Was it in the original motion?
Evidence of meeting #137 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #137 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You're adding the words “up to”.
The amendment is in order. I hope that everyone is clear on the amendment. The debate now is on the amendment.
I have Mr. Johns and then Mrs. Goodridge.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
First, obviously, there is so much that we haven't even come close to exploring in this study, and it is such an important study. I'm concerned about our not getting a report done. That is something I'm very concerned about.
Certainly, when it comes to children, not one of us around this table wants to see a child die from toxic drugs. I want some facts to be brought into this. There has been a 35% drop in British Columbia, year over year, in the death rate for youth under 18, according to the chief coroner of B.C. That's still not good enough. We have to look deeper into this. This has to be something that we have depth on.
There are areas I feel that we've neglected when it comes to indigenous peoples, who are disproportionately impacted by the toxic drug crisis. We can look to Alberta, where 22% of deaths due to toxic drugs are indigenous people and first nations people. That's 8.4 times the death rate for non-indigenous people. In British Columbia, despite the fact that only 3% of the population is indigenous, they make up 17.7% of the deaths that are happening in British Columbia. That's six times the rate for the non-indigenous population, yet this committee has not focused and done specific studies, despite the fact that I raised this previously, on indigenous peoples.
If we're going to amend this and further amend it and look at future studies, I think we need to have a more in-depth conversation. I don't know if we're going to get through that today, but if we are going to do that, we need to also look at where the population is that is dying. I think indigenous peoples also need to be a significant focus.
I will say this in credit to the original motion, that when it comes to women, indigenous women are 11 times more likely to die of a toxic overdose. In centring it around indigenous people as well, if we're going to extend this, I think there need to be dedicated meetings for this. We heard from the B.C. First Nations Health Authority. I was really disappointed that the chief medical officer never got a single question from the Conservative bench during the whole meeting she was here to testify, despite the fact that the Conservatives have three members on this committee and the fact that the death rate of indigenous people is skyrocketing and is much more than that of the non-indigenous population.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, that is categorically false. I am on record as requesting time for indigenous—
Liberal
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
He's misleading the committee and making misleading statements.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
You're on the speakers list, so you'll have a chance to rebut.
Mr. Johns, go ahead.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
It's fact. They did not ask a single question of the First Nations Health Authority's chief medical officer despite the fact that they want to centre this new extension on British Columbia. I mean, the fact of the matter is they ignored her when she was a witness here, and her testimony is important. Indigenous people and their voices matter, especially when it comes to the enormous death rate that they have compared to non-indigenous people.
I want this committee to consider that, if we're going to continue debating this amendment to the motion today, unless we delay until Thursday and have a more fulsome conversation on this.... I think if we're going to look at extending meetings on this, we need to have some in-depth consultations and listen to indigenous voices.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. Johns.
There are two more people on the speakers list. We're not going to get back to the witnesses at this hour, so is the committee okay with dismissing the witnesses and continuing our discussion on the motion? Is everyone okay with that?
To our witnesses, thank you so much for being with us. What is happening here is entirely within the rules and is appropriate. Dr. Ellis quite rightly waited until the end of the meeting to raise this so that we could maximize our time with you.
We're grateful to you for being here and for the expertise and lived experience you've been able to share with us. It will be of significant value to this study. As you can tell, it's a study with which the committee is completely seized. We are very grateful to you for being with us. You're welcome to stay, but you're free to leave.
We'll continue debate on the amendment with Mrs. Goodridge, please.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I rarely find myself in a position where I have agreed with almost every statement that has been made by my colleagues up to this point.
I agree strongly with what Mr. Johns said, that we have not adequately studied the impacts on indigenous peoples and specifically indigenous women. This is precisely why, when I was discussing this motion and stuff that I wanted to see, I wanted to bring forward the impact specifically on women and children, because it is very clear to me that this is something that we have not looked at in this space.
In looking at women and children, I believe you will very naturally see the impact on indigenous women and specifically on kids. The leading cause of death in British Columbia in 10- to 18-year-olds is drugs. That is an important fact that needs to be recognized and needs to be addressed. The leading cause of death in British Columbia youth aged 10 to 18 years is drugs.
This is something that we have very briefly scratched the surface of in this committee. We could be adding a number of additional meetings to continue looking at how the addiction crisis is impacting a variety of different segments of the community. I know that we had conversations earlier on about potentially adding more meetings specifically from an indigenous lens. That motion hasn't come up in debate up to this point.
Considering all of this, I would propose subamending the motion to add “four additional meetings”. Remove “up to three”, and have four. At the very end of the motion, add “on indigenous peoples”.
If it's as important as everyone around the table says it is, I think that's very reasonable space to have a look on three spaces where we haven't looked at as in-depth as I think we could. Four meetings would give us an opportunity to refocus slightly but still have time to have a report come to fruition fairly quickly.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge.
The subamendment is in order.
The subamendment calls for precisely four meetings, not “up to four meetings”. It calls for an addition at the end of the motion for inclusion of the effects “on indigenous peoples”.
The debate is on the subamendment.
Next on the speakers list is Mr. Doherty.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I originally put my hand up in response to the amendment that Dr. Powlowski had put forth. I wanted to ask the chair or perhaps the clerk something.
This was brought up, specifically about the impacts of the opioid crisis on our indigenous communities. I thought we had already agreed to at least one meeting and possibly more. It is important, as has been stated by many.
Where I disagree with the our colleague, Mr. Johns, as he stepped down off his soapbox, is that this has been brought up by others, not necessarily him. Again, it's typical NDP fashion in being late to the game on this. It might even have been Dr. Powlowski who brought it up initially and I echoed it.
We had Takla First Nation in my office earlier on talking about their band council resolutions. They are oftentimes left to deal with this, the significant gap in resources and policing on their first nations, and how challenging it is to enforce a dry community or what have you. We're talking about safe supply going into these communities and how that impacts our first nations.
I know this has been brought up. Through you, Mr. Chair, perhaps the clerk could us tell us if we had already scheduled at least one or two meetings on this.
If not, then I'm in full agreement. I just don't know whether four meetings is enough for what we need to get through, but I'm okay with the convention that, as we've been going along, should we go through those four meetings and feel the need for further meetings, we can go forward with that.
I know that this issue has been brought up and it is an important issue. We need to be able to bring the appropriate people here—first nations in our ridings—who can actually explain what's happening on the ground in their communities and how important it is to have their voices heard.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The original motion that gave rise to this study was the following:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the opioid epidemic and toxic drug crisis in Canada and specifically look at the impacts of measures that are being taken, and additional measures which could be taken, to address the toxic drug crisis, reduce harm, and save lives; that the committee hold a minimum of eight meetings on this study, including one meeting with an explicit focus on the toxic drug crisis in Indigenous, rural, northern, and remote communities, and that at least two meetings be conducted after September 30, 2023, to allow for the committee to hear evidence related to British Columbia's drug decriminalization experiment; that the committee present its findings and recommendations to the House and that the committee request a comprehensive response to the report by the government.
Your memory serves you correctly, Mr. Doherty. The motion that gave rise to this study in the first place did make specific reference to that.
That brings us to Mr. Thériault, please.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In December, we will have been studying this issue for a year. We have held well over eight meetings, and every time we discussed the possibility of holding more meetings on the issue, I was one of those who wanted us to be able to do so. However, we still have an obligation. We can't do this work without making recommendations, which is the end goal.
It doesn't matter whether everyone on both sides of the table agrees or not. What would be unacceptable is for us not to table a report and recommendations in the House after hearing testimony from so many people, experts and citizens.
In this regard, I share my colleague's concern that we have to be realistic about the time spent on this study. We must not do what we did during the pandemic. Marcus remembers. We studied the pandemic for three years and, at the end of the day, no report or recommendations were produced by our committee. To me, that's unacceptable.
That said, if we're talking about women, it's important to talk about all women. According to the coroner's office's statistics for the 2019‑2023 period, we saw an initial drop in mortality rates in 2019 and then sky-high mortality rates due to the pandemic. Oddly enough, in British Columbia, in January 2023, we began to see a dramatic drop in the overdose mortality rate for males, which fell from 2,200 deaths to fewer than 1,000 deaths in 2024.
The rate has always been much lower for females than for males. We might ask ourselves why that is. By January 2023, mortality rates for women were almost back to pre-pandemic levels. I would say that we need to talk about that as well and find out why. Those are the facts. This is not my interpretation or personal view on the reality of the overdose crisis. It’s based on the number of deaths indicated to us by the coroner's office.
I'm fine with adding three meetings. However, in my opinion, if we adopt this motion, it amounts to saying that we don't want a report. You know what our committee does in terms of producing reports. That work goes on behind the scenes, but it remains important. Out of respect for all those who have died, for their families and for all those who are struggling with addiction issues, we need to come up with a report. We owe it to all who are suffering from this overdose crisis.
When we started this study, that's what we were talking about. We said that we had to postpone all the other studies planned, because people were dying. We were seeing six, 10 or 12 fatalities a day. Right now, people are still dying from overdoses.
What can we attribute the sharp drop in the number of overdose deaths to? We can always speculate, but such a drop occurred from 2023 to 2024.
I don't mind if we add more meetings, but what I'm saying is that we can't extend this study indefinitely. I do want us to address the issue of overdoses among women, including indigenous women.
I don't see why we should be talking about overdose deaths of indigenous women separately from the overdose deaths of women in Canada. Indigenous women are Canadian women. They fall into the category of females for statistics purposes. If there is indeed a specific problem in that regard, I think it should be raised as part of the same study. Then we can have a better understanding of how these women live.
We talked about the determinants of addiction, such as health, and what should be done. We talked about quality of life, which should be the same for everyone. All of these things are going to come out of the study, and I don't see why we should treat them as separate issues. We have to stop making distinctions. I think we have to treat the problems of indigenous women the same way we do for all women and use the same lens.
Having said that, I think three meetings is enough. We have to move on. That doesn't mean we're going to agree, but we've heard from enough witnesses. I think we should move to the stage of pooling our ideas and making recommendations.
Liberal
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I'm trying to get some clarity on how many meetings we're talking about having. I mean, there are so many areas that, as I said, we haven't even touched. We have so many witnesses on our list that we haven't even gotten close to. I think it's pretty clear that we need the expert task force so that they can do this very work, get into the depths of it, and respond properly from a government perspective, but it would be a disservice and be disrespectful to the grieving parents who came to this committee. We've had parents come here and testify. We've had women and different groups come here. If we don't get a report done, it will be disrespectful to them.
That is what I believe. I think we need to get to that report soon. I share that with Mr. Thériault. I disagree about not having at least one session on indigenous women in particular, because the death rate is elevenfold, but I do agree with Mr. Thériault about the need to get this study done.
I know that Mr. Doherty wants to say that I'm on a soapbox here. I'm not, but I do get a lot of criticism from that side. I'll say this: They're bringing forward a motion on looking at deaths of children when their party leader is the only leader that won't meet with Moms Stop the Harm—the only leader. I'm going to point that out. That's a fact.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The point I wanted to mention has been raised. The original motion sought to focus on indigenous communities. It was therefore up to the parties to call witnesses on this subject.
I tend to agree with Mr. Thériault's position.
Conservative
Stephen Ellis Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Those of us on this side of the House are not afraid of not getting a report done. It would appear that we have a whole year to do this. I would suggest that we should be able to get this done in a year, unless our friends know something that we don't know, which of course is very possible.
It would also appear that, much to the chagrin of many Canadians, and behind the back of Conservatives, the Liberals and NDP are once again teaming up to move the fixed election date by one week so that many people can get their pensions who perhaps are not even deserving of one—present company notwithstanding, maybe.
That being said, should we do an incomplete study because we're afraid that there may or may not be an election? My goodness, we on this side of the House have been hoping for an election for two years at least—probably three years, to be honest—but we still haven't had one on behalf of Canadians.
However, enough of that. I'm certainly ready to vote on the motion. I know that our team is as well.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, the issue is not whether or not we are afraid of an election. It's a matter of making sure that we have the time we need to do our work properly. We've been working on this for a year.
Do we think that the discussions and work that the committee must do in camera on this report will be done quickly?
Do we have an idea of the number of meetings we will have to hold before agreeing? We will also have to take into account the fact that other bills will require studies, which will be added to the committee's agenda as the work in the House of Commons progresses.
That said, if, as we begin our work, we realize that we need to explore the subject further, we can do so, because the committee is the master of its own domain. At least we'll have done the spadework and made some progress.
When I was on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, we produced an interim report. We came to the conclusion that we would run out of time and that we would need to produce an interim report. However, it was because we did the spadework that we were able to realize that an interim report was necessary.
Once we roll up our sleeves and get going, nothing prevents the committee from producing an interim report and holding follow-up consultations with witnesses on certain aspects. However, we have to get cracking if we don't want to repeat what happened with the pandemic study. The committee will have toiled away for nothing because an election is called. Even if an election is called in the fall of 2025, that's only a year away. Between now and then, we'll have the end‑of‑year break and then the summer recess. Unfortunately, we don't have as many meetings left as we might think to be able to produce a report, even by the fall of 2025. This is a very important topic, and we have to take into account the breadth of opinion that may be expressed around the table.
We have to be realistic and serious when we undertake a study. I didn't become a politician to play petty politics. I'm not casting aspersions on anyone. I'm just saying that we have to take things seriously. I do have some expertise in the field of methodology, so I know we have to have the time to do the work, especially on such a thorny subject, when the views around the table are polarized.
If I disagree with my Conservative colleagues, I would never tell them that all they have to do is write a dissenting report. Instead, I would seek to arrive at recommendations that will achieve as much consensus as possible around the table. I still believe in the idea that we all share the same goal on this issue around the table. That's why we have to get cracking.
I think three meetings is enough. It's not because I am indifferent to what indigenous women are going through. Absolutely not. I am talking about this precisely because they are overrepresented statistically in the overdose mortality rates. This is why I want us to treat their situation as part of female mortality trends. That's what this study is about. Why should it be a separate topic of study when we can just insert that aspect of the issue into this study?
What matters to me, in terms of female mortality rates, is understanding why indigenous women are overrepresented.