Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2020

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beaches—East York for his bill.

It seems to me that is a very reasonable bill. It opens doors and proposes other options to professional people on the ground. I think it is a good bill, and I congratulate my colleague.

Some people will argue that this will undermine anti-crime initiatives and encourage people who sell drugs. I personally think that one very positive effect of this bill is that it could also help clear the backlog in the justice system. I wonder if my colleague could share his thoughts on those two points.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken to police chiefs in this country who have called for the decriminalization of drugs and for a new diversion approach. They have said they could then use their resources to go after drug traffickers, the people who are causing harm in our communities, rather than those who use drugs, as they are the very people we want to help.

We should regulate all drugs according to their respective harms, if we truly believe in that evidence, because the toxicity of our drug supply is what is killing people. Simply going after the traffickers is not going to stop that either.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I guess I am a bit perplexed with the speech the member for Beaches—East York just gave because it is a really fine speech for his other bill. He introduced Bill C-235, which talks about decriminalization. I just wonder whether he mixed up his speaking notes because everything he said tonight supports that other bill and not the bill he has decided to proceed with tonight.

Could the member explain to me why I am feeling so perplexed about that?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, very simply, I want a bill to go to committee so we can have the experts I referenced in my speech, who very few people will listen to and very few people will read, testify at committee about the importance of an evidence-based and health approach to our drug policies. This is the way of doing just that.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and hon. Liberal colleague from Beaches—East York for introducing this much-needed legislation. The war on drugs has failed my constituents. My riding of Saint John—Rothesay has a higher per capita opioid overdose rate than Vancouver. This legislation is critical to ensuring that we end the war on drugs, treat the opioid epidemic as a public health crisis and stop criminalizing those suffering from addiction. That is why I was proud be named as a seconder.

Can the member elaborate on how he feels this legislation will help ensure addiction is treated first and foremost as a public health matter rather than a criminal matter?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, very simply, the guiding principles emphasize evidence and a public health approach where the circumstances warrant it, and they say to prosecutors and police officers that they cannot proceed with laying or pursuing a charge unless it is consistent with these principles.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beaches—East York for tabling the bill and reworking what he previously tabled. This is something, as Conservatives, we are open to discussing.

I do not think there is any question with anybody in the House that the opioid crisis is going to be the number one health issue this country faces in the years to come. Even when COVID is resolved, hopefully when vaccines become available to Canadians in the new year, the ramifications and implications of this pandemic and the impact it has had on Canadians is going to be long-lasting.

We have seen the opioid crisis explode to proportions I do not think any of us could have ever predicted. I look at my own province of Alberta, where the opioid overdose deaths from January to June tripled from the first quarter to the second quarter of last year. The implications of COVID and the resulting growth in the opioid crisis is a challenge that all of us as parliamentarians have to understand. We have to start addressing this with real solutions and real partnerships between the various different levels of government. This is not a partisan issue. All of us in the House want to find a way to help Canadians in their recovery.

We had a doctor from B.C. appear at the Standing Committee on Health on Monday. She talked about the opioid crisis in B.C., and B.C. is now seeing record levels of opioid overdose deaths. B.C. was certainly the epicentre of this crisis, but as my colleague from Atlantic Canada just said, we have seen this spread from one part of the country to the next. There is no segment of our population that is immune to the impacts of the opioid crisis.

I applaud my colleague for bringing this forward and taking the focus off legalizing illicit drugs. I agree with him that this is not what the bill is about. Bill C-236 is not about legalizing or decriminalizing illicit drugs. It is about putting a focus on treatment and recovery. Unfortunately, there are some things missing from this private member's bill that I think could be strengthened. If we get this to committee, I hope my colleague is open to some amendments and we can work together to strengthen the bill.

I have to chime in on the comment my colleague made about Conservative provincial governments not supporting recovery and treatment for these addictions. Premier Jason Kenney in Alberta named Jason Luan the minister of mental health and addictions, one of the first provincial governments in Canadian history to have a minister in cabinet dedicated to mental health and addictions. It has funded more than 4,000 new treatment beds in the province of Alberta alone. This is not a Conservative conspiracy in which we do not believe in treatment and recovery. My colleague is way off the mark on that.

As I said, I do not think this is a partisan issue in any way. Every government across the country at every level is struggling to find ways to deal with this with limited resources. One of the problems with my colleague's private member's bill is that it really lacks teeth and accountability.

The bill really highlights what is already happening in many jurisdictions across Canada with most police forces. The Liberal government put out a directive in 2016 asking police forces not to charge and go to the court system for simple possession, and many police forces across the country are following up on that directive. Many officers, if they are pulling someone over with a minimal amount of drugs, are not charging them and not putting them through the legal system. Therefore, what the bill does is try to formalize what is already informal across the country.

The bill does not put enough emphasis, teeth or accountability on the recovery aspect. One of the keys to the bill is that a police officer would have the discretion to allow a person who has not been charged yet to choose between two streams. The officer could take the person to a recovery centre to get treatment, but it would have to be at that person's discretion. If the person refuses, then it would be the end of the discussion. They can still potentially be charged, but there is no accountability or no mandatory option to go to recovery.

I am hoping that my colleague will be open to that amendment so that there would be some teeth and accountability in the bill, which would put the focus on a mandatory recovery and treatment element when it comes to dealing with opioid addiction.

I agree with him that this is a mental health issue, and as I said at the beginning of my speech, I think this is the biggest mental health issue this country has or will ever face. We have to find a solution or put some resources into it. I know my colleague also mentioned the position of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. He is right that the association does support decriminalization of illicit drugs, but with a caveat that he failed to mention.

The caveat is that there have to be resources in provinces for recovery, and in their report they say that does not exist at this time. Therefore, they really do not support decriminalization of all illicit drugs, which, again, the bill does not do, but I think it highlights that the focus needs to be on the recovery aspect, which is missing from the bill. I know my colleague has tried to step back from going all the way to decriminalization and tried to bring this to something that all of us in the House can work on as a starting point, but it still lacks some of those elements that we would like to see. As I said, in reality a lot of these things are already being done by police officers.

The other element that I hope my colleague would be open to is not about the mandatory recovery but about when an officer is having that interaction with a person. They can take notes of how many times they have had this discussion and offered a recovery option to that person, but that is not admissible, should it ever go to court. For example, if I have pulled Joe Smith over and have had this discussion with Joe Smith on multiple occasions, and on multiple occasions I have offered Joe Smith two options, to take it to the criminal justice system or to go to recovery, again the onus is on Joe Smith. If he says no, then that option is no longer viable.

However, I could have had that discussion with Joe Smith 17,000 times and there is no chance for that, but if that element was admissible, should he ever have to go through the justice system, we could say that we have had this discussion on many occasions and we have offered him the opportunity to go to recovery and he has refused over and over again. Therefore, the only option would be a criminal justice pathway. I think that needs to be an element in there.

The other aspect to this is that these drugs are dangerous. There is no question. They are killing Canadians from every walk of life, and I know many of us in the House have had personal relations or experiences with this. I know in my riding I had one first nations community that had 18 fentanyl overdose deaths in one month. I have had too many friends and acquaintances who have lost loved ones, including me: a friend I played senior hockey with for many years. I do not want to have those conversations anymore. There has to be a way to get through this, but there have to be consequences.

I understand that when someone is caught with an amount of drugs that is just for their possession, we can look at the mental health and addiction recovery, but there have to be harsh consequences for those who are peddling these drugs, the dealers who are killing those Canadians. We also have to ensure that there are hard consequences and enough resources to CBSA to ensure that we are not having these drugs, specifically fentanyl, imported into our country. With COVID, we are seeing limitations on travel, but now we are seeing an increase in poison and toxins put into these drugs here at home. There have to be consequences.

In conclusion, I am hoping my colleague will be open to amendments and having this discussion, but as this sits now it will be difficult for us to support without some of those accountability elements and the teeth to ensure focus on a mandatory element to recovery and rehabilitation.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is consistent with what is already being done in Quebec.

We see diversion as a good thing. It is understood that living in society implies compliance with a certain number of rules established by society and within a legal framework, and that people who do not obey those rules will be sanctioned. We agree on this point. For instance, someone who traffics in drugs must go through the criminal justice system and, if found guilty, go to prison.

However, we also think that this is not a panacea. Ultimately, what we want is not to put as many people as possible in prison, but to live in a society that respects everyone's rights, somewhere that is a great place to live and where everyone accepts and respects the various rules that we have set for ourselves.

Once again, while some crimes should be severely punished, other offences should be dealt with through a different process. Quebeckers believe strongly in rehabilitation and education for these individuals.

This bill addresses a specific situation in which a police officer arrests someone who is in possession of drugs for personal use and not for the purposes of trafficking.

This is obviously not an ideal situation. Drugs are harmful to those who use them, but also to their families, friends and communities. Drug use is therefore something we want to address.

Instead of sending this person to prison, we would use diversion measures and social reintegration. There are various possibilities. As I was saying, Quebec already does this with young offenders. For example, a young person who commits an offence at a corner store may be sentenced to work at that corner store. If the young person graffitis a wall, they may be sentenced to clean the wall or repaint the inside of the corner store.

The offender will be given a punishment that will teach them a lesson and make them not want to commit the offence again, which is better than ending up in prison as a preventative measure.

Although putting someone in prison for two or three years for a drug-related crime can sometimes convince them to never use drugs again, most of the time, the person is at high risk of reoffending. The person may start to feel victimized, excluded from society and judged. When they are released, they will still have the same bad habits and hang out with the same crowd, which is not good for them.

Instead of sending that person to prison for one, two or three years, we can use alternative forms of punishment designed to help them understand the negative impact of drug use on their own health and that of their partner, children, entire family and community. We may not succeed all the time, but if it works in even 15%, 20% or 30% of cases, it would still be much better than what currently happens. We would improve our society, and we would be taking every possible measure to help these individuals not just to change their behaviour, but to do so of their own volition, after realizing the harmful effects of their previous behaviour.

For these reasons, I believe that this bill should be studied, if only in committee. It will surely need to be amended. I noted earlier that there are problems with the translation, particularly with the proposed new paragraph 10.1(b). The English version says “reduce harm to those individuals”, whereas the French version says “réduire les méfaits”, which is not a good translation, in my view.

There are some small mistakes like that that will need to be fixed, and perhaps some amendments should be made to the substance of the bill. However, one thing is certain, Bill C-236 should be studied and passed to improve the lives of everyone we live with in society.

Earlier, members spoke about stigmatization. I will give some examples. Of course a person who spends one, two or three years in prison and then looks for a job when they get out will have to say that they just got out of prison. Obviously, that will not help them get a job. If that person does not find a job, then they will be more likely to look for other sources of income. They will be caught in a vicious circle, and we might end up encouraging what we want to discourage, something we do not want to do.

Obviously there are also health issues. We often talk about drug use, which is illegal. People who use do not use in broad daylight and often hide. They use syringes that have not been disinfected or have been poorly disinfected. They share other paraphernalia for using drugs or they share drugs that might be composed of more harmful substances than they should be.

Some people think that this needs to be regulated, but I believe that we should try to find a way to help these people instead of punishing them. If I had a child or another family member who had a drug problem, I would hope to be able to help them understand the adverse effects and convince them to change their behaviour in order to experience more happiness. I want that for my family and for everyone. I encourage us to vote in favour of Bill C‑236.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a timely debate, as I think all members of Parliament recognize. We are not only in a pandemic, but we are also in an ongoing overdose crisis that has been made even worse by the pandemic. In Canada, we have had over 16,000 overdose deaths since 2016. In my own community on southern Vancouver Island, there have been more than 449 overdose deaths since 2016.

This represents an enormous toll on families in my riding. Families have lost loved ones, be they fathers, mothers, siblings or children. Here is the kicker: on the south island, during this pandemic, the number of deaths from overdoses has nearly doubled this year over last. I know that the same pattern has been occurring across the country.

Without a doubt, there is a pressing need to address the overdose crisis. I acknowledge the member for Beaches—East York for trying to suggest ways for the House to grapple with this problem. The bill we have in front of us today is, in fact, one of two bills put on the Order Paper by the member for Beaches—East York. As I remarked, I have some trouble understanding why he has chosen this bill, rather than the other bill.

The other bill I am talking about is Bill C-235, which would address the overdose crisis directly by decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of prohibited drugs for personal use, thus shifting our response from punishment to harm reduction for addiction: something that is clearly a health problem or a medical condition.

In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the member for Beaches—East York just gave a very eloquent speech in support of his other bill, Bill C-235. He laid out all the reasons in his speech for decriminalization. Unfortunately, he has decided to proceed with the other bill, which completely misses the mark as a response to this crisis.

I will come back to the details of Bill C-236 in a moment, but first I want to stress how happy New Democrats would be to support his first bill instead. Personally, I have been a supporter of the decriminalization of drugs for decades, including during the whole time I taught criminal justice at the post-secondary level.

I first publicly called for decriminalization as a city counsellor in Esquimalt. When I did this, we were beginning to recognize the extent of the overdose crisis. At that time, some questioned why a city counsellor would be dealing with this question. My answer was simple. When members of our communities are dying unnecessary deaths, deaths that scar our communities, why would we not take the path to reducing these losses when the path is so clear?

Former NDP MP Libby Davies was an early and strong supporter of decriminalization in the House. She made her position very clear in 2013, when the Harper government was seeking to shut down Insite, which at the time was the only safe injection site in Canada.

At the NDP convention in 2018, delegates passed a resolution calling for an end to criminalization of personal possession of drugs. I am proud that my party was the first Canadian party to include decriminalization in our election platform. We desperately need a bill to do this, but Bill C-236 is not that bill.

Instead, we have a bill that only proposes alternatives to charging people for possession, something that is, in fact, already the practice in most jurisdictions. To me, it seems to be a waste of the House's time and efforts to focus on something like Bill C-236, and diversion from charges, when the simple solution is to end charging altogether by ending criminalization of personal possession of drugs.

This bill does nothing to help persons struggling with addiction get the help they need without fear of arrest. It is still there. Nor does it touch on the real criminals: those who traffic and profit from the addictions of others in our communities. The absence of federal leadership on this issue has led to repeated pleas for help from mayors and premiers.

This past July, Premier Horgan of British Columbia wrote to the Prime Minister, asking that the government decriminalize personal possession of drugs. Just a few days ago, I spoke with Vancouver mayor and former MP Kennedy Stewart, whose frustration with the lack of federal action on the opioid crisis caused him to strike out on an innovative plan.

He has requested by letter a federal exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize illicit drugs within the City of Vancouver's boundaries so that the City can properly address the public health concerns caused by the opioid crisis. His resolution cites a number of factors in favour of decriminalization. Many of the same ones were mentioned in the speech by the member for Beaches—East York.

Mayor Stewart begins by citing the very high number of deaths in Vancouver from overdoses. He also cites how COVID makes the overdose crisis worse by further isolating drug users within the community, by limiting access to harm reduction services and, as we have seen most recently, by the increasing toxicity of the drug supply on the streets.

He cited the support of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. He cited the support of the B.C. provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry. He cited the support of organizations such as the Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. He also made a final point, which I think is worthy of us noting in the House, that decriminalization is a way to address the overdose crisis, but it is also an important part of any program to address the systemic racism in our justice system.

Why is Bill C-236 so weak? It is described as an evidence-based diversion framework. We already have that in practice, as I said, in most jurisdictions. It will do nothing for the person who eventually refuses any of those alternatives because they will still end up charged and will still end up with a criminal record for drug possession.

There are also some technical problems with the bill. I am still a recovering criminal justice instructor. I doubt that the bill could actually be applied in British Columba, Quebec or New Brunswick, because the bill is modelled on the Ontario system, where the police lay charges. In those three provinces, the police do not lay charges. I wonder whether the bill has actually taken into account the reality of British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick. I do not think that it has.

The bill seeks to reduce the criminalization of drug users through diversion from charges, something which, again, is already taking place in most jurisdictions. The simple solution is right before our eyes. Here is what New Democrats have been calling for to meet the challenges of this other epidemic. These are measures based on sound, evidence-based health policy. We have five things that we say Canadians need.

Canadians need, right now, a national declaration of a public health emergency on the opioid crisis. Canadians need federal funding and stable funding for overdose prevention sites. Canadians need improved access to treatment on demand for people struggling with addictions. Canadians need an end to the poisoned street supply and access to a safe supply of drugs as a medically regulated alternative to the toxic street drugs offered, most of the time, by organized crime. Canadians need to see an investigation into the role of drug companies and the role they may have played in fuelling the opioid crisis, and they need to see a demand put forward for meaningful financial compensation from those companies that profited off the opioid crisis.

Bill C-236 says it used evidence-based measures to come to the conclusion that we need diversion. I would say that is not where it leads us at all. These demands and measures are strongly supported by public health advocates. The police, and all of those who are really interested in public health, say we need decriminalization. The war on drugs has been a clear failure. Instead of stigmatizing and punishing Canadians who are suffering from substance use disorders, it is time for bold and compassionate leadership from the federal government.

While the overdose crisis strikes at all Canadian families, a response that meets the needs of our most marginalized communities is urgently required. The fact that we are dealing with a private member's bill on this topic, and the fact that we have no government bill or government response to the opioid crisis, tells us a lot. We need a bill. The member for Beaches—East York gave an eloquent speech tonight, just as I said, in support of the wrong bill. It is his other bill we need to be dealing with.

Bill C-236 is not the bill that Canadians need. New Democrats will not be supporting a bill that does little or nothing to address the opioid crisis. We need bold action now but, unfortunately, there is no bold action in Bill C-236. Bill C-236, as I said, will actually take up time in the House we could use more productively to decriminalize personal possession of drugs in this country.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege and honour tonight to have both seconded Bill C-236 and speak to it.

I want to thank the member for Beaches—East York for his tremendous work on this bill and for prompting the House to take steps to save lives. It is not often we as members of Parliament get to do things that will save lives. I think that is what this bill, once it becomes law, will do.

I would not agree with the previous speaker. I think when one wants to make a difference in Canada, sometimes we do it incrementally, one step at a time. I think this bill is important for us to look at ways in which we can address the situation, not finish addressing it, but continue addressing it. In short, it is time to develop a health-focused approach to substance abuse to end the stigma against drug users. It is time to move the problem of addictions and substance abuse out of the criminal justice system and into the health care system. It is time to give Canadians, who find themselves in trouble due to their addictions and, yes, sometimes due to their bad choices, an off-ramp so they can get the help they need rather than sinking deeper into despair or death.

As a United Church minister working with families for a quarter of a century, I came to the conclusion that our approach to illegal drugs in Canada is not working. It causes more harm than good and needs to be changed. This bill is a modest attempt at doing that, a first step to see if diverting people from the criminal justice system to the health system will make a positive difference. My instinct is it will. That is why I am pleased to support it. I would encourage all people to support it and not let perfection get in the way of doing good.

It is a simple state of fact that the use of illegal drugs in Canada persists, despite laws, police activity, criminal prosecutions and incarcerations. Making criminals out of people who use these substances is not working. It is time to rethink our approach. This bill amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which engages evidence-based diversion measures, is a smart, modest first step in the right direction.

The concern is real. As we have already heard tonight, the B.C. coroner's service recently reported 162 people died of illicit drug overdoses in British Columbia last month, an average of about five overdose deaths per day. This year, in my own city of Toronto, we are on track for over 450 opioid overdose deaths, up from about 300 in each of the last two years. In October alone, Toronto set an all-time record for persons killed by overdose in one month.

The opioid crisis has killed over 16,000 Canadians since 2016. COVID-19 is critically worsening the opioid overdose crisis, a pandemic driving an epidemic.

In 2020, Ontario is hurtling toward 2,271 opioid deaths compared to 1,500 in 2019. Those are real people dying, with real lives, dreams and aspirations. Families, loved ones and friends are being crushed by this loss.

In 2017, I was approached by the indomitable Angie Hamilton and Louise White of Families for Addiction Recovery. Their organization works to help parents and families who are on the front lines of addiction. Their personal stories and those they shared with me from families across Canada inspired me to learn more about the subject. With their help, I organized a round table with 25 experts, including health care workers, medical practitioners, lawyers, academics, and representatives from law enforcement and community groups. I followed this up with a town hall, a meeting for the Don Valley West community, and then a meeting with my constituency youth council asking for their advice on this pressing issue. The verdict was unanimous. The current system is not working. Health care professionals, law enforcement officials, public policy experts, youth and families have asked for significant changes. They want many things. They want more resources and on-demand treatment. They want to erase stigma. Primarily, they want an evidence-based, medically focused approach to addictions and drug use in Canada.

This was confirmed very recently at a town hall I held virtually on this subject in my riding. This bill is a step in the right direction, giving opportunities to people whose lives are at risk.

At every discussion I have had with experts, stakeholders and community members, the message has been loud and clear: An alternative approach, a public health approach, is required and that is why I am supporting my colleague, the member for Beaches—East York, with this bill.

Our current system is not reducing illegal psychoactive substance use. It results in stigmatization and reduces opportunities for recovery. It ostracizes people who need help the most. It hurts those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum and it puts up barriers to social engagement, employment and housing. As we have heard, it targets racialized communities.

The alternative to criminalization is a public health approach. I want to be clear: Bill C-236 would not decriminalize drug possession for personal use. That may be a goal or it may not be a goal; it is for some, it is not for others. This bill is a step forward, with a view to obtain widespread support from both sides of this House so that we can make a gradual, thoughtful change to the law and make a difference in people's lives.

What this bill would do is create an evidence-based diversion framework to ensure that before police officers or prosecutors, depending on the jurisdiction, move forward with laying or pursuing a charge they must consider whether it is sufficient to give a warning, to refer an individual in need to a public health agency or provider, or to pursue alternative measures to incarceration.

We have many examples of good diversion projects in this country. The bill would provide in law an opportunity to use common sense to give law enforcement officers and prosecutors a legal framework to do what, in some cases, they are already doing, but in all cases what I know they want to do: to send people who are in trouble toward those who can help them. It takes drug use seriously, it takes evidence into account and it puts people first.

I repeat. This bill does not go far enough for some, it may go too far for others. It does not decriminalize drugs, but it is an encouragement to move to treatment instead of criminal prosecution, getting people a chance to have an off-ramp, a chance to get into the health system where they can get the help they need. It would give police, prosecutors and judges an option to recommend treatment over criminal charges if the circumstances warrant.

I want to mention that I have been involved in diversion projects in the past. When I was living in Yukon and Whitehorse, I worked with the RCMP on their diversion projects.

One particular case I remember is a break-in that happened at Whitehorse United Church, my church. It was just after Christmas, and the church had been broken into. Someone had come in and vandalized it, but had particularly stolen the baby Jesus out of the crèche at the front of the church. The police came and asked me what was stolen, and I said, “Jesus was stolen”. They asked if I could describe Jesus. I said that it might be a matter of faith or theology, but that the Jesus that was stolen from our church was a small plastic Jesus that was in the crèche.

The police found the perpetrator. I was invited to a diversion opportunity and I worked with this young man. I helped this kid get the help he needed to make sure that he did not continue to steal objects from churches. As recently as a year ago, I had a report that it is working. Diversion away from criminal justice formal systems and away from incarceration has a proven track record in Canada.

In the name of Jesus, I would say tonight that I urge members of this House to get this bill to committee where it can be discussed, and amended if needed and where members can offer their experience, their advice and their ideas and get thoughtful advice from experts in the field, where it can be examined and be seen as a modest response to a terrible tragedy, taking steps toward the healing of all people. Let us get together. This is a public health emergency. We have the chance to do something small that will make a real difference.

It is an honour to be here tonight. I hope all members will consider supporting this extremely important bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I was impressed with the analogy that my colleague brought to the floor of the House. I do not have a Jesus story like that to convey, but I have participated in previous years in the justice committee. The justice committee deals with a lot of young people who often fall on the wrong side of the law. They will be brought before a justice committee where the matter can be dealt with, especially when the victim and the perpetrator come together to achieve a result that both sides agree is most appropriate.

This is an issue that is of great importance for me, in that in Winnipeg North there are very serious addiction issues. We can take walks with some of our non-profit groups who make excellent, wonderful efforts, such as the Bear Clan. I know that members of all political parties, either directly or indirectly, are familiar with the Bear Clan. Individual members of Parliament and others walk with them to get a sense of the degree of drug abuse, in particular the concentration and correlation of very strong abuse in that area of Winnipeg, a good portion of which I represent.

I am pleased when I hear that this is not as much a criminal matter as it is a social, economic and, in many ways, a mental issue. We need to look at ways that we can shift it over to the health area. I see that as a benefit and am very interested. Unlike my New Democratic friend who provided his thoughts on it, I applaud the member for the way he wants to get this subject matter before a standing committee. I appreciate what he is saying. I too would be very interested in hearing what other experts have to contribute to the debate.

When we passed the legislation for the legalization of cannabis, there was a great deal of concern regarding that and a lot of the concern has been addressed. I believe there is far less gang activity as a result, in terms of the selling of cannabis.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member will have the opportunity to complete his remarks when the question is next before the House.

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Persons with Disabilities

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity tonight to address the government's very irresponsible and dangerous legislation, Bill C-7. This is the government's effort to expand euthanasia and to remove many safeguards that people in the disability community, as well as experts, have said are vital.

The government prorogued Parliament limiting debate and now is rushing through this legislation. We are hearing many concerns from people across Canada and even from people in the government's own caucus. The member for Richmond Hill said he supports leaving in place the 10-day reflection period, but it is not just members. There are actually ministers who have concerns about the impact that the legislation will have on people with disabilities.

I want to read a quote from the minister whose responsibilities include disability inclusion. The minister said, “I absolutely acknowledge and am quite preoccupied by the power imbalance between practitioners and patients, particularly patients who have been in systems that have discriminated against them and ignored their voices their entire lives. I have grave concerns with the particular circumstances of the individual that you spoke of. Quite frankly, I can tell you, he is not alone.” The minister further said, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child, in and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.”

We are hearing concerns from people in the disability community, reflected by the minister, that already people with disabilities, when they are having interactions with the health care system, are getting proactively proposed and encouraged toward euthanasia. They are even told if they reject those pushes, they are being selfish. This is very concerning.

We have heard from the disability community how this bill would enshrine in law discrimination against people with disabilities. It would create a situation where a person without a disability who is experiencing suicidal ideation might be offered suicide prevention, but a person with a disability who presents with the same challenges and sense of existential angst would be offered suicide facilitation, and in fact, encouraged in the direction of euthanasia even if they have not asked for it.

Conservatives proposed reasonable, common-sense amendments to try to leave in safeguards. They are safeguards we know members of the government caucus would actually support if they were given the freedom to vote their real convictions on this.

We proposed amendments to leave in place a 10-day reflection period. That reflection period can already be waived, but as a default, we think a reflection period makes sense so that we do not have same-day death and we do not have people who make the request and die the same day. That is why a reflection period, which can be waived in certain circumstances but is provided as a default, is important.

We have proposed that people be asked on the day they receive euthanasia whether or not they want to go through with it. Right now with the mechanism for advance requests that the government has put in place, there is no requirement that patients would be consulted on the day they receive euthanasia.

We propose specifically an amendment that the Minister of Disability Inclusion seems to support, even if the Minister of Justice does not. It is an amendment that requires that it be the patient who brings it up, not the physician, so that someone does not go into the hospital, a person with a disability, and get told they should think about taking their life. If that conversation is going to happen, it has to be the patient who starts it.

These are reasonable, common-sense amendments and the government rejected 100% of the common-sense Conservative amendments. They were not just Conservative amendments. They were amendments put forward by experts, by people in the disability community and by people who have been ignored in the government's rush to move this forward after it prorogued Parliament.

This is an issue of life and death and of how we respect people living with disabilities, how we recognize and ought to affirm the value and dignity of all human life, and the fact that people living with disabilities ought not be pushed in one direction, which people who are able-bodied are not.

That is what is in front of us and I implore all members of Parliament to look at the details, consult their own conscience, consult their own constituents, maybe even talk to members of their own caucus who have concerns, and support common-sense—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, as members of the House well know, there are few issues as complex and as personal as medical assistance in dying. Medical assistance in dying forces us to reconcile many fundamental values: equality, respect for life and individual autonomy. We accept that reasonable people can disagree on the best way to achieve balance in respect of all the implicated interests and values.

As a government, we must make choices on behalf of Canadians that we believe are the right ones for each individual and for all of us collectively. Bill C-7 reflects our best assessment of sound policy that is constitutionally valid. We believe it is consistent with the views of most Canadians who participated in our consultation processes. We further believe it is responsive to many of the concerns and recommendations of numerous and varied experts whose opinions were shared in round tables, expert panel reports, academic articles and other sources.

We certainly know some members of the House believe the safeguards in the existing law reflect a more appropriate balance. We respect these differences of opinion. That is what we are here to do. We are all here to reflect the diversity of views of the Canadians we represent. However, we believe our chosen course of action is the correct one. It is the product of deep reflection and significant consultation, and puts the interests of each individual at the centre of their own medical choices.

We remain committed to the removal of the 10-day reflection period for persons whose death is reasonably foreseeable. We heard over and over again that this safeguard does not provide the protection it was intended to and that instead it aggravates these already difficult situations.

We are also committed to the proposal that would enable those whose death is reasonably foreseeable to make arrangements with their MAID provider for a waiver of final consent in the unfortunate eventuality that they lose their capacity to consent to MAID before the scheduled day. Without this change, some who are found eligible will choose to die sooner than they want, depriving themselves of precious remaining time with their families, rather than risk losing the option to die by their preferred manner of death.

While we understand the ethical and philosophical concerns with the idea of administering MAID to persons who are no longer able to consent, the practical reality of those who wish to spend a little more time with their families is of prime importance. Any expression of resistance would put a stop to the administration of MAID. This is clear in the bill. All that would be permitted is for the practitioner to carry out the person's own clear and precise wishes as to the date and manner of their death.

I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage my colleague to help us limit the unnecessary suffering of Canadians and help us ensure this important legislation receives royal assent prior to the December 18 court deadline.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is frustrating to hear that nonsense about consultation. Over a thousand physicians have signed a letter sounding the alarm about this. One hundred per cent of disability organizations that appeared before the committee raised serious concerns about the legislation, as written. The person in the federal cabinet charged with speaking up for Canadians with disabilities and ensuring their voices are heard, that minister, is being ignored in her concerns.

Forgive me for having a hard time accepting the parliamentary secretary's claim to have consulted when the government has not listened to any of the physicians, any of the disability rights organizations or its own minister responsible for these issues.

The member wants us to help relieve the unnecessary suffering of Canadians. I would be happy to help all day long on supplying good-quality palliative care and ensuring people with disabilities can live in dignity in this country, instead of this focus on death.

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

Madam Speaker, I remain confident Bill C-7 is the right approach for Canada now. It would advance the interests of individual choice and autonomy in medical decision-making. If an individual determines for themselves that they are suffering intolerably and make a voluntary request for MAID as well as receive all the information they need to make an informed decision, including being offered alternative treatments and services, I believe we owe it to them to respect their decision.

At the same time, it would ensure requests from the newly eligible, whose death is not foreseeable, would be handled with great care and attention, with the input of experts and time to identify and explore other treatment options. We trust practitioners will do more than the minimum standards set out in the safeguards in all appropriate cases.

The Environment

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, climate accountability is vital if we want to reduce our emissions. We have missed every single climate target that we have set, so it is hard to understand and wrap my head around why the government would put forward a climate accountability bill that avoids any real accountability for a decade. It puts off accountability for the most important 10 years. This huge omission of a 2025 milestone target is baffling.

The world's top scientists are telling us that the next decade, this decade that we are living in, is the most critical. The next 10 years are the ones that the IPCC reports say are crucial if we want to have any hope of avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change, so it is really difficult for me to understand how Liberal members of Parliament can stand behind this bill, how they can look young people in the eyes and tell them they have to wait for another decade.

However, it is not just young people who are worried about the climate crisis. Canadians are already seeing the impacts. This past summer in B.C., people of all ages were choking on the smoke from the climate fires down south. Grandparents are worried about the world that we are leaving to the next generations. Communities across Canada are already experiencing the billions of dollars of climate costs associated with adapting to climate change. Local governments are spending $5.3 billion a year right now and in the coming decades that number is expected to grow exponentially.

The Liberals said they would provide milestone targets every five years, so why is there no 2025 milestone target? Why put off accountability for 10 years? Why continue the trend of kicking the can down the road when it comes to addressing the climate crisis?

Even with a 2025 milestone target we need stronger accountability mechanisms than the bill would provide, both with the arm's-length advisory body and with the environment commissioner. Neither of these bodies have the capacity or the mandate in this bill to adequately hold the government to account. In this bill, the minister is mainly accountable to himself. If we want to fix these issues and if we want to strengthen the bill, we need to clearly define the advisory body's role.

We have to guarantee that body would be comprised of independent experts. These fixes would strengthen the advisory body, but we also need to ensure that the environment commissioner is reporting on whether our targets are in line with the best available science, whether our climate plan will actually get us to our targets, whether our progress report and our assessment report are accurate, and whether the proposed corrective actions are adequate to address the times when we get off track. It cannot be the party in power being accountable to itself.

The environment commissioner could play an important role in the legislation, but we learned recently that the environment commissioner has not had the resources to do the current regular environmental work. We not only need to give the environment commissioner adequate funding, but we need to ensure that this never happens again. I am curious whether the government will agree to make the environment commissioner an independent officer of Parliament.

There are a number of other gaps. I am curious why the government is not using the language of carbon budgets and a framework of carbon budgeting instead of milestone targets. Why are we not requiring the minister to meet strong standards when setting targets, when—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are already seeing the effects of climate change. We know they want us to take ambitious climate action. That is why the government introduced the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, which will include a target to ensure that Canada achieves net-zero emissions by 2050, making us one of the first 10 countries in the world to achieve that goal.

However, before achieving net-zero emissions in the long run, we have to reduce Canada's emissions in the short and medium terms. Under the Paris Agreement, Canada is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. We pledged to exceed that objective, and we will soon be announcing stronger measures to ensure we do.

There are several elements of the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act that would help ensure that the work to reach the 2030 targets starts early and leads to reductions in the short term.

The act would require the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to table and make public an emissions reduction plan that sets out key measures and strategies to achieve the 2030 target within six months of royal assent. The minister would also be required to provide an update on progress toward achieving the 2030 target at least once by the end of 2027, and the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development would be required, at least once every five years after royal assent, to examine and report on implementation of the measures meant to achieve the target.

It should be expected that the impact of the measures will increase over time. To get the actions right, we need to consult with stakeholders, provinces, territories and indigenous groups. While the new measures we are coming forward with will start to drive down emissions before 2030, we expect reductions will ramp up over time.

A good example of this is Canada's existing regulations for light-duty vehicles, which introduces increasingly stringent performance standards for each new model year. Another example is the government's commitment to plant two billion trees. Once planted, trees absorb an increasing amount of carbon over time, although the amount is small in the initial years. The new or enhanced measures would ensure that we can exceed our 2030 target and drive even deeper reductions toward 2050.

Looking to the long term, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act includes an array of accountability and transparency mechanisms, as well as provisions for public participation and expert advice, all of which will apply at regular intervals over the coming 30 years and help to keep successive governments on track. This includes requirements to seek the input of provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, experts and Canadians when setting each emissions reduction target and the plans to meet the targets.

Progress reports and final assessment reports will inform Canadians about the implementation of each plan and the emissions reductions each has achieved. If a target is not met, the government will have to explain why and indicate what it will do to remedy that failure. These mechanisms will ensure a transparent, accountable and successful approach to achieving our long-term goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for being here tonight, but I cannot thank him for answering my questions, because he did not really answer them.

He used examples for back-loading some of the climate action when it comes to zero-emission vehicles. We are not on track to meet our targets for selling zero-emission vehicles. Transport Canada has said we are not even halfway there, and in five years we will not even be a quarter of the way there.

Why is the government afraid to put in accountability? Why is it not showing us where it will be in 2025? Why are there not stronger accountability mechanisms?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, in reality, we are accountable for this. We are submitting regular reports for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on its greenhouse gas emissions and climate change actions. The reporting includes the annual submission of the national inventory report detailing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions for every year dating back to 1990. Canada also submits a biannual report every two years and a national communications report every four years.

These reports provide extensive information on Canada's actions to address climate change and projections of Canada's emissions out to the year 2030. In years when Canada does not submit one of these reports, the government publishes a separate emissions project report, which includes the same forward-looking projections.

We are being transparent, and the act will require us by law to be transparent moving forward. That is why it is good for Canadians and our children and grandchildren.

International Trade

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada has trade relationships with democratic countries that have standards and regulations that exceed our own. We also have trade relationships with undemocratic countries that have terrible track records on human rights, labour standards and environmental protections. Canada should strive to lead the world in creating a model of trade that respects human rights and labour rights and that raises health, safety and environmental standards. These rights and standards must be enforceable.

Last month, I wrote a letter to the Minister of International Trade requesting a halt to the Mercosur trade negotiations while the Bolsonaro government in Brazil continues to encourage the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. The Amazon is called the lungs of the planet because it draws in massive amounts of carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. Its survival is essential to our survival. Destruction of the rainforest also threatens the existence of the Amazon's indigenous people.

This is serious, but what is Canada's record on deforestation? As I speak, the last of the old-growth, big-tree rainforests on British Columbia's coast are being logged. Since colonization, indigenous people have been subjugated through policies of cultural genocide as resources have been systematically stripped from their lands. Now that the banquet has been devoured, first nations have been invited to the table to help justify eating the last crumbs, clear-cutting the last big trees.

These carbon-sequestration giants cannot be replaced, just as the Amazon rainforest cannot be replaced. Brazil is missing its climate target commitments to protect the Amazon. Canada has signed on to nine different international climate agreements, created plans for none of them and met none of the targets. Canada is a climate laggard.

I ask the government to suspend the Mercosur trade talks and hold the Brazilian government to account, but I could rightly ask the Brazilian government to do the same: Suspend the trade talks and hold the Canadian government to account for its environmental transgressions.

In 2012, the Harper Conservative government signed the Canada-China FIPA. This lopsided agreement gives Chinese state-owned corporations the right to challenge Canadian laws and policies in secretive investor-state tribunals when those laws and policies get in the way of their profits. Chinese state-owned corporations are heavily invested in our oil and gas sector. How can we effectively fight climate change when we are bound by this anti-democratic agreement for 31 years?

However, this is not the worst FIPA of the almost 40 that Canada has signed, at least not if we look at it from a different perspective. This is because in most cases Canada is the economic giant in the agreement, and it is Canadian corporations, mostly mining and fossil-fuel companies, that are challenging laws and policies in other countries, such as Romania, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Kazakhstan, etc. Right now, Canadian corporations have over $10 billion in investor-state dispute settlement cases against low-income countries. We must eliminate investor-state dispute settlements in all of our international agreements.

Then there is Canada the arms dealer. Half of our weapons exports are to Saudi Arabia, and those weapons are being used against their own citizens and in the brutal conflict in Yemen. We sell weapons to a long list of countries, including Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, India and Israel, which are involved in regional conflicts either directly or by proxy. Canadian weapons fuel and enable conflicts and human rights violations around the world.

We have a mythology about ourselves as Canadians, and I wish it were actually true. Let us take a clear-eyed look in the mirror, examine our historical and current trade practices and hold ourselves accountable to a higher standard—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade.