Debates of Dec. 10th, 2018

Opioid Crisis in Canada

[John Oliver, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.]

Mr. Chair, like my hon. colleague's experience in his riding, I think all of us in all our ridings across Canada are seeing the increasing consequence of the opioid burden in our communities.

However, I did want to remind the members that in 2011, the previous Harper government tried to revoke support for the one and only safe consumption site in Canada, Insite. It fought it in the Supreme Court to close it down. Insite won, but it was the only existing harm reduction site that existed when the Conservatives lost power. They removed the harm reduction pillar from the drug strategy and moved the lead to justice. They took an enforcement and law and order strategy, which led to criminalization, which leads to stigma and the fact that many people now are reluctant to come forward and identify as having dependencies.

I am curious if the hon. member could reflect on the policies of that government. Is he happy to see the harm reduction moving forward? Is he happy to see over $300 million now committed for treatment and harm reduction programs and a focus on public health instead of criminalization?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have an opportunity to talk about a strategy going forward and the member wants to know what my opinion is of the government seven to eight years ago. I do not think the Liberals are getting the point. Eleven Canadians are dying daily. The answer is not to look back to 2011 or 2012. It is to come up with solutions so we can help Canadians who are at risk. It is to invest in prevention and education. Quite frankly, the commercials the government has put on TV, saying there is an opioid crisis, misses the opportunity to tell people to check in their own cupboards.

This is not why we are here tonight. We are here to discuss solutions and opportunities to do better for Canadians who have been left behind, not to discuss a government that is seven or eight years old and not in power anymore. If the member wants to ask a question about something we can do better, I will certainly answer it. If not, I would ask him to please let someone else ask a question.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to talk about current drug policies and what the member might think about the best way forward.

I am going to quote from Dr. Patrick Smith, the national CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association. He said:

Criminalizing people who use drugs stigmatizes substance use, fosters a climate in which they feel unsafe in accessing life-saving interventions and treatment, and further marginalizes those living in poverty or at social disadvantage. The war on drugs doesn't work and it's time we lay down our weapons and start getting people help.

Dr. Perry Kendall, B.C.'s provincial health officer says:

Focusing on people who have become dependent on drugs as criminals means we spend a lot of money on law enforcement, which doesn't actually appear to have stemmed the appetite for drugs...It hasn't helped move people who are dependent on drugs into health-care facilities; in fact, they have become very marginalized over time. Because they are marginalized, their use of drugs has often gone up, and has been accompanied by HIV and hepatitis C infections.

The police chief of Lethbridge, Rob Davis, said that they could not arrest their way out of this problem.

Does my hon. colleague believe it is time we stopped the failed war on drugs, which wastes billions of dollars and does not actually do anything, and instead deal with addiction and substance use as a health and social justice issue?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Chair, my office did a lot of research from around the world on harm reduction. The reality is that a wide spectrum of things are involved in harm reduction, from education right through to clean needle supply, to ensuring that whatever is being used can be put in a proper place and not left on the street. That is the goal of harm reduction.

We actually talk about it in this report. We say that these things need to happen. They are part of the solution. We need to work through all of these things and ensure the proper funding is in place for them.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Chair, I heard the hon. member mention they had two murders in Barrie and 36 deaths through fentanyl and opioids. I would submit that he has had 38 murders.

Also, as we look at real solutions going forward, a strategy that applies right across the country to deal with this issue, I would submit for the hon. member that one of the first places we should look at is in his province. His premier has put new harm reduction facilities on hold while they look at “the merits” of this kind of approach. This is an odd country. We have provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. Far too often it is the federal government that is asked to rush in with money, as though that is the answer to everything. However, part of it is policy and policy tainted by ideology will not get us ahead. Could the member comment on that?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify. The member said “my premier”. I will leave that alone.

As we look at the opioid crisis in Ontario, we need to realize that it is spreading very quickly. I understand what the member is saying, that it is not two murders, it is 38. I completely get that. However, the reality is that a government cannot stop most murders. We do not know what people are thinking. We do not know those circumstances.

We do know the circumstances here. We know the weapon. The weapon is fentanyl. The weapon is an opioid. We are failing to act in so many ways, from border security to prevention education to wrapping our arms around individuals who are hurting from trauma and other things and ensuring they have a way out. That is how we need to deal with these going forward. Unfortunately, there has been no strategy.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will focus on today and moving forward. Earlier the hon. member called the safe consumption sites illegal drug sites. Our government has made it easier for cities to have those safe consumption sites. If members talk to the experts, they all say that they are saving lives.

Moving forward, will the hon. member follow in the footsteps of Mr. Harper or will he move onward and support the safe consumption sites, today and in the future?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Chair, it does not matter what we call them. We can call them safe injection, we can call them safe consumption, it does not matter what language we use. There is nothing safe about injecting illegal heroin. That is why I call them illegal drug injection sites, because that is what they are.

With respect to moving forward, members have to realize that we can create all of these injection sites across the country and they are one of maybe 10 ways that individuals may access help. They may go through an injection site and get into a relationship with somebody and end up in rehabilitation and recovery. It may be a family member who helps them get there. They may just wake up one day, or it may be through an emergency situation, at hospital, or through the justice system. However, if we do not have bandwidth up top to answer the call for the amount of people who need rehabilitation and recovery, then we are failing. It is a six to eight week wait, and sometimes it is a six month wait, to get into recovery and rehabilitation. That is what the government should be funding.

It is an important first step for the House to be having this discussion. I want to thank the House leader from the government side, as well as the House leaders from all of the parties, for letting this happen and making this happen in the House tonight.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for his advocacy with respect to this crisis. I wonder if he could comment on the failure of the government to provide education for young people about the harms of drugs and to not be paying attention to the lack of beds across the country. When drug addicts decide they want recovery, there are no beds available.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Chair, certainly prevention and education was a major theme in Portugal. In our report, “Care and Compassion: Fighting the Opioid Crisis”, we found that it was a major theme. It prevented people from going down this road. They met with people, specifically those who were at risk, where they lived, where they resided and encouraged positive behaviours. They did not use an anti-drug campaign. Rather, they used campaigns like “pedal with your own energy” to signify and symbolize a positive, healthy lifestyle. Therefore, the government needs to follow that example and do something with respect to it.

There is no question about the rehabilitation beds. If we spend $33 million of taxpayer money and we only create 25 beds, we are failing. We need to do better.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chair, the number of Canadian lives lost to the opioid crisis is staggering, sobering and growing. This crisis is affecting every community and every demographic across Canada. Over 10,000 Canadians have died from overdoses in the last three years alone and the death toll shows little sign of abating. Last year alone, nearly 4,000 Canadians lost their lives, more than from motor vehicle accidents and homicides combined.

The origins of this crisis can be traced back to the late 1990s, when the number of opioid prescriptions began to increase dramatically in Canada. Experts allege that drug manufacturers promoted this proliferation through a deliberate effort to minimize the risks associated with potent opioids like OxyContin.

According to drug safety expert, Dr. David Juurlink, the message that physicians should use these drugs more liberally was one they were happy to hear because of the limited treatment options available for chronic pain. Canada now ranks as the world's second biggest consumer of pharmaceutical opioids, second only to the United States.

To put that in perspective, 21 million prescriptions for opioids were dispensed in 2017. That is enough to stock every medicine cabinet in the country. In addition to the widespread dependency that was fostered by over-prescribing opioids, the escalating death toll that we are currently witnessing is largely attributable to the fact that the illicit or street drug supply in Canada has become toxic, overwhelmingly laced with poison and tainted with fentanyl.

A recent study by the B.C. Centre on Substance Use found that just 39% of drugs tested at two supervised consumption sites contained what the buyer thought they had been sold and there has been a devastating impact on first responders across our nation.

Given the scale and depth of this crisis, it is easy to succumb to despair and it is tempting to claim that there is nothing more that government can do. While there is no immediate or complete fix to this overdose epidemic, that does not mean we have exhausted all options for action. Indeed, there is much more that can and must be done.

Canada's New Democrats have a number of positive evidence-based proposals to bring this crisis under control. First, we must recognize that this crisis requires an emergency declaration at the national level. British Columbia, the epicentre of the opioid crisis, has been in a declared state of health emergency since April 2016. Canada's New Democrats have been calling for a similar declaration at the federal level for over two years. Unfortunately, the federal Liberal government has refused to use this tool. The Liberals claim that declaring a public health emergency is unnecessary, saying it would provide no additional levers for action. This is absolutely false.

Such a declaration would constitute a formal recognition that we have reached an emergency situation in this country when we are burying 11 Canadians a day. It would affirm to the public the urgency with which the federal government is approaching this crisis. In addition to its symbolic value, however, a declaration of a public health emergency would have the practical effect of empowering the federal government to coordinate a pan-Canadian response to this crisis, something it has not done to date.

Specifically, section 8(1) of the Emergencies Act grants the federal government clear authority to make orders or regulations that it believes are necessary for dealing with an emergency. This includes: the authorization of, or direction to, any person to render essential services; the regulation of the distribution and availability of essential goods, services and resources; the authorization and making of emergency payments; and the establishment of emergency shelters and hospitals.

This means we could cut red tape and allow the federal government to rapidly authorize and support overdose prevention services currently operating illegally and with no federal funding, but saving lives. This means that health professionals currently working at unsanctioned sites throughout Canada would no longer be forced to put their licences and personal liberty on the line to save lives. It would allow for the emergency allocation of resources on the scale needed to adequately address the mounting death toll.

Second, we must begin to treat substance use and addiction for what they are: health issues. Therefore, we need substantial new federal money for evidence-based addiction treatment across all modalities, from abstinence to 12-step to opioid substitution, tailored for every demographic from youth to women to indigenous Canadians. Treatment must be available as a fully insured service provided by our public health care system so that individuals and families can get timely access at quality facilities, regardless of income or ability to pay.

When people are ready to get treatment, they must get it immediately. They cannot wait even a day or they are risking a death sentence, yet on this score our public system fails utterly. For example, the wait-list for publicly funded beds at the Pine River Institute, Ontario's only residential treatment program for kids aged 13 to 19 years old, is a year and a half. Angie Hamilton, executive director of Families for Addiction Recovery, has rightly called the situation “unconscionable”. It is time to recognize that substance use disorder is a disease like any other. It is past time we closed the fatal gap in our health care system that fails to deliver the treatment that Canadians need.

Third, in the U.S., federal authorities have secured criminal pleas and over $600 million in fines, damages and other costs from Purdue Pharma for misbranding OxyContin with the intent to defraud and mislead. This summer, the NDP government of British Columbia also filed a civil lawsuit against opioid manufacturers and distributors to recoup the enormous public costs of addressing this crisis. That lawsuit is open to every province and territory and the federal government to join. If corporate executives minimized or concealed the addictive qualities of prescription opioids in the U.S., it is very possible that they did so in Canada as well. The New Democrats say it is time for the federal government to support B.C.'s lawsuit and launch an investigation itself to determine if criminal sanctions are warranted under federal law.

Fourth, we must be willing to look past the discredited “war on drugs” ideology in favour of an evidence-based approach to drug policy in Canada. Given that overdose mortality rates are overwhelmingly being driven by the tainted illicit drug supply, as every police officer in the country will tell us, it is clearly necessary to explore the decriminalization and medical regulation of substance use. Indeed, it is obvious that we could avoid thousands of unnecessary deaths if, instead of consuming poison, substance users had consistent access to regulated chemicals in a known dosage through our health care system.

The example of Portugal shows that decriminalization works. In 1999, there was a drug crisis in Portugal, related to a cheap toxic heroin supply. Faced with rising harms, the Government of Portugal decided to treat substance use as a public health issue, not a criminal one. The crisis in Portugal soon stabilized and the ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. Ninety per cent of public money spent fighting drugs in Portugal is now channelled toward health care goals and just 10% on enforcement. In contrast, in Canada, 70% of funding spent combatting drug use is spent on enforcement. In Portugal, six people per million die from drug overdoses. In Canada, the number is 110. It is time Canada explored this approach.

Finally, I wish to conclude my remarks by speaking directly to every Canadian who has lost a loved one. Their courage to show up, to speak up, to share their experiences and to demand more in the knowledge that we can do better, is inspiring. It is in the service of the greatest legacy we can pay to those we have lost to do everything in our power to prevent the avoidable, unnecessary death of another loved one to addiction. We can put an end to the marginalization and stigmatization of our country's most vulnerable citizens. We can turn the tide on this crisis and we can forge a better future based on courage, compassion, love and science. It is time we did so, and the New Democrats are working hard toward those goals.

[John Oliver, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.]

Madam Chair, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his passionate work at the health committee and the work that he took on with the health committee when a study was done of the opioid crisis.

I want to ask my colleague to reflect a bit on decriminalization. Decriminalization does not ensure a safe drug supply. Decriminalization does not make people seek treatment. Decriminalization does not solve the stigma problem that leads to people not moving forward.

Thus, the government is responding through evidence-based programs. Portugal's former head of drug policy has said that “decriminalization is not a silver bullet” to solve this crisis.

We are restoring harm reduction. We have opened supervised consumption sites. We are investing over $200 million in treatment centres, much of which has gone to British Columbia. We are fast-tracking regulatory action to cut red tape.

My question to my hon. colleague is this. Does he not agree that harm reduction and moving forward to encourage people to seek treatment as well as taking some of these other strategies are the building blocks to help resolve this crisis?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Chair, first, I think it is very important that we be very precise in our language. Nobody is calling any particular strategy a silver bullet in this debate and nobody is saying that decriminalization on its own is what is required. All the experts call for decriminalization and regulation to ensure that people are accessing their drugs through the health system, not buying their drugs at two in the morning on a street corner, in an alley, drug sick, from organized crime.

Interestingly, the grassroots of the Liberal Party voted at their own convention to bring in decriminalization because they realized that the cause of deaths in this country is people accessing a tainted drug supply.

I want to quote from an open letter signed by a coalition of 200 families, friends and organizations, including Bob Rae, the former leader of the Liberal Party. It states:

We urge you to be the progressive government you promised to be, choosing human rights and evidence-based policy over ideological relics.... We need you to listen to our voices as we call for the essential next step: decriminalization. The example of Portugal and other European countries illustrates that this policy works. We ask you to prevent thousands of more unnecessary deaths by supporting this resolution.

The exact same arguments were raised by the government for legalizing cannabis, namely, to take the product out of the hands of the black market, to ensure that Canadians have a supply of safe, regulated cannabis products. They are exactly identical to other drugs, except this is worse. These other drugs can kill.

It is even more important that we ensure that Canadians, if they are going to be using drugs, which nobody supports and nobody is encouraging, at least have access to drugs in known quantity and known substance so at least they are not dying. That is what New Democrats are calling for.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the members to take one minute to ask a question and one minute to answer, because there are a lot of people who want to ask questions.

The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for all the dedication he shows on the health committee.

One of the things that is really disappointing is to see that the government is in its fourth year of its mandate and there has been a crisis with opioids from the time that the Liberals were first elected. We still do not see the urgent action that is required.

I was interested in the member talking about declaring a national emergency. I wonder if he could comment on how that might increase the urgency of the action to address this crisis.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Chair, I think it is important to state that the number of opioid deaths in Canada has gone up every single year of the Liberal government's term. Either it is not taking effective action or when it says it is doing everything possible, it is clearly not enough. That is why the New Democrats are looking for creative, additional measures and steps. It is not acceptable to us that the death rate from opioids is rising. One of those steps is to declare it a public health emergency.

As I pointed out in my speech, it is important from a symbolic point of view. We cannot call this an emergency and have Canadians take us seriously if we are not actually prepared to use our powers legislatively and declare it so.

I think when the Liberal government refuses to declare this a public health emergency, it is sending a signal to Canadians that 11 Canadians dying every day from opioid overdose is not an emergency in their point of view. However, it is to New Democrats and I hope it is to the Conservative Party as well.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Chair, I would like to remind the hon. member of all the positive steps that our government has taken. The minister has been on the ground. The money has been given to British Columbia. Even the Right Hon. Prime Minister was on the ground talking to experts and having a round table to discuss how we can deal with this crisis. We have taken many positive steps.

When we look at the Conservatives, they are passionate about bringing this debate forward, but on the other hand they say that safe consumption sites are illegal. I would like to ask the hon. member what his opinion is about that statement from the Conservative member about these safe consumption sites.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Chair, the government is calling overdose prevention sites illegal and is refusing to give any federal money or take an obvious step like declaring a public health emergency and then using that power to declare overdose prevention sites as emergency hospitals, which would allow them to proliferate across this country and save lives tomorrow. The Liberals refuse to do that.

In terms of money, New Democrats are calling for substantial new federal money for treatment. The Liberals paid $4.5 billion for a pipeline. There should be $1 billion available for treatment in this country for Canadian families that need to get their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers into addiction treatment, which they cannot do now.

The Liberals gave $250 million a year, which works out to about $20 million, when it is divided among the provinces and territories. That is not enough to open a 50-bed treatment facility in each province. We need significantly more than that. The Liberal government is not putting its money where its mouth is. The Liberals are not treating this as the serious urgent health crisis that it is and that New Democrats know it is.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for his work on this critical issue. It is an emergency issue.

I listened to the health minister earlier. She said that the government is doing everything it can across the country as though there were overdose prevention sites and safe injection sites in every community.

In my community of Windsor-Essex, there are none. Our community is having a raging debate right now about whether or not to have one. On the weekend of November 10 and 11 of this year, we had five overdoses in a 24-hour period. Four people died and one person survived. This is an emergency but we cannot even get a site because there is no funding for it.

As the member said, if the government used its powers under the Emergencies Act to declare a national public health emergency, it would help communities like mine in Windsor-Essex that simply have nothing at this point. We are relying on volunteers and medical professionals who are afraid of losing their licences.

I wonder if the member could please comment on how declaring this an emergency would help communities like mine in Windsor-Essex.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Chair, under our federal legislation it is possible for a community to apply for a supervised injection site, but that takes a lot of paperwork and a lot of time. The New Democrats urged the government when it was first elected to change the Conservative legislation to make that happen more quickly and it has happened. There are more supervised injection sites in this country than there were before, but that is not enough.

We need overdose prevention sites to pop up in every community across the country because we cannot wait. We cannot wait another two years for a single supervised injection site to maybe open up in a particular community. We need these overdose prevention sites now and we need treatment facilities now.

The overdose prevention site in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver is operating illegally right now with no federal money. Brave people go to work every day and risk their professional licences in order to save lives. All it would take is the stroke of a pen by the Liberal government under the Emergencies Act to render that overdose prevention site legal and allow sites to proliferate across the country, but the government refuses to do it.

Worse still, the government is misleading Canadians by saying it has no powers under the Emergencies Act that would allow it to do anything more than what it is doing now. That is patently false. Any Canadian can read section 8 of the Emergencies Act and see for themselves, and ask the Liberals why they are refusing to exercise that power.

If the Liberals truly believe this is an emergency and they truly want to save lives, they should be doing it now. A New Democrat government would.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Chair, as the Minister of Health has talked about, this is a national emergency. It is a crisis. It is interesting to be following the New Democrat member, who was speaking about why Ottawa does not declare it a national emergency and invoke legislation to that effect.

During this debate, it is really important to have an appreciation of how important it is that Ottawa work with the provincial and territorial jurisdiction. I used to be a health critic in the province of Manitoba, and it is the provinces which are responsible for the delivery of health care services. When we talk about bed allocations, whether it is in a walk-in clinic, an emergency room in a tertiary hospital or a community hospital, or any other form of health care service, it is the provincial government which leads through the administration of health care. If we talk about nurses and doctors, who do people think is paying their salaries? The administration of health care is done through the provinces.

Canadians and Liberal governments from the past to the present have recognized how important it is that Canada demonstrate national leadership on the health care file. It is why we have a Canada Health Act. It is the reason we transfer hundreds of millions, going into the billions, of dollars every year to support health care. It is why we have a Minister of Health who meets with her provincial and territorial counterparts. It is one of the reasons we have direct relations with indigenous people in relation to health.

Canadians are not going to be fooled on the issue. We recognize it is an emergency, a crisis. The Minister of Health herself stated just minutes ago that every three hours someone dies in Canada as a direct result of this crisis. We have invested not tens of millions, but hundreds of millions of dollars to try to assist in alleviating this crisis situation.

As the opposition tries to point fingers and assign blame, we need to recognize how Ottawa can do more. We are exploring all sorts of ways in which we can deal with this crisis. The most significant ways to help would be to, one, provide financial resources, which we are doing in the sums of hundreds of millions of dollars, and two, to work with the different provinces. It is the provinces which have many of the levers. They too have tax dollars and are at the front lines. We need to work with the stakeholders.

This whole take-note debate was not only agreed to, but was pushed by the government House leader. Not that long ago, the member for Winnipeg Centre stood and talked about the crisis situation with crystal meth in the city of Winnipeg. To try to imply that this government is not doing anything on this crisis situation is bogus and disrespectful, because the Government of Canada is taking action. We are committing resources, negotiating and talking with different provinces and territories. We are working with the stakeholders, meeting with first responders and so forth.

We are making a difference. Whether the opposition wants to recognize it or not, lives have been saved by the actions of this government working with other governments and different stakeholders.

Yes, there is more that needs to be done. It is one of the reasons we want to hear this debate tonight. The opposition seems to be focused on just being critical of the government. Let us see genuine ideas come forward.

The biggest problem in Winnipeg North regarding overdose is crystal meth. It is destroying lives. It is killing people. It is causing all sorts of problems, including safety-related issues, in many communities in Manitoba. In Winnipeg North, it is very serious. In fact, a number of weeks ago, I had a tour with the Bear Clan. I understand the leader of the Conservative Party has been there. Our Governor General has been there. Other members have actually recognized the fine work that the Bear Clan has been doing in my home constituency of Winnipeg North.

As opposed to just taking a tour, if members really tried to understand the issue and the problems with crystal meth, they would have a better appreciation of why the different governments have to work together. It is not only the provincial and federal governments but the municipal government needs to work with them. We need to ensure that our first responders are engaged in this issue as well.

There is not just one issue. Declaring a public emergency under the Emergencies Act is not going to resolve the problem. The NDP members are really off-base on that.

If we want to have the biggest impact, the most significant thing we could do is provide financial resources. The government is doing that. We also need to work with the different stakeholders, the provincial entities, and to a certain degree, even our municipal governments. That is the way we are going to have a more positive impact on resolving the crisis that we are in today.

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

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are no points of order during this debate.

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

Could you please ask the member to stop screaming—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Then leave the chamber.

Madam Chair, that is so disrespectful. Because I am passionate on an important issue, the member feels it is offensive that I get a little passionate about it. If the member does not like the volume of my voice, then she should leave the chamber.

At the end of the day, this government is taking the necessary action in order to have an impact, and I am proud of the actions by the Minister of Health and the previous minister of health in dealing with this crisis situation. To try to imply that we are not dealing with it is just wrong.

In Winnipeg North, the issue is crystal meth. As I have indicated, it is destroying lives. It is causing a great deal of harm. If members were to go into some of our emergency wards, they would see people who are hooked on crystal meth. They are psychotic. Members have no idea what kind of behaviour could occur. People who are addicted are robbing stores, going into drugstores, walking along the streets causing all sorts of havoc in our communities. Then we have wonderful volunteer groups, wonderful first responders, governments at different levels that recognize the issue, and we are all trying to do our part to make a difference.

What I would suggest to the Minister of Health, personally, is to look at the issue of crystal meth. In some provinces, crystal meth is not as big an issue as it is in the province of Manitoba. I would ask the Minister of Health and the Department of Health to focus on the crystal meth issue. That is the problem in Winnipeg North, but I would suggest it goes beyond Winnipeg North. It has to be dealt with.

I was really encouraged that Manitoba was the sixth province to actually sign on with the emergency treatment fund. Manitoba took the initiative to recognize the issue of crystal meth and sign on, and as a direct result, we will see more treatment facilities.

That is what I mean in terms of working with the different provinces. Not only is Ottawa contributing money, but the provinces are also contributing. The province, which has a more hands-on approach, could identify how to maximize those resources. As a direct result of two governments working together and, I like to think, consulting with the first responders and others, we will in fact have additional beds.

My time is getting close to the end, so I would just recognize the work and efforts of the Bear Clan. It is a fantastic group with some outstanding volunteers. James Favel is a co-founder of the Bear Clan. I believe there are over 300 regular volunteers who walk the streets in the core of Winnipeg's north end. They do wonders. Some of those individuals, and I am thinking in particular of one individual I walked with, have been addicted to crystal meth. Directly and indirectly, groups of that nature are also contributing to dealing with this crisis situation.