Debates of May 2nd, 2017

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. We agree on one thing: the question of privilege is a very serious matter and we must investigate it thoroughly.

Over the past few months, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We have had the opportunity at that committee to study questions of privilege. This is the seventh day that we are debating this question in the House of Commons.

Does my colleague not think that it would be better to study this question of privilege at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs instead of in the House of Commons? We could finally make progress on bills and things that affect Canadians every day.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

This question of privilege, which is on something as fundamental as physical access to the House, is a question that affects us all, each and every one of us. The question truly needs to be debated somewhere other than in a committee. It needs to be debated in the House.

We must not lose sight of the context in which we are discussing this question of privilege. We are discussing it in what I consider a context of repeated attacks against our institution, the institution that is the house of all citizens, the institution that represents those citizens. The government is trying to change our rules and various problems have been raised. It is a question that is debated in a much broader context and it is important that all members are able to take part in this discussion.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding why the Liberals have been asking us all day why we do not just send this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as quickly as possible. Now, it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who is asking us that question. Earlier, it was the member for Winnipeg North. We are in this situation because the Liberals refused to do just that when this issue was raised in the House the first time. The question of privilege was simply swept under the rug. The Liberals killed it. They did not want to hear about it. At that time, some Liberal members even gave speeches about why the matter did not need to be sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is why they killed the debate. I am therefore wondering why they are asking us this question today. We are in this situation because they refused to send this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when it was first raised.

I do not understand the Liberals' definition of filibustering. Members are in the House to debate issues. Why should members who want to speak be prevented from doing so? That is not what I would call filibustering. Members rise on behalf of their constituents and speak in the House. Whether there are 39 or 49 members, they are rising because they want to speak and share their opinions on this issue.

Does the member agree with the definition of filibustering used by the Liberals, who believe that if many members want to speak about an issue, this automatically constitutes filibustering and we are trying to delay the whole process?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my colleague just said. The government side seems to be saying that talking about this prevents us from doing our job. It is really the opposite. We are talking about the fundamentals that allow us to do our job. The rights and privileges of parliamentarians are not perks. They underpin this institution, they are the foundation of our democracy, and they allow us to represent the people who elected us.

Therefore, this is a very fundamental issue, and I completely agree with my colleague. This is so fundamental and such an important part of our work that all members who wish to speak should be allowed to do so.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin this debate by reading from one of our national newspapers some words of Chantal Hébert:

[The Prime Minister] does not much like the House of Commons and the feeling is mutual....[The Prime Minister] rarely engages with the opposition in a meaningful way. For the most part he speaks past his critics’ arguments. The attentive hearing he affords those who challenge him in town halls does not extend to opposition parliamentarians. When not on his feet, [the Prime Minister] can be the picture of adolescent boredom....All of which brings one to the wide-ranging House reforms the Liberals have recently brought forward under the guise of what they call a discussion paper.

For the four opposition parties the proposals add up to a heavy-handed bid to erode their already limited capacity to hold a majority government to account.

This resonated with me and it resonated with my very Liberal father, who was embarrassed to see a journalist he admired speaking in such a way of the party he used to support.

The reason we are in this debate today is that on March 22, two members of Parliament were blocked from accessing the House of Commons by the Prime Minister's motorcade. That is quite an emblem, the privilege of being in the Prime Minister's limousine blocking those of use who come to work using the parliamentary public transit. These members of Parliament were unable to fulfill their principal role as parliamentarians, which was to come to the House to represent their constituents in a vote of this Parliament.

When the member for Milton raised this question of privilege in the House, the government made the decision to end debate, to shut it down, and the Speaker of the House ruled this decision to be “unprecedented”. The Speaker of the House ruled that no other government, Liberal or Conservative, had gone so far as to end debate in this fashion on a reasonable question of privilege.

The actions of the government members on March 22 to me speak volumes about their level of disrespect for members of Parliament and for the work we do in Parliament. By shutting down debate in the way they did, the government acted in blatant disregard for the way some members were treated, that they were prevented from getting here by the physical transportation logistics outside, and that then the government did not want to debate the fact that they were unable to do the very thing they were elected to do in the House.

The government's so-called modernization of the House has proved to be much more of a power consolidation process, drastically reducing the resources available to the opposition to hold it to account. I am very much reminded of the Prime Minister's invitation and welcome to new parliamentarians, and 215 of us in the House are new parliamentarians. My colleague, the member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia, reminded us of that invitation, that reminder from the Prime Minister to new parliamentarians that the opposition's job was to hold the government to account. For the government to now have tried, I believe, three times to remove those tools from the opposition is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister's sunny ways message to us just a year and a half ago.

I am afraid these government actions set precedent, whether they are refusing to allow debate on a question of privilege or whether the government is unilaterally pushing through changes to the Standing Orders, thereby changing the very process for establishing these rules. This long-standing convention of securing all-party approval before overhauling the Standing Orders of the House of Commons must be preserved. That all-party consensus is the tradition that includes Harper and Chrétien.

Consensus is something we have talked about quite a bit in the House on other matters, and it is confusing for all of us. The government says that consensus is not needed to change the House rules, although that has been the parliamentary tradition. The government says, though, that consensus was needed in order to change the voting system, although the promise the Liberals made to Canadians was to make every vote count, which in every case is interpreted as proportional representation, if we follow Fair Vote and some of the other NGOs that have been holding this light up for so long to bring democratic reform to Canadians.

There was nothing in the Liberal platform that said we needed a consensus of parliamentarians. This was a solemn promise, repeated more than 1,000 times, apparently, by the Prime Minister to change the voting system. However, once he got here and did not like the way the committee recommendation was going and the consensus of Canadians, he said we needed consensus in this House.

We do not need consensus to change the Standing Rules of the House, but we did need consensus to change the voting system.

Then consensus was, again, not needed when it came to approving the Kinder Morgan pipeline and its associated oil tanker traffic. The government's campaign platform was that the pipeline approval would not be forced through without revamping and redoing the regulatory process that had been so undermined by the Harper Conservative government. That was a solemn promise again, with hand on heart, that they would change the regulatory review process before pushing through the pipeline, but then, in the end, consensus was not needed, although we will find virtually every coastal community, especially around the hub of transportation, having opposed the pipeline; municipal government bodies like the Union of BC Municipalities, and a significant number of first nations opposed the pipeline approval, particularly in my area, coastal British Columbia, where our $8-billion maritime marine industry is threatened by the potential of an oil spill.

Again, no consensus was needed there, and that very much feels like a broken promise, I must say.

Women rely on public transit, such as buses, to get to and from work. If they do not have access to that public transit, their employment is put in jeopardy. Not only that, but tragedies like the Highway of Tears show that women's safety is put at risk when they do not have access to proper transportation. We are hearing about this right now at the status of women committee. Jane Stinson, who is a research associate with the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, said:

If you think about it, it's particularly people who have lower incomes who use public transit, because they can't afford their own cars. Women have lower incomes, so it's not surprising....

[Public transportation] is a big issue, for some of the reasons that you mentioned....

...the absence of public transit in northern communities is a major problem. It puts women at risk, as you mentioned. The Highway of Tears is perhaps the most shocking example, but I'm sure it's not alone; it's just better known. In lots of cases in the north women have to hitchhike, as do others, to get around.

In urban locations, our research in Ottawa showed that it was very serious. It was accessibility, and that meant cost—the cost was too high for people—and also lack of schedules, and sometimes where the routes went.

Again, there's a responsibility with the federal government, even in local transportation. It's a question of transfers.

We also heard testimony from United Steelworkers. Meg Gingrich said:

We call on the government to invest in social infrastructure, such as affordable housing and public transportation, and...for procurement provisions and policies that meet gender and equity standards with clear enforcement mechanisms and that do not simply continue occupational segregation.

I am hearing this in my own riding, as well. Lack of public transit, again and again, is a barrier to women accepting jobs and being able to carry out their responsibilities.

Disappointments about implementation of such promises are epitomized by the government's current approach. Sunny ways and hope and hard work seem to be election promises that have now been abandoned. We have had time allocation imposed in the midst of very emotional, vital debates, such as physician-assisted dying. Three times, I was ready to give my speech, trying to convey constituent concerns. Three times, I was unable to deliver it. I never could stand to debate that vital issue for Canada because of time allocation imposed by the government. Motion No. 6 last year seemed designed to neuter the opposition, and so did the so-called discussion paper that we have been debating these last few weeks.

Again, it is so out of step with the promise of the present government. I ask the government, in every way, to return to being co-operative, collegial, recognizing it can use its majority, recognizing the opposition has a job to do as well.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, consultations among parties have taken place, and if you seek it I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the Question of Privilege (denial of access of Members to the Parliamentary Precinct raised on March 22, 2017), at 5:30 p.m. today or when no member rises to speak, the questions on the sub-amendment and the amendment be deemed adopted and the question on the motion as amended be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business on Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

(Motion agreed to)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the length of the debate that we have had with regard to this issue. We have now had 10 times as many people speak on the issue of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, which is a record number, given the topic. I am glad to see that it looks as if it is coming to an end, because we want to get on to other matters, such as the budget debate, and I understand a private member's hour will be coming up shortly.

I will leave an open-ended question for the member across the way in regard to how important it is that both the opposition and the government recognize PROC and wish it well in trying to resolve the issue of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the optimism of the member opposite about PROC being able to do its work. While I have the floor, I will remind the member that while in opposition he said:

The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians.

I would urge the member and his government to cease using time allocation to stifle debate in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the privilege motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, May 3, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-224, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (assistance in overdose drugs) be now read a second time and concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before you today to speak to Bill C-224, the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act.

Last month, I had the pleasure of sitting in the Senate gallery during report stage and third reading stage. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs amended the bill in committee in order to correct the errors and omissions in the original version of my bill. The amendments to Bill C-224 are in line with my objectives and my intent in drafting the bill, and they clarify certain points.

They provide greater certainty for people who call 911 in the event of an overdose.

I have to thank the Senate for not only accepting my bill but, frankly, for making it better. They tightened up the language to ensure that a person who is being given assistance would not be charged, nor would anyone accompanying them be charged. That is the intent. As long as they are giving assistance they cannot be charged or convicted for possession.

Another Senate clarification makes it clear that both those who remain at the scene of the drug overdose and those who accompany the victim to seek medical assistance are also protected. Again, the Senate reinforced the language to ensure that the person suffering from an overdose is equally protected from prosecution.

If someone is suffering an overdose, or a friend comes to help, they may already be under some other court order for possession charges. The bill as amended by the Senate makes it clear this would not be held against them.

This was sober second thought in action. Senators have demonstrated once again that their collective scope and depth of knowledge really does make better law. I am grateful to Senator Larry Campbell for sponsoring the bill and to senators Murray Sinclair and Vern White for their amendments, which reflect their expertise in judicial proceedings and law enforcement.

In Senator Campbell's speech at third reading in the other place, he talked about the lives that have been lost in our home province. At the time he introduced the bill, he stated that 600 British Columbians lost their lives to drug overdoses, and by the end of 2016, 914 had died that year alone. We share the same hope that when this bill becomes law, this number will start to decline.

The scourge of overdose deaths is increasing across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, and the number of overdose deaths is rising. The bill will not fix the entire opioid problem. It only addresses one small piece of the puzzle. We all know that.

All members of the House and senators also know that to fight opioids in Canada, we, the legislators, must act quickly. That is why in its report the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs asked that the two chambers study Bill C-224 as quickly as possible.

Accordingly, here we are debating Bill C-224 today, because it was moved up in the order of precedence just one month after the Senate report.

I urge all my colleagues here in the House to come together today. Let us pass Bill C-224. We can send an important message to all Canadians that together we can start saving lives through a very simple action, by telling Canadians it is okay to call for help.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I was in the House when the bill was introduced.

I was in this chamber for my brother, and I should not say his name of course, but we share the same last name, less one letter. I think I speak for all of us on this side, and hopefully for all of us in the chamber, in saying that this is a brilliant example of public policy being brought forward by a member of this House that will have an immediate impact on the lives of people in, sadly, unhappy situations. We all recognize the great emotion and strength that the member has brought to this, and we extend our congratulations.

Let me conclude by saying, after having gone through this process, I think the member is the first to have achieved a bill out and back from the other place. Could he perhaps share with members of the House some lessons on legislating?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for the success of the bill that we work proactively and collegially with all members of the House on both sides of the aisle. All members who spoke to the bill in past, and hopefully as time comes, spoke in favour of it. This is likewise in the Senate as well. In the other place, all senators wanted to help. They all recognized the value of the bill. The key factor is to keep it simple, keep it narrow, and work with everyone to get it done.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in strong support of Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act, as amended by the Senate and introduced by the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

I want to first commend the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, whom I have the privilege of serving on the justice committee with, for his leadership and stewardship in raising this important issue and moving this important legislation forward. Without more, Bill C-224 is a good bill, a needed bill, and a bill that would save lives. It could not be more timely. It could not be more timely, because Canada faces an opioid overdose crisis. It is a crisis that has claimed the lives of thousands of Canadians. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbours, colleagues are gone, taken. It is a crisis that has torn apart families and devastated communities. It is a crisis that is not slowing down.

The opioid crisis is particularly acute in my home province of Alberta. In 2016, Alberta emergency responders responded to some 2,267 fentanyl-related events and 343 Albertans died from a fentanyl overdose. That is up from 257 in 2015 and way up from the two dozen who died in 2012. Even more concerning is that we are seeing more and more potent opioids, such as powdered fentanyl, being pushed out onto our streets. Powdered fentanyl is 80 times more potent than morphine. The percentage of deaths in which fentanyl has been detected has increased from 5% in 2012, to 30% in 2015, to a staggering 62% in 2016.

The vast majority of drug overdoses occur in the presence of at least one other person and yet, far too often, individuals who witness a drug overdose do not do the right thing. They do not pick up the phone. They do not call 911 to get help. One may ask why someone would not call for help. The simple answer is that far too often they are afraid. They are afraid of being charged with a criminal offence. They are afraid of being caught up in the criminal justice system, so they do not call. They do not act, and the consequences of inaction can be fatal.

The Standing Committee on Health, which I know my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Confederation, serves on, studied Bill C-224. As well, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs heard powerful testimony from Christine Padaric, the mother of the late Austin Padaric. Austin was a promising high school student. One night he went to a party and made a choice that a lot of high school students make: he took drugs. He reacted and Austin's friends did not call for help. They did not call 911. They thought they could handle it on their own. Perhaps they, in part, were worried about the police arriving, maybe charges being laid, and maybe being caught up in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, they were not able to handle it and as a result, Austin died at the age of 17.

Sadly, Austin is not alone. There are many Austins out there, and there will be many more Austins if action is not taken. That is precisely what Bill C-224 seeks to do. It is to prevent future Austins by providing immunity from prosecution for individuals who witness a drug overdose, do the right thing, call for help, and as a result of doing the right thing, are found to be in possession of illicit drugs.

It is important to note that Bill C-224 applies, in terms of immunity from prosecution, to only simple possession. It would not apply to other offences, such as impaired driving or drug trafficking. Moreover, it would only apply to offences listed in schedules I to III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: in other words, street drugs. What Bill C-224 would not do is provide immunity to drug pushers, drug dealers, and drug traffickers who are pushing dangerous and illegal drugs onto the streets that are killing thousands of Canadians each and every year.

Bill C-224 is legislation that makes sense. It went to the Senate and was amended in the Senate. I have to say that the Senate did a good job of improving Bill C-224, as the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam pointed out. There were amendments from the other place that would extend immunity from prosecution to breaches of release orders arising from simple possession. Those amendments make sense. They are consistent with the spirit and objective of Bill C-224. In that regard, I would submit that it does not make sense that a good Samaritan should be immune from prosecution on the basis of simple possession but then be charged for breaching a release order arising from the very same simple possession. That would be self-defeating.

While the good Samaritan drug overdose act is new to Canada, it is not a new concept. Indeed, some 37 states, plus the District of Columbia, have similar legislation on their books, and the legislation that has been passed in the U.S. is having the intended effect. More and more people are calling 911, and as a result, more and more lives are being saved.

I urge the speedy passage of Bill C-224 as amended. This legislation is needed. It is needed now. It is needed to save lives.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking and congratulating my colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. As the member for Gatineau pointed out earlier, I too was in the House for the first hour of debate on this bill. I heard his very moving testimony.

People sometimes forget that the issues our constituents bring to us and our political parties' positions are not the only things that motivate us in our work. Sometimes, we are motivated by very personal stories.

That is why it is so gratifying to see a member do so much to improve legislation about such an urgent public health issue. This is something we can all support, and the NDP is very pleased to do so.

I know there is no place for jokes in a conversation about such an important issue, but we also want to thank the Senate for its work. That is not something the NDP says a lot. I think these amendments are reasonable and improve the bill. We can continue to support the bill with these amendments, and we hope this matter will be acted upon quickly. This is something we have been waiting for for a long time.

We just heard from the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford from British Columbia, who has been working hard on this file, as well as the member from Alberta. People often think that this is an issue that concerns western Canada, and it is, as proven by the thousands of deaths that have occurred since the beginning of this public health crisis, that is, the opioid crisis. However, this crisis is making its way east. We recently began seeing cases in Ontario and Quebec. That is why it is important that we all work together to pass the necessary legislation to save lives.

We are talking about Bill C-224, the good Samaritan bill. As my Conservative colleague just clearly illustrated, people might wonder why anyone would not seek help when someone they are with, often a friend, has overdosed, whether in the context of a party or any other situation.

Obviously, the legal consequences may dissuade people from seeking help. Unfortunately, all too often, young people are the ones who suffer the consequences of substance abuse and the associated legal ramifications. It is therefore essential that we put in place a legislative framework to ensure that people are not afraid to ask for help. That is the least we can do.

The Senate proposed some very important amendments to clarify and improve this bill. The Senate changed some of the wording so that the bill provides clear explanations of the measures to protect against possession charges, which is the intent of the bill. We want to make sure that it is clear that anyone who is with the victim of an overdose, often a friend, and who calls 911 to get help for the victim will not suffer the legal consequences that would normally apply.

As part of its amendments, the Senate also proposed that overdose victims and those at the scene when help arrives be protected from being charged with an offence concerning a violation of pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence, or parole.

These are offences that do not pose a direct threat to the public, as my Conservative colleague pointed out earlier. For example, this type of exemption would not apply in a case of impaired driving. The types of violations targeted are those likely to be committed by a person who is at the scene of an overdose or who could, him or herself, be a victim requesting help. That is very important.

I want to come back to the question I raised earlier, because it often comes up during discussions on substance abuse or the use of certain illegal substances.

Unfortunately, there is a stigma attached. Consider the example of the debate surrounding the opioid crisis and safe injection sites. Whether we like it or not, there is a link between that and the bill currently before us. The question remains, and political courage is needed. That is why we are happy to see that the House supports this bill and the efforts made by our colleague, the bill's sponsor.

There is a misguided idea out there that we support illegal activities and encourage people's addictions. On the contrary, we want to tackle a public health problem. We want people who have health problems and who cannot find the support they need to get help. That is what we hope this bill achieves.

This is very important if we want to be able to address the crisis we are facing at this time. Indeed, as I have said, this often has an impact on young people. Even in the context of the debate on the legalization of marijuana, there is often talk of the importance of prevention, education and all of those issues. It is all very well and good to talk about the money that would be invested and to engage in prevention or educate people on the subject, but if there is no legislative framework to assure us that people will be able to get help, whether it be through the good Samaritan bill or safe injection sites, all of that is futile. It is very important to ensure that all the efforts made by the government or by Parliament via the various proposed bills are closely linked.

I will provide a few figures on the opioid crisis in British Columbia. I think it is important to share these statistics in order to illustrate the extent to which this is a public health issue. I am saying this as the NDP public safety critic. This is no longer a public safety issue, but rather an issue related to people’s health. In my view, it is the reason why we have to start studying evidence-based policies. On this subject, I recognize the efforts that are contained in this sort of bill.

I must acknowledge that, although we see this in the news, we do not necessarily see it in my riding, in our own backyard. For the people listening to us, I think it is important to demonstrate the extent to which this is a health-related crisis.

There was a record number of deaths in British Columbia in December. The number reported was 142. That was up from the previous monthly peak in November 2016, which was 128. That is enormous. In December, as the holidays were approaching, 142 families lost a loved one because we did not act fast enough. I believe that no one in the House, whatever their political allegiance, wants to continue in this direction and have this reality on our collective conscience. This is an unacceptable number of deaths.

In Vancouver, every week between 9 and 15 fatal overdoses are reported. It is scary and completely unacceptable. If we can support bills like this one and efforts like this, which will give us a legal framework to provide people with the help they are looking for, then we can transition into the government making further efforts. We would be prepared to support the right kind of progressive, fact-based efforts because that would help address this urgent health crisis and eradicate this scourge. I think that this is our collective responsibility.

Again, I want to thank my colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. I want to reiterate how inspiring it is to see such incredible efforts being made for such a personal story. I also want to thank the Senate for its work to improve the bill. We hope that this is just the first step. We have to move forward and put an end to this public health crisis once and for all.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to support private member's bill, Bill C-224, the good Samaritan drug overdose act, including the amendments made in the Senate. These amendments bring further clarity to the bill and they expand the circumstances where immunity would be provided to increase the likelihood that bystanders would seek emergency help during an overdose, expanding the opportunities for the bill to safe lives.

Simply put, the bill would help to address the systemic barriers that would prevent many Canadians from seeking help from first responders during an overdose. Their fear is that they may be charged and convicted of drug possession once first responders arrive.

I want to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the member of Parliament for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, for bringing this important bill forward and for proposing a simple legislative change that would help save lives. His work on the bill is an honour to him, the House, and to the people he represents.

As everyone in the House knows, we are in a crisis situation. Opioid related overdose deaths in Canada have increased at an alarming rate and we must continue to act to save lives.

In British Columbia alone, there were over 900 overdose deaths in 2016, and so far the rate of death from drug overdoses in 2017 sadly shows no sign of decreasing. There were 102 overdose deaths in B.C. in February of this year. This is an average of 3.6 deaths a day for that month. These are not just abstract numbers. Each one represents a Canadian who has lost his or her life in a way that is preventable.

Most overdoses occur in the presence of others and, like many other emergencies, a person's chances of surviving an overdose depends on how quickly he or she receives medical attention. Calls to 911 during an overdose are typically either not made or may be delayed to such an extent that the victim can suffer irreparable brain damage or other harms.

A 2014 report from Ontario found that only half of those surveyed said they would call 911 in the event of an overdose and wait at the scene for emergency personnel to arrive. This is consistent with international research where studies have found 911 call rates for overdose events to be as low as 15%.

At a recent forum discussion on the future of drug policy, the Minister of Health pointed out that as one part of responding to the opioid crisis, we needed to call out stigma and reduce the discrimination associated with drug use.

The high rates of drug overdose deaths we are seeing in the country and the low rate at which Canadians are willing to contact emergency services when they witness an overdose are unacceptable and clearly point to an issue that is being made worse by stigma and fear, the impacts of which must be addressed before we lose more lives.

The Government of Canada is supporting the response to this crisis through the new Canadian drugs and substances strategy, a comprehensive, collaborative, compassionate, and evidenced-based approach. The strategy is built on four pillars—prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and law enforcement—and will also serve to improve the evidence base.

The good Samaritan drug overdose act is in keeping with our government's approach to drug policy. The elimination of drug possession charges for people seeking help for an overdose is a harm reduction measure that strikes a balance between public health and public safety. What is more, the implementation of this bill will provide the opportunity for law enforcement officers to strengthen their relationship of trust with drug users, a relationship that could put drug users in a safer environment and give them better access to treatment when they are ready to seek it.

As originally written, Bill C-224 guaranteed anyone experiencing or witnessing an overdose immunity from minor drug possession charges if that person contacted emergency services or law enforcement for help.

The Senate has made several amendments to the bill. Most of these amendments are meant to bring further clarity to the legal text so it can be more easily interpreted by law enforcement and the courts.

I will not spend too much time on these amendments except to say that the government supports them and that they certainly strengthen the Bill. For example, the proposed amendments make it clear that the law will protect those who call and leave the scene as well as those who arrive at the scene after the call has been made. In addition, the amendments clarify that witnesses to an overdose, as well as the person who has overdosed, will be provided with immunity under this proposed law.

The more substantive amendment proposed by the Senate would expand the immunity provided by Bill C-224 to include protection from charges for offences concerning a violation of a pre-trial release, probation order, conditional sentence, or parole relating to simple possession.

I understand that this broadened scope of the immunity provided under this good Samaritan bill may cause some of the members of this House to reconsider their support for this bill. However, we are in a crisis situation where preventable deaths are occurring daily. I urge all members of this House to maintain their support for this important piece of legislation.

The Government of Canada would not be the first to provide such immunity. In fact, 15 states in the U.S. have a good Samaritan drug overdose law that provides immunity from charges of possession as well as protections from probation or parole violations.

There is a simple reason why the Senate has proposed these amendments and why these 15 U.S. states have covered such violations under their good Samaritan laws. It is because fear of being charged for the possession of a controlled substance is only one reason why people are afraid to seek help during an overdose.

The Ontario report I mentioned earlier also looked at reasons why people were afraid to call for help during an overdose. The two most common barriers to calling 911 during an overdose event were fear of arrest, and being on parole. Of those respondents on probation or parole, only 37% indicated they would call emergency services and wait for help to arrive if they witnessed an overdose.

Extending the immunity guaranteed by Bill C-224 would increase the number of situations that could be a matter of life or death. However, this would not prevent law enforcement officers to focus on public safety and security efforts concerning the most serious offences, especially if officers were to discover the production or trafficking of controlled substances when they were called to the scene of a crime.

As many people have pointed out, fighting the current opioid crisis will not be an easy task. Passing the good Samaritan bill will not fix the whole problem, but it can be part of the solution and it is a big step in the right direction. I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting this important bill.

I would again like to thank the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his dedication and hard work. I am very proud to serve with him.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express to you my thanks for so many dedicated women and men, in the House administration and at the library, for their incredible work. Without them, Bill C-224 would not have achieved the success it has had up until now.

In particular, I want to thank Marc-Olivier Girard at the private members' business office, Isabelle D'Souza and Wendy Gordon at the office of the law clerk, and Michael Dewing at the Library of Parliament.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:08 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:08 p.m.)