Health Committee on Dec. 4th, 2023

[Jennifer Saxe]

There are a variety of different indicators. I can turn it over to Dr. Weiss, because there are a number of evaluations we have under way, and he can perhaps speak to some of the specific indicators and ways those are being evaluated.

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

Would you say that it's a success at this point?

[Jennifer Saxe]

I think there are areas where we have an evidence base—

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

The numbers are doubling and getting worse. Are we succeeding?

[Jennifer Saxe]

What I can say is that there are certain interventions where we have collected data and we see that there's an evidence base that there are absolutely lives being saved. There are other areas where we are learning and adjusting, but collectively—

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

Of the lives that are being saved, if there's an overdose and we know that we saved a life, do we know if that person has overdosed again, or how many—I'm trying to find the right word—have re-overdosed? What's the recidivism? I guess that's the word I'm looking for. When Canada says that we've saved over 75,000 lives or 50,000 lives, how many of those Canadians are still alive today?

[Jennifer Saxe]

I don't have a specific number for you.

What I can say is that this is exactly why we are looking at a suite of services and supports, so that we can ensure that people have access to treatment when and where they need it—when, along their journey, they're ready. We know that some people will go into treatment and then relapse. We know that some people will have access to life-saving services and then continue in treatment. We need an integrated approach, a compassionate approach, which is exactly what the government has done in its renewed strategy of making sure we have a full suite of services.

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

I agree with you.

[Jennifer Saxe]

We all need to work together to be able to deliver that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's your time, Mr. Doherty.

Thank you, Ms. Saxe.

Next is Dr. Hanley, please, for five minutes.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

Before my questions, I want to give a notice of motion. The intent of the motion is to have the minister appear as part of this study. The motion is:

That, as part of its study of the opioid epidemic and toxic drug crisis in Canada, the committee invite the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health for one hour, and that the meeting take place no later than Monday, February 19, 2024.

I'm presenting that as a notice of motion.

First of all, I wanted to make a couple of comments.

Again, we're hearing a lot of focus on safe supply and on the assumption that safe supply is a concept that doesn't work. We know that there has been diversion of safe supply that certainly has been documented, at least anecdotally, by some of the experts who have written letters. We also know that diversion has always been an issue—for many years—with prescription drugs as well. I just want to make the point that diversion of safe supply does not mean that safe supply does not have an important role in the spectrum of approaches. Where there is diversion, we need to do our best to prevent it.

I did want to point out that the B.C. coroner has said, “We know for a fact that people are not dying (from safer supply), including children. The rates of death amongst those under 19 have not increased at all since safer supply was introduced”. That's within the B.C. context and is a quote from Lisa Lapointe.

I also think it's important to talk about some misconceptions about fentanyl and the issue of tolerance and the thresholds. The thresholds for decriminalization in B.C. were based on expert recommendations. There was a lot of back-and-forth, as we know, over a period of probably about a year, to agree on thresholds. The thresholds are really based on the concept of tolerance to fentanyl. People who are addicted to drugs become tolerant to incredibly high doses very rapidly. That is the rationale for the concept of using thresholds to determine decriminalization.

In Portugal—and Mr. Johns referred to the fact that we had an incredibly educational trip to Portugal together—the concept of personal possession in their decriminalization is 10 days of supply of whatever drug is determined. The threshold is based on a 10-day supply.

We forget in this discourse that criminalizing drug use is not only not working but actually causing harm, because the market is being flooded with ever more dangerous and toxic drugs. Criminalization adds to the stigmatization that prevents people from accessing care.

For my Conservative colleagues, I would ask, why would we or should we keep pursuing policies that are clearly not working?

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You still have a minute and a half.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

In my remaining time, would it be in order, Mr. Chair, if I were to move that motion to have the minister appear?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The subject of the motion is the study that we're presently doing, so notice is technically not required.

It would be in order for you to move the motion.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I understand. I would like to move the motion as previously read.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

The motion is in order.

The debate is on the motion to invite the minister prior to February 19. Is there any discussion?

I have Dr. Ellis and then Mr. Doherty.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to my colleague for the motion.

I certainly think February 19 is a long way from now. I would suggest to you that a friendly amendment might be something in the order of January 15. We have some time available to us, and this is an important study. I think my colleagues all recognize this.

I suggest that continuing to delay this important study by not having the minister appear until February creates a significant time delay, in terms of allowing policies that we know are not working—as my colleagues have clearly mentioned—to continue. Allowing the minister to not, as suggested, meet with physicians who have a significant difference of opinion related to safe supply is, I think, dangerous to Canadians. Obviously, we know that no official from Health Canada, including the minister, has met with physicians with a contrary point of view. We also know the government doesn't have data, and it doesn't have a plan, either. It didn't have one from the very beginning.

I think waiting until February 19 will continue to put Canadian lives in danger and jeopardy. For that reason, I suggest we need to change the date to January 15 as an amendment, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Okay. We have an amendment to delete “February 19” and replace it with “January 15”.

The debate is now on the amendment.

Mr. Doherty, go ahead, please.

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

I agree with my colleague about sooner rather than later. That goes to the same comment I was going to make about Mr. Hanley's motion.

I think it is important that we have ministers here, although I believe we're going to get the same gobbledygook we received previously. They don't know their file. They don't have the data, so I'm not quite sure what benefit we're going to get out of having them here, other than holding them accountable. We'll probably walk out more frustrated than we were when we walked in.

Mr. Chair, through you, I want to offer to my colleagues across the way that waiting until February 19 is too long. I think we would like to get on this. While it might have been Mr. Hanley's motion, it was Conservatives who pushed to get this study going sooner rather than later. I would ask the committee to consider early January dates, if not additional times within the next two weeks when we might be able to meet with the minister, so we can do the good work we're doing and get on to other projects.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. Fisher, and then I have Mr. Johns.

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

Thanks very much.

Thanks, Brendan, for moving the motion.

I think we can all agree that we would definitely like to have the minister here. I'm sure the minister wants to be here for this. We don't sit in January. We only sit until December 15 or so.

Would Dr. Ellis be willing to say, “no later than February 2”? We get back here on January 29. Could we say, “no later than February 2”? That way, it could be the first meeting when we come back in the new year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Johns, go ahead.

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

I'm good with that.

If necessary, if the first week doesn't work for the minister, we can meet before the House comes back—if that needs to happen. I think that's reasonable. It meets everybody halfway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I see Dr. Ellis.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to my colleagues.

Certainly, we've been able to meet at times outside the regular sitting schedule on other occasions. I think everybody very clearly knows—every Canadian out there watching and every person around the table—that this is an incredibly important issue to Canadians. Having a meeting with the minister during a time when we are not sitting is not setting any new precedent. It's not something unusual.

In a case that is incredibly important, I think this ask is very reasonable.