Evidence of meeting #18 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was police.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Len Webber Conservative Calgary Confederation, AB
It would consider every aspect of the crisis that is happening right now. There is one death every 14 hours. We have to get on this immediately. This is very urgent. I believe we need to pursue this, and my motion should be discussed and passed.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chair, I am strongly in favour of this motion. In health care, there are literally hundreds of issues, and lots that are important, but I think it is rare that we have something, as I already said, that has been declared, by British Columbia, a public health emergency. We are hearing these witnesses who are all very experienced in different aspects of this. I regard this as a very pressing public health emergency. I think it does warrant adjusting the committee's business. We would probably need to give our analysts some time to put together a witness list. I haven't heard how many meetings we would devote to this, but if we had, right now, a viral epidemic in this country that was killing people every 14 hours, I think we would be acting immediately, and this is similar to that.
I am going to support the motion. I think it is wise and it is needed, and I think we should waive our standard 48 hours' notice. I think it is a good idea to give the analysts some time to come back and work with Mr. Webber and the committee on how we can move this very quickly, but also make sure that we have the right witnesses before this committee who can give us good evidence to advise the government on the best steps it can take to deal with this crisis.
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
We have a very important bill in front of us, Bill C-224. We have to go to the clause-by-clause study. We have about 20 minutes left, so I am going to move that we waive further discussion on this motion.
Liberal
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
We'll just vote. I agree with Mr. Davies. This is an emergency situation. I applaud my colleague for bringing it forward. There are challenges with the bill in front of us, but I think it is very important that we move forward, as Madam Buxton said. We have something on the table that I think warrants the immediate attention of this committee. I am not going to debate it. Let's just vote.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Sorry, now I am a little unclear.
I didn't take this motion by Mr. Webber to mean that we would suspend what we are dealing with today. I want to make sure, Dr. Carrie, that I am clear on that—that we can still continue this meeting to deal with this very important bill, but my understanding is that our next order of business, perhaps on Wednesday or maybe next week, will be to devote time to the opioid crisis generally. Is that correct?
Conservative
Len Webber Conservative Calgary Confederation, AB
Absolutely. That is correct, Mr. Davies. The fact that we can give our clerk some time to plan some possible meetings—
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
On a point of order, sir, I thought I had moved the motion that we end debate on this and begin our clause-by-clause study on Bill C-224.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Mr. Oliver, we need unanimous consent to waive the 48-hours' notice. If we vote on that right now—
Liberal
John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON
I think we should end debate, have the vote, and get on with the work that we're supposed to be doing right now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
There are actually two votes. We have to vote on unanimous consent. Will we accept unanimous consent? Then we need to have the vote on unanimous consent. No, I'm sorry: to waive the 48 hours. I'm going to go to that step. We're going to vote on whether we will waive the 48 hours as normally required.
Mr. Carrie.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
We're voting on this: are we going to waive the 48-hour requirement? We need unanimous consent on this too.
We don't have unanimous consent on waiving the 48 hours.
Mr. Webber, you'll have to put your motion in writing and submit it for 48 hours, and then we will have a look at it.
Conservative
Len Webber Conservative Calgary Confederation, AB
That's very disappointing, Mr. Chair, but I will do that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
It's an enormous proposal that you have. I realize how urgent it is, but it is enormous, and it's only fair that everybody have a chance to consider it.
Mr. Ayoub, you're next.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank you for being here with us this morning. I think that everyone here recognizes the goodwill and the possibility for action that this bill represents. We would like to do more, but in doing so we might prevent actions that could be taken more rapidly in order to save lives.
We are really talking about drug possession, and not about illegal acts like trafficking. We are talking about legal mandates for people who sometimes use these drugs or people who help them to obtain these drugs or medications, or to inject them.
My question is addressed to all of you.
What should we do? Should we legalize a group of drugs while specifying all of the ones that would be included?
Firstly, I fear that we will be opening the door to certain behaviours. Our primary purpose is really to save lives. However, this could affect the behaviour of some drug traffickers or people who live in illegality and contribute to the problem. We do not want to persecute certain people.
What is your opinion?
Let's begin with Ms. Brown.
Harm Reduction Worker, Centretown Community Health Centre
I understood part of your question.
Liberal
Harm Reduction Worker, Centretown Community Health Centre
Do you mind repeating the crux of your question in English for me, just the nuance that I'm not touching?
Thank you.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
My point is about not pursuing the people who have an illegal trafficking mandate, but a way to save lives.... We're not contributing to resolving the problem for the rest of the society. That's one point we're addressing very specifically—saving one life every 14 hours—but the rest of the problem is not addressed. Maybe we're missing some points. I heard other options that maybe would be a solution: to legalize more drugs or to legalize possession for more drugs. Where do you stand on that?
Harm Reduction Worker, Centretown Community Health Centre
I absolutely think we should legalize, or let's start with decriminalization. That's a bit easier than legalizing drug use, so let's decriminalize drug use in this country.
I want to clarify what you're asking. Are you saying that if we grant immunity to people on scene, then we're leaving out the rest of Canadians who may also be at risk of overdose or...?
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
No, we're just opening the door for more trafficking or more legally...not pursuing because I sense a different situation between calling 911 and calling the police, or calling the paramedics. There's a big difference when you call the paramedics. They're on site quickly and they can act from a medical point of view. When you call 911, you have the sense you're calling the police. You're contacting the legal side of it, or the prosecution of it, and those are two ways of addressing the problem and helping people. That's what I'm getting at.