of their own accord. They have strong feelings about the opioid epidemic, and it is important to recognize that Oakville, Milton and Burlington are, in large part, wealthy suburban communities. The opioid epidemic affects everyone.

That is why I will continue to work with provincial, territorial and municipal partners, like those in British Columbia and Vancouver, and other key stakeholders and regions throughout this country, to reduce risk, save lives and get people the support they need. Canadians can be assured that combatting the opioid overdose crisis remains a key priority for the government, for the Minister of Health and for me.

I know this is true of my colleague as well. I was proud not to be one of the people in the House to vote against my colleague's bill. I believed in it and continue to, and I am thrilled we are working together on it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, this spring, the government had a chance to listen to the experts and act on the toxic drug crisis that is taking a tragic toll on our communities every day. In my riding, in the small community of Port Alberni in the Alberni Valley with just over 30,000 people, we lost 20 people in just the first eight months of this year due to the toxic drug supply. These deaths were preventable and each person lost has loved ones who are left to deal with that grief in the face of government failure. That is four times the national average.

Across the country, we lost over 7,500 lives just last year. Shamefully, we have lost more than 30,000 lives since 2016. I heard the question from people who have been impacted by this crisis. They ask, “How many lives is it going to take before there is real action?” I worry that those with the power to bring change are becoming numb to these numbers. We must never lose sight of the fact that these numbers represent children, siblings, parents, partners, friends and neighbours.

The day this House rose for the summer, the Public Health Agency of Canada released modelling, forecasting, that the toxic drug crisis would continue its tragic path and possibly even worsen over the rest of the year. The agency predicted that we might lose as many as 2,400 Canadians per quarter. These are real lives. While we all returned to our communities for three months this summer, more than 2,000 families were planning funerals that did not need to happen.

They did not need to happen because last year Health Canada's expert task force on substance use made clear recommendations on how to respond to this crisis. Those recommendations included stopping the criminalization of people who use drugs, making significant new investments in supports for people who use drugs and who are in recovery, and expanding safer supply.

Our bill, Bill C-216, a health-based approach to substance use, reflected the paradigm shift the expert task force called for to stop the harm in our communities. However, instead of listening to its own task force, the Liberal government teamed up with the Conservatives to vote down Bill C-216. In the face of a public health emergency that has been worsening for years, the Liberal government is choosing an ineffective piecemeal response because of stigma and politics.

Every day, the government has an opportunity to make a different choice. By granting B.C.'s decriminalization request, the government has acknowledged the harms of criminalizing people who use drugs, yet it continues to allow these harms in every other province and territory in this country.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has acknowledged that funding for the substance use and addictions program is not enough to meet the demand, but the government will not put enough money on the table to ensure people can get help when they need it. The minister has acknowledged the critical role that a safer supply must play in addressing this crisis, but the government remains focused on small-scale pilot projects rather than procuring a safer supply that could save lives across the country.

When will the government finally act like this is a life-or-death matter for thousands of Canadians each day and mount an urgent national response? When?