Health Committee on Oct. 18th, 2023

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Good evening, everyone. I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 82 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

With regard to interpretation, for those on Zoom you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of the floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair—that would be me. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 8, 2023, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.

I would like to welcome our panel of witnesses. Appearing as individuals and by video conference, we have Dr. Lisa Barrett, physician-researcher; and Patrick Taillon, professor and associate director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, faculty of law, Université Laval. Representing the Canadian Medical Association, we have Dr. Kathleen Ross, president, by video conference; and representing World Animal Protection, we have Melissa Matlow, campaign director; and Michèle Hamers, wildlife campaign manager.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today. You will each have up to five minutes for your opening statement. The order we will use will be Dr. Barrett, Mr. Taillon, Dr. Ross....

I'm unsure, so could you clarify, Ms. Matlow, whether you will do the entire five minutes? Very well.

I will remind you when you have one minute left. We're going to keep to a schedule here this evening.

That being said, thank you all for being here, and let's get the show on the road.

We'll start with Dr. Barrett.

Thank you.

[Dr. Lisa Barrett, Physician-Researcher, As an Individual]

Good evening. Thank you, Chair and the committee, for the opportunity to speak this evening, and thank you to all of you for doing after-hours work. I recognize that it's not early there.

I am an infectious diseases doctor, but I am also a clinician-researcher who does research in viral immunology, as well as the implementation of health systems related to infectious diseases. My involvement throughout this most recent pandemic, I think, is my primary reason for being here. I was involved at the municipal, provincial and federal levels in the domains of testing and the innovative generation of ways to test people for infectious diseases, particularly COVID. I was also involved in and continue to be involved in therapeutics for COVID and the delivery and different models of delivery within Nova Scotia and different provinces.

My view on the pandemic comes from there and all the biases and important information that may come.

After reviewing the bill as it stands at the moment, I'll divide my comments very quickly into three different sections. Those are the preparedness part, what we do and what we can do best in a pandemic, and then the post part, which I won't highlight as much.

To start with the prepandemic bit and predicting pandemics, I think one of the important parts that's mentioned within the bill at the moment is “one health” and the recognition that humans, while numerous, are a small part of the planet and not the most important part when it comes to predicting pandemics and pandemic disease. Recognizing there are other things that can cause pandemics and other threats, including antimicrobial resistance, pandemics are often caused by viruses that spread through the air.

One of the things we need to recognize more is that animal health is part of human health. We are one animal and we can't forget about all the others. It is noted in the bill that there should be consideration of this area, but I think it's something we've done extraordinarily poorly—not just in Canada, but in the world—and it should be a focus of the go-forward plan.

Sticking with viruses and going into a pandemic, it's important to note that there is an intersection between pandemic-potential pathogens—say that three times fast—and air, including clean air of various kinds. While the respirologists have been saying for many years that we need indoor spaces that are clean, this has highlighted the fact that when we are at a density of where we are with human populations—not just in urban areas, but in rural areas these days too—and the amount of time we spend indoors, this has to be a priority of where we go forward in how we live in terms of the cleanliness of air and what standards can be brought in to help that.

While that doesn't sound like a very infectious disease doctor thing to talk about, it is very linked to the mitigation of spread when you're talking about a country with cold weather and a lot of people.

The next part I would highlight is that we could have done a better job before and during this pandemic in understanding the patterns, pathogen disease and pathogenesis. Once we are in a situation where we have a pandemic, we really seem to get stuck many times in what the usual is, what the previous normal was and understanding what respiratory viruses are. Clearly, we don't understand that well, and I think we need to be very careful that in any bill that comes forward, we highlight that.

That's research and understanding viruses, and having a high standard for vaccine studies after they're marketed. There's a lot we don't understand about the variability of responses in humans. Some people respond well and some people don't, and we need to really hold to account companies and people doing vaccine marketing after the vaccines come to market, or we're not going to get far quickly.

I'll hold the rest of my comments until later.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you very much, Dr. Barrett. I appreciate that.

Mr. Taillon, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Patrick Taillon, Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Constitutional and Administrative Law Studies, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to thank the members of the committee for this invitation to testify about Bill C‑293.

Right from the outset, I'd like to share three criticisms of the bill.

First, it's an unnecessary bill in many ways; second, it distracts us from the real issue; and third, it contravenes the principle of federalism and provincial jurisdiction in the health field.

First of all, it is unnecessary, to some extent, because it aims to set up a preventive bureaucracy. Cabinet members, along with senior federal government officials, already have all the latitude they need to assess, forecast and anticipate the next crisis. It's already their role to do so. They don't need legislation to do it. It's already part of their job description.

Next, it's a bill that distracts us from the real issue, which is the need to take stock of federal action during the last pandemic. It seeks to anticipate the next crisis on all fronts, including those outside federal jurisdiction, rather than focusing on the important issues. Why was the federal government so slow to shoulder its responsibilities during the COVID-19 crisis? Why was it so slow to manage border controls, which are its responsibility? Why was border quarantine so slow to be established? Why did cities like Montreal have to try to make up for the federal government's shortcomings? Why were the maritime provinces forced to create borders within Canada to compensate for federal inaction? Why was the slowness in establishing rules and procedures to manage the crisis accompanied by a delay in withdrawing the measures at the end of the crisis? Why was the federal government always two or three steps behind?

The bill's ambition to coordinate everything is very unhealthy. It's a distraction. It deprives the federal government and its administration of a critical examination of its own action. Above all, the bill clashes with federalism and the provinces' common law jurisdiction in health matters. It is the manifestation of a centralizing intention, of the idea that everything would be better managed if it were coordinated from above. This standardizing ambition is clearly evident. It is evident, for example, in paragraph 4(2)(c), which states that care must be taken, with the provincial governments, to “align approaches and address any jurisdictional challenges [...].”

“Align” means everyone doing the same things, which is a euphemism for saying that we're really trying to standardize everything. To “standardize” is to deprive ourselves of the contribution of grass-roots initiatives, and of the freedom and autonomy that have made it possible for certain provinces within the federation to do well, and for others to imitate them. If we centralize and standardize everything, that means that, in the next crisis, the mistakes we make at the top will be made uniformly across Canada. This is the opposite of the spirit of autonomy and freedom that federalism implies.

The same section also mentions “the collection and sharing of data.” Once again, this is a euphemism for a form of accountability in which the provinces are required to provide information in areas where they are nonetheless fully autonomous.

In closing, let me say that we shouldn't be naive. If the prevention and coordination work proposed in the bill is not really about decision-making, in that case we don't really need a bill, since the administration already has all the freedom to do the necessary reflection and coordination work. If, on the other hand, we're really looking to delegate new powers to the administration in order to coordinate and harmonize some things with the provinces, that means we're really looking to distort Canadian federalism, i.e., a federalism in which the bulk of responsibility for health care lies with the provinces.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Taillon.

Next we will have Ms. Matlow, for five minutes.

You have the floor.

[Melissa Matlow, Campaign Director, World Animal Protection]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members for the invitation to testify on Bill C-293.

I'm the campaign director at World Animal Protection. We're an international animal welfare charity with offices in 12 countries.

We conduct a lot of research on the intersectionality of animal health and welfare, environmental sustainability and human health. That research then informs our policy recommendations that we bring. Those intersections really are what “one health" is all about.

We have general consultative status with the United Nations. We have a formal working relationship with the World Organization for Animal Health and we're members of the National Farm Animal Care Council.

Joining with me today is Michèle Hamers, our wildlife campaign manager, who has an M.Sc. in animal biology and is co-author of the first published article on Canada's wildlife trade, specifically on the potential for disease risk and the lack of data and monitoring for it.

You may be wondering why an animal welfare group wants to testify on this bill. Seventy-five per cent of new and emerging infectious diseases originate in animals, principally from wildlife. It is our mistreatment of animals and exploitation of nature that is driving the frequency and severity of diseases, and it's not just us who are saying that. It is repeatedly cited in various UN reports like the report by the United Nations Environment Programme on pandemics, or the report by IPBES on pandemics, with regard to Mpox, Ebola, SARS, MERS, West Nile virus, Nipah, Zika, COVID-19.

It is widely acknowledged that a wildlife market played a significant role in the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it was originating the origins of the virus or amplifying it. These markets typically hold a variety of different animal species that wouldn't normally encounter each other in the wild. They are kept in cramped, stressful and often unsanitary conditions. These are called hotbeds for emerging diseases. When animals are stressed they become more vulnerable to infections and they become more infectious. That is why this is very much an animal welfare problem at the core.

We strongly support this bill because it takes a “one-health" approach and puts emphasis on prevention, it identifies the top pandemic drivers and requires government to address those drivers and mitigate those risks.

So often prevention is viewed as increasing surveillance and monitoring, but surveillance cannot detect asymptomatic animals that carry disease, nor does it prevent pathogen mutation and emergence. Scientists have warned that we are entering a pandemic era. If we truly want to reverse course, we must include pre-outbreak measures to prevent spillover at the human-animal-environment interface.

To quote from the IPBES report, “Without preventative strategies, pandemics will emerge more often, spread more rapidly, kill more people and affect the global economy with more devastating impact than ever before.”

Tackling the root causes of spillover is a fraction of the cost of responding to a pandemic. One study found that halting deforestation and regulating the wildlife trade could cost as little as 2% of the economic cost of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is also critically important that this bill mentions well-known pandemic drivers. These are already identified in the scientific literature by credible authorities and global agreements that Canada has committed to.

These drivers include the illegal and under-regulated legal wildlife trade, which is growing in volume, live animal markets, intensive farming methods, and land use changes. These have been identified, again, in the UNEP report and the IPBES report, which I believe are available to you.

The current draft of the World Health Organization's international pandemic instrument also mentions the need to address disease drivers including, but not limited to, climate change, land use change, the wildlife trade, desertification and antimicrobial resistance. Bill C-293 would help Canada fulfill its obligations to this new global agreement.

The World Health Organization refers to the rise in antimicrobial resistance as the silent pandemic and one of the biggest public health concerns of the 21st century. This relates back to animal welfare because three-quarters of all antimicrobials used in Canada and around the world are given to farm animals. For decades, these preventative antibiotics have been given in the absence of clinical disease to stop stressed animals from getting sick and to facilitate intensive farming methods.

Thank you for your time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you very much, Ms. Matlow.

I'm sorry. I didn't give you the one-minute reminder; I gave you the 30-second one. I was hoping you were paying attention. That was well done.

Next, we'll hear from Dr. Ross.

Dr. Ross, you have the floor.

[Dr. Kathleen Ross, President, Canadian Medical Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Dr. Kathleen Ross. I'm joining you from the traditional territories of the indigenous people of Treaty No. 7 and the Métis Nation of Alberta Region 3. We acknowledge and respect the many first nations, Métis and Inuit who have lived in and cared for these lands for generations.

I am a family doctor working in British Columbia. As president of the Canadian Medical Association, I represent the voices of the country's physicians and medical learners, those they care for and those who don't have access to care.

As the committee studies Bill C-293, an act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness, it's important to hear from those who have been on the front lines since long before COVID-19. Already caring for patients in a broken system, health care workers were submerged under deeper backlogs and even greater system impacts with each subsequent wave. Canada's response to COVID-19 must inform our plans for future pandemic preparedness and prevention strategies. Appropriate planning to support our health workforce at the outset remains critical to keeping Canada safe.

The spirit of Bill C-293 is to improve the way we prepare for the next pandemic. We welcome the proposed steps towards collaboration across jurisdictions and are pleased to see an emphasis on building primary care capacity. The language that speaks to improving working conditions for essential workers while increasing the ability of health care workers to perform their duties in a scenario of increased demands is promising. However, the stark truth is that we must focus on alleviating the significant impact the pandemic continues to have on the health workforce today. Creating a safe, robust and healthy workforce can't wait.

The heroic efforts of our health workers continue, and we are at record-high levels of burnout and exhaustion. My colleagues are demoralized and looking to exit the profession. We hope the impact on the health and wellness of health professionals will be a big part of any review and an even bigger piece of planning.

Rebuilding the trust of our health workers and Canadians is critical to pandemic preparedness. Mr. Chair, the announcement of increased health funding earlier this year was welcomed. That spending must be targeted and invested in areas that truly bolster health care systems. Canadian physicians must be able to work where the needs are greatest.

As an example, in April 2021, COVID-19 cases were surging in central Canada and many communities were pushed beyond their resources. A cadre of health care workers, including physicians from Newfoundland and Labrador, assembled quickly to help struggling communities 3,000 kilometres away. That deployment necessitated a swift and temporary lifting of the usual provincial licensing restrictions, allowing physicians to get an Ontario licence within one week.

Look at the potential of that model: A single licensing system implemented across the country can alleviate the pressure on medical workforces, serve patients in rural and remote communities, provide virtual care across provincial and territorial borders, and provide more timely access. This is critical in preparing for future pandemics. Pan-Canadian licensure can be implemented across the country, which provincial and territorial health ministers committed to last week in P.E.I. This is the time to deliver on our promise to increase access to family doctors and primary care. Scaling up collaborative, interprofessional care is central to increasing access and limiting the spread of future disease.

Physicians are overwhelmed by unnecessary administration, a lack of interoperability, third-party and federal forms, and managing large volumes of data that are often incomplete. Admin burden amounts to 18.5 million hours per year. Those hours could be transferred to better patient care and physicians' own wellness—hours we cannot afford to lose in the surge of a pandemic.

We must plan for what our health workforce may face. Gaps in the availability of timely health data are critical. We need to be able to harness data in order to contribute to the development of an integrated pan-Canadian health human resources plan. Data is necessary to understand the breadth of the myriad of health care challenges we face and to chart a sustainable course for the future. Without a transparent and accountable blueprint, we are unlikely to reach consensus on our destination.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for the committee's time today.

I'll welcome any questions the members of the committee might have.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you very much, Dr. Ross.

Thank you to all of the witnesses.

Clearly, my system is very effective, I just want to point that out to the members here. I'm keeping folks on time. That was very good.

Thank you all for that.

Now we'll start rounds of questioning, beginning with Mr. Doherty.

Mr. Doherty, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Chair, I've been in receipt of—as I think have all of our members on this committee—a letter from 17 of Canada's leading addiction medicine physicians.

Mr. Chair, I know that the clerk is in receipt also of the motion that we tabled on Monday. With your permission, I'd like to move that motion now, Mr. Chair, as follows:

Given the recent letter, from 17 experienced Canadian Addiction Medicine physicians to the Minister of Addictions and Mental Health, calling on the government to cease funding of hydromorphone for people with addictions, that the committee recognize: (a) the substantial increase in opioid-related harms and deaths, (b) that the government’s current policies are not working, (c) that the so called “safer supply” strategy is a failure, making the opioid crisis worse, that the committee call for an immediate end to the government’s so called “safe supply” funding, and that the committee report this motion to the House.

Mr. Chair, I've been very public, very vocal and upfront about our family's own struggles with addictions and how I have a brother who lives on the street. We have struggled to get him off the street. I have gone into the dens of evil to pay off his debts, to save my brother, to save somebody whom we love.

We have rescued him in the middle of the night from a bridge, from gang members who were threatening to throw him over if he didn't pay the debt.

Two years ago he was shot twice with a shotgun in a drug deal gone bad. It was just mere days later, after saying all the right things, that he was back on the street from the draw and the pull of these drugs, with buckshot still in him, with his wounds, and with the tubes hanging out of him.

Mr. Speaker, that's how strong the pull of these drugs is.

To my colleagues across the way, we have to do better.

I get emotional talking about it. In 2016, there were 806 opioid deaths in B.C. In 2022 there were 2,410. Overdose is the leading cause of death of B.C. youth aged 10 to 18. That surpasses accidents.

We have to do better.

There are businesses in my province that are buying illicit drugs on the black market and selling them or giving them away on the street. How far have we fallen that these businesses can perpetuate somebody's addiction but we can't get that person into a bed for recovery?

If my colleagues across the way don't believe me, believe the 17 leading experts on this in our nation who wrote this:

We are a group of experienced Canadian Addiction Medicine physicians who are calling on the government to ensure that all hydromorphone prescribed to people with addiction is provided in a supervised fashion or that funding cease for this harmful practice.

Calling Unsupervised Free Government Funded Hydromorphone “Safe Supply” or “Safer Supply” does not make this practice safe. It is unsafe.

Hydromorphone is a potent opioid which is approximately 4 times more powerful than morphine when taken orally and approximately 7 times more powerful than morphine when injected. Hydromorphone and other drugs are often prescribed for “Safe” Supply at 7 to 10 times the recommended morphine equivalents per day and pose serious risks to the patient and their communities from diversion.

Unsupervised Free Government Funded Hydromorphone provided to people with addiction is causing further harm to our communities by increasing the total amount of opioids on the streets and providing essentially unlimited amounts of opioids to vulnerable people with addiction. As a result of this practice, we are witnessing new patients suffering from opioid addiction, and additional unnecessary overdoses and death.

The FDA product monograph Dilaudid (hydromorphone) states this:

“Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion of Opioids Hydromorphone is an opioid agonist of the morphine-type. Such drugs are sought by drug abusers and people with addiction disorders and are subject to criminal diversion. Dilaudid can be abused in a manner similar to other opioid agonists, legal or illicit. This should be considered when prescribing or dispensing Dilaudid in situations where the physician or pharmacist is concerned about an increased risk of misuse, abuse, or diversion.... Dilaudid has been reported as being abused by crushing, chewing, snorting, or injecting the dissolved product. These practices pose a significant risk to the abuser that could result in overdose or death.”

Unsupervised Free Government Funded Hydromorphone provides a significant source of income to people with addiction who divert their prescribed hydromorphone to the street market. There is widespread evidence that this is occurring. The money from diversion is commonly used to purchase more potent opioids such as fentanyl. While we understand the desire to minimize the morbidity and the mortality resulting from illicit fentanyl use, unlimited overprescribing of opioids is causing harm. Increased availability of opioids in communities leads to more opioid addiction.

The unmonitored provision of Free Government Funded Hydromorphone to people addicted to opioids has become widespread in large part because of government funding and support. Unfortunately, this unsafe practice has become politicized in both government and the medical field, causing harm to both public and patient suffering from opioid addiction.

The risks of Unsupervised Free Government Funded Hydromorphone prescribing include this:

1. People with addiction commonly prefer to inject hydromorphone. Injected hydromorphone creates a similar elevated risk of serious infections that all users of intravenous substances face, such as Hepatitis C, HIV, cellulitis, bacterial endocarditis, respiratory suppression, overdose, and death.

2. A large supply of free hydromorphone can make people's addictions worse and delay people from entering other treatment modalities which have been proven to be effective.

3. Diversion of prescribed hydromorphone to the illicit market is the most significant problem with Unsupervised Free Government Funded Hydromorphone. Hydromorphone tablets are sold and the funds are used to acquire more fentanyl. Paradoxically, Unsupervised Free Government Funded Hydromorphone increases access to street fentanyl for people with abdication and also increases the availability of street hydromorphone causing more people to become addicted to opioids.

We anticipate the widespread diversion of hydromorphone, now taking place from these programs, will have results similar to our experience with the OxyContin epidemic. With OxyContin, we saw how the provision of abundant amounts of powerful opioid to communities made addiction worse for those with disease and, more importantly it caused many new cases of opioid addiction.

Mr. Chair, I can see my colleague from the Liberal side laughing while I'm struggling to read this letter. Perhaps Mr. Fisher doesn't have people who have been afflicted with addiction. Perhaps he hasn't sat with the parents of those who have passed away due to overdose.

I'll continue. The final quote from this letter is this:

“Safe Supply” is a nice marketing slogan. The reality is it is not safe. It is harmful to give people addicted to opioids almost unlimited access to free opioids. It is harmful to our communities for inexpensive pharmaceutical grade opioids to be flooding our streets. We call on the government to ensure that all hydromorphone prescribed to people with opioid addiction is provided in a supervised fashion or that funding be ceased for the current harmful practice. Let’s stop diverted hydromorphone from creating more children with addiction in our Junior High and High Schools.

Mr. Chair, I read this, and it's obviously something that is.... We are gripped in an opioid crisis in our country. Canada.ca, our own government's website, under the heading “Responding to Canada's opioid overdose crisis” states, in our government's own words: “Canada is facing a national opioid overdose crisis that continues to have devastating impacts on communities and families.” Yet, we are sending taxpayer dollars to organizations that are buying illicit drugs, black market drugs, that are flooding our streets and our communities.

We're powerless to stop this. Somebody has to answer to this.

You can laugh; you're not laughing now—

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

But you did earlier, Mr. Fisher. You did when you shouted across the way.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, it is a reputational comment when someone makes this—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Excuse me. Before this deteriorates, remember that we have to be recognized by the chair, please.

I would really appreciate, Mr. Fisher, if you were to respect those rules. I know that you're new to our committee here, but please, before you begin speaking, remember that the person who has the floor has it. When I recognize you, you, too, shall have your turn to speak.

We all heard very clearly from the Speaker today about decorum. If your point is relevant, that's terrific. If it's not, perhaps we should continue.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Yes, please, Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, my apologies.

I would never, ever laugh at a topic this serious. I looked at the witnesses. I smiled and said “I'm sorry” to the witnesses. That's what I did, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Very good. Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Fisher.

I will echo those comments; I'm sorry to the witnesses. Obviously this is committee business that is not related to Bill C-293. I am unsure as to how long this may take. I would ask my honourable colleagues to consider thinking about releasing the witnesses. This may take some time.

I'm at the will of the committee, but I would suggest to my honourable colleagues that, if it is your desire to release the witnesses and apologize to them, I'd be absolutely happy to do that. I'll leave it to the will of the committee.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I still have the floor.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Mr. Doherty, you have the floor.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'll apologize to Mr. Fisher. I did see him look across the floor and say, “Hi Dan,” mockingly. I thought it was mockingly; I could be wrong. Maybe he's just acknowledging the presence of our colleague from the NDP.

You know, my family lives every day with the fact that we're going to get a call one day that my brother won't be around, that he'll take one last dose....

Let me bring it back to 2008, when I was loading my bags into my vehicle to go speak at an event overseas, and my wife opened the front doors to our house and with tears said that her brother had been found dead from an overdose. He was not an addict. He didn't use drugs. He simply was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and somebody gave him something that was laced with fentanyl. That same person wiped his phone, so there was no evidence of who was there at the time. We don't know.

I apologize for moving this emotional motion, but it hits home. Given that I'm the shadow minister for mental health and suicide prevention, I sit with so many families who ask us to do something. I don't have the answers, but I don't believe that taxpayers' dollars should be going to fund these drugs. We should be doing everything in our power to make sure that we can get somebody into a bed for recovery. Recovery is always possible. Perpetuating somebody's addiction....

In British Columbia, I believe the wait time is 18 to 24 months. One mother came to me and asked, “Why is it that my son can get drugs, but I can't get him into treatment?” If they were wealthy or rich, then they could do that, but a lot of these people come from families that can't afford treatment. In 18 to 24 months, if her son is still alive....

We know what they're doing. They're taking these drugs, and they're selling them so that they can purchase.... Oftentimes, they're selling them to students so that they can purchase the higher dose of fentanyl. We have to do something.

I apologize to the witnesses, but after reading that letter, I had to say what I said. I've stood in the House so many times and talked about this. This government and my provincial government, we as leaders are failing Canadians when it comes to this. We have to be better.

I'll cede the floor to whoever's next. Thanks.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Thank you very much, Mr. Doherty.

I do have a speakers list. It reads, “Dr. Kitchen, Mr. Majumdar, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Davies, Dr. Powlowski and Mr. Thériault.”

Dr. Kitchen, you have the floor.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and to my colleague.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Stephen Ellis]

Yes, Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I see the list of speakers who have requested the floor. Right now, our witnesses are attending this debate or discussion when we invited them for something else.

I'd like to lighten the mood by saying that I didn't think, Mr. Taillon, that your first argument, that this bill is useless, was going to be so convincing.

That said, I'd like us to release the witnesses.