Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2022

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I share something in common that is not a good thing, and she made reference to it in her speech, and that is the bus shelters. Whether it is on Portage Avenue in her riding or on Selkirk Avenue in my riding, we see bus shelters being used as homes. One cannot help but be fearful and sympathetic when they see those visuals, especially when the weather is this cold.

I can appreciate the member is in opposition and is critiquing the government, but would she not agree that the best way to deal with that kind of homelessness is to have different levels of government all at the table, and even factor in some of those wonderful non-profit organizations that are doing a lot of the ground work? It is time that we really all came together to deal with this very serious problem.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with working with all levels of government, and as a practice, I even work across party lines to fight for my riding of Winnipeg Centre and to fight for human rights. However, here is the thing. This behaviour of incremental justice by the Liberal government has resulted in people literally freezing to death on the streets of Winnipeg Centre in bus shelters. They do not have three years to wait for the government to cough up the funds they need.

As I said, it is a political choice. I am asking the government to divest in its corporate bailouts, invest in saving lives and ensure that Winnipeg Centre gets the resources it needs to build the housing it needs.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who is a fellow member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know these issues are very important to us both.

We agree on two things. First, the rich must pay their fair share. The Liberals had announced measures to crack down on tax havens, so it is deeply disappointing to see next to nothing about that in Bill C‑8, because that would be one way to make the wealthy pay. The second thing we agree on is that the Liberal government lacks vision for social housing. Either there is not enough funding or the money is not being put to good use.

What we may disagree on is the need for Ottawa to transfer the money as soon as possible. This falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Quebec, the provinces, the territories and municipalities are in the best position to tackle 30 years of underfunded social housing. They know the needs on the ground. They know which women are fleeing intimate partner violence and need shelter. They know how many units are needed. They know which senior women are struggling right now and need social and community housing.

I would like my colleague to comment on the importance of giving the provinces, Quebec and the territories the power to invest in social and community housing where they see the real need.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to be on the status of women committee with my hon. colleague from Shefford. It has been a pleasure to get to know her.

I certainly agree that the provinces play a part. However, the federal government has a responsibility to provide the financial resources to places in need, whether it be in Quebec or Manitoba. That has not happened. In Winnipeg Centre, we had an investment in housing, and although it is greatly appreciated, it is not even a drop in the bucket.

We need more resources. We need greater investments in affordable, accessible housing, with rent geared to income. We cannot wait; lives are on the line.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre and I share a lot in common, particularly with my district in Edmonton Griesbach, one of the hardest hit communities of poverty. My colleagues and I know the importance of ending poverty, and the Liberal legislation does not go nearly far enough in fixing the poverty issues.

Would the member agree that ensuring a guaranteed livable basic income is truly the appropriate response to ending poverty in Canada?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely. I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-223, to implement a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. There has been a lot of research on it in Canada, Manitoba being the place for research in the MINCOME study. We know that when we invest in people, it is good for the economy, it is good for people and it saves lives.

There has been cross-partisan support for it. It is a practice that has been implemented in other places in the world, with guaranteed livable basic income programs. This would be a game-changer. This would save lives. It is time to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we had a nice chat earlier about translation. In English, we call you the Speaker, but in French, maybe we should call you “haut parleur”, because you do make quite a good loudspeaker. We know that you are the Speaker and that you are doing a great job. You can tell your constituents that we are very proud to have you as Speaker of the House of Commons presiding over this debate.

It is my turn to speak to Bill C‑8, which would implement certain provisions of the 2021 economic and fiscal update.

I took the time to read through the 2021 economic and fiscal update that was presented by the Minister of Finance. This week, during question period, I had the opportunity to put several questions to both the minister and the Prime Minister, who was participating virtually. I was struck by their answers and by the scant compassion they showed for the mothers and fathers affected by inflation. When I asked the minister when the government would start trying to curb inflation and how it would react to Canadians getting poorer, she proudly rose and announced that inflation in Canada was 4.8%, while in other countries it was 4%, 5%, 6%, 7% or 8%.

It is true that inflation might be a bit lower in Canada. However, both single- and two-parent families are being forced to make tough choices at the grocery store because budgets are tight, and the problem is that inflation may be 4.8%, but grocery bills are going up by 6%. That 6% increase represents the increase in prices across the board, but on specific products, such as beef or chicken, that increase can be 10%, 15% or even 20%.

People now have to start making choices. They have to start leaving things out of the basket to feed the family, instead of taking the nutritious and good food they were used to getting. Why? Because when they get to the cash register, no one wants to be in a situation where they have to leave something behind for fear of being short on money. No mother or father wants to go through that. It is inhumane. Unfortunately, that is what is happening. I know this because I have received testimonials. I have actually received a lot of them since I asked the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister these questions. When we talk about it, we learn things.

People call us and talk to us. I have learned quite a few things, including that food banks have seen a rise in the number of people who come looking for food. I was a bit surprised because the unemployment rate in Quebec is relatively low. I asked whether these were people who did not have a job or who were unable to get employment insurance because of fraud on their file, given that the government has been unable to resolve their situation since November. I was told no, these are workers, families who do not have enough money to put enough food on the table for the week. We are talking about working people who have a job but are no longer able to make ends meet. They unfortunately have to make these kinds of choices because the cost of gas, housing, and absolutely everything is going up. We are seeing prices skyrocketing, and, sadly, the 4.8% inflation rate is just a fraction of the rise in costs.

There are all kinds of things that Statistics Canada does not take into account, such as vehicle prices. Plenty of things are not taken into account in calculating inflation, so inflation is in fact much higher.

I would like the government to put forward some solutions. Unfortunately, there are none to be found in the economic and fiscal update.

I would like to quote from an article published on January 28, so not that long ago. Nathalie Elgrably wrote:

As if the horrors of the pandemic were not enough, the spectre of inflation is now rearing its ugly head. After 30 years of stability, we are all worrying about it again. If this trend keeps up, inflation is likely to become our number one economic and social problem in short order.

We are in the middle of a pandemic. The government asked people to make sacrifices. People stayed home. Now an inflation problem has been thrown into the mix thanks to the government's excessive spending. The government injected too much money into the economy, and now prices are rising across the board.

Here are some figures from the economic and fiscal update forecast. From the start of the pandemic, the government has spent $176 billion on expenditures that are not related to COVID-19. It is using the excuse of COVID-19 for spending unrelated to the pandemic.

Canadians agree that we must invest to help businesses and people and to meet needs. When the government decides to close something, it is normal for the government to be there to help the closed businesses. However, $176 billion was spent on items unrelated to COVID-19. That is the main driver of this inflation and what makes it rise.

Let us go back to Ms. Elgrably's article, because I think she is right. She confirms precisely what I believe.

To explain this impoverishment, Ottawa is blaming supply chain disruptions, or any random misalignment of the stars.

The “explanations” given by Ottawa are nonsense! It is a dog-and-pony show to make us forget that the [Prime Minister's] staggering spending, which was basically financed by the Bank of Canada, caused the inflation.

I am not the one saying so. Other people are also speaking out. It is not just the nasty Conservatives complaining about this overspending. Economists and banks are talking about it. Let me quote some of them.

BMO chief economist Douglas Porter said those two issues, coupled with reports of labour shortages suggest inflation rates may yet rise higher despite widespread hope that they had hit their peak.

“They definitely may still rise in the coming months....

I'm not at all relieved or relaxed on the inflation outlook. I am quite concerned that we could have more of an inflation issue than I think is commonly believed among economists.”

Unfortunately, the economic and fiscal update gives no indication of the government's plan. We have no idea what the government intends to do to finally stop the collective impoverishment of Canadian families. What are we supposed to tell families who have to pay an extra $300 or $400 a month in rent, because their houses cost more? What are we going to say to those families? What are we supposed to say to parents who have to decide what to leave on the grocery store shelves because they cannot afford it? Inflation is a serious problem.

We are not going to fix the problem for fathers and mothers by telling ourselves that we are doing better than other countries. What I want to know is how much inflation is too much for the government. It is now at 4.8%. Is 5% too much, or 6% or 7%?

In its own economic and fiscal update, the government even targeted 2% inflation. We are at 4.8%, and that is enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the speeches from the Conservative Party, there is no doubt its members are taking a hard right. It is almost as if we are going back to the days of Stephen Harper and possibly even the Reform Party. They are applauding from across the way, so I guess their intent is to go right.

The member talks about inflation. Yes, we all have concerns with regard to inflation, but it has to be put into perspective with what is happening around the world, and Canada is doing well. When I responded to the budget, I made reference to the third quarter report on the GDP, which said Canada was at 5.4% growth. That is better than the U.S., Japan, the U.K. and Australia. It is not as bad as the Conservatives are saying. The sky is not falling. Canadians are coming together, and we will get through this.

I am wondering if the member can indicate to us why it appears today that the Conservatives seem to be going quite far to the right.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the national debt has reached $1.2 trillion. That is an amount, a word I never thought I would have to use here in the House.

To come back to what my colleague from Winnipeg North just said, the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that the additional spending that was justified by the economic recovery is no longer reasonable. The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself is saying that to the government. What is more, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are saying that our economy is doing well, and yet they continue to spend. Continuing to spend money on things that are not related to COVID-19 puts pressure on inflation, which keeps going up.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his empathetic speech.

I remember all too well what it feels like to put back a can of juice, telling myself that we will drink water. I know what it feels like to skip buying bread, telling myself that we have a bit of flour and we will make crepes with water for lunch this week. I know that feeling, and it happened to me not so long ago. I thank him for his empathy. I know what it means to count every penny in order to be able to pay the rent.

Now there are people, not only families, but seniors who worked their whole life, who lived through other inflation crises, including those of the 1970s and 1980s. They are living on pensions that have increased by barely $13 a month during a period of more than 10 years. Last year, they got an increase of 61 cents, after a cut of several dollars.

How can we really help these people deal with the current crisis, in terms of both the pandemic and inflation?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, inflation is indeed affecting the most vulnerable in our society. This is because they are the ones whose wages are the slowest to increase.

Pensions do not increase in line with inflation, far from it. On this point, I agree completely with my colleague. That is the problem. Every month that inflation continues to rise, seniors, vulnerable individuals and people living on low incomes lose purchasing power and are faced with agonizing choices.

What we are asking for is not complicated. When will the government put an end to the spiralling inflation that is impoverishing Canadians?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member represents a very beautiful part of the country, but I know that people in Mégantic—L'Érable are struggling just like people in New Westminster—Burnaby are.

Seniors, students and families are really struggling to make ends meet. At the same time, as we know very well, the Liberals have done nothing to combat the tax avoidance that allows $25 billion a year to go to tax havens.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks this is a sound approach, that is, the Liberals refusing to close the loopholes that lead to the loss of $25 billion a year from taxpayers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I invite the member for Mégantic—L'Érable to give a very brief answer.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to give a very brief answer to a question like that, but I will try.

Today, we were accused of taking a hard right. However, if being right-wing means taking care of the most vulnerable people, the people who need help, who have no money and who have to make tough choices when grocery shopping, then I am proud to be right-wing.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-8 on behalf of the good people of northwest B.C. This evening, I would like to talk about people in small communities and at the end, if I have time, I want to touch on an issue facing some of Canada's largest municipalities.

At heart, I am a small-town boy, so I will start with the rural communities in the riding I represent. The largest community in Skeena—Bulkley Valley has only about 12,000 or 13,000 people. The rest of the residents live in very small communities, villages and rural areas, and it is their concerns and their needs that I would like to begin with tonight because this legislation includes changes that affect them in many ways.

The ones I want to focus in on are the proposed changes to the northern residents tax deduction, a part of the Income Tax Act that is intended to account for the higher cost of living in Canada's northern, rural and remote communities, the farthest flung places in our country. For a long time, the system in the Income Tax Act had a very complex formula for determining the remoteness of these places in the north. In the 1990s that formula changed and essentially the federal government drew an arbitrary line across the map of our country. If people are above the line, then they get the northern residents deduction. If they are below the line, they do not get it.

This affects a lot of people in the place that I get to represent. In the bill before us the government has seen fit to make changes to the travel portion of that northern residents deduction. That is certainly a welcome change, making it more flexible in the eligibility criteria so that residents within one of those northern zones are able to claim more of the expenses they pay out for travel. However, it does not get to this underlying problem with the fairness of that arbitrary line on the map.

This is an issue that has been raised by my constituents for a long time, going back well over a decade. My predecessor, Nathan Cullen, who sat in the House, brought this up and tabled a private member's bill on behalf of the good residents of Haida Gwaii. I was honoured in the last Parliament to table a similar bill, because Haida Gwaii is one of the most remote places in our country. This is an archipelago that is separated from the mainland by a seven-hour ferry ride. Haida Gwaii used to qualify for the full northern residents deduction, but in 1993, it was moved to the intermediate zone, so residents there now only receive 50% of the deduction.

When I travel to Haida Gwaii, and I hope to be back really soon, this is something that so many residents bring to my attention. On Haida Gwaii the cost of living is high for a number of reasons, mostly because all of the goods that are purchased have to be brought in by ferry. Also, for so many reasons, residents have to travel to the mainland for services and other reasons.

I talked to Evan Putterill, a local government representative on Haida Gwaii. He talked about auto repairs and that only certain auto repairs are available on the island and people have to go off island for so many others. I have had residents raise the issue of shipping rates. That is another huge issue, postal shipping to remote parts of the riding, and so many other things. The cost of groceries, fuel and building supplies are all more expensive in remote places in northwest B.C.

The hope is that we can change that arbitrary criteria. This would help places like Haida Gwaii, but other places as well. Although Haida Gwaii is in that intermediate zone and does qualify for half of the tax deduction, there are other communities in northwest B.C. that do not qualify at all and for which the changes that the government has proposed in Bill C-8 are irrelevant because they do not fit into one of those prescribed zones.

There is a story that the mayor of Fraser Lake brought this to the attention of the North Central Local Government Association. They proposed something called the rural living allowance. They have ideas for how we can fix this, but we need to go beyond an arbitrary line on the map.

I also met with Linda McGuire, the mayor of Granisle, and her council. They talked about the fact that, to access services and goods, many of their residents have to drive to the district of Houston, which is 80 kilometres away. They want to attract more residents to their community, but the cost of living and the cost of goods are major barriers.

I spoke about this in the House earlier today, and then later posted about it on social media. Brian Lande from Bella Coola brought to my attention his beautiful community. I was thinking about the last time I went to Bella Coola. For folks who have not been, Bella Coola and the Bella Coola Valley, on Nuxalk territory, are spectacular.

By car, the nearest major centre is Williams Lake. I only say major centre in the sense of rural places, because it itself is not a huge municipality.

It is a 450-kilometre drive from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. It is across the Chilcotin Plateau and down a gravel road over an incredibly steep hill that drops 5,000 feet into the Bella Coola Valley.

It is one of the most remote places in British Columbia, yet it does not qualify for the northern residents deduction under the Income Tax Act.

The residents of Bella Coola pay exorbitant costs for all sorts of things. The one they brought to my attention most recently is parcel shipping. Because their postal code has been designated by Canada Post as a remote postal code, companies that do mail orders charge exorbitant costs to get parcels to Bella Coola.

These are the kinds of costs that an improved northern living allowance in the Income Tax Act could help to offset. It would help small communities, like Bella Coola and Granisle and Fraser Lake, to attract residents and develop their economies, and it would help the people there to live more affordable lives.

I was very pleased to table a petition in the last Parliament on this topic. Hundreds of residents from northwest B.C. signed a petition urging the government to bring Haida Gwaii into the northern zone for the northern residents deduction. I also tabled Motion No. 22, which I was pleased to retable in this Parliament.

That motion calls on the government to strike a task force and look at the eligibility criteria in the Income Tax Act for the northern residents deduction. We need a better way of defining what a remote community is. Not all of the remote communities in Canada are in the far north. Many communities are separated by long roads that are only seasonally accessible, and they face really high costs of living. Those communities need to be served by this provision in our Income Tax Act.

Despite a decade of members of Parliament calling on the government to make those changes, we have heard nothing. It is something that needs to change. Rural and remote residents across our country would be better for it. Rural places are an important part of the fabric of this country, and we can recognize that by changing the Income Tax Act.

I want to shift to an issue facing some of Canada's largest municipalities. Please excuse the whiplash while I move to the issue of public transit.

On January 26, just last week, the mayors of Canada's biggest cities called on the government. They said they were pushing the emergency button on public transit funding. Public transit is in crisis right now. The pandemic has cut revenue for transit systems by as much as 80%. Even two years into the pandemic, transit systems are only at 40-50% of their original ridership. The only way municipalities can make their budgets balance, and they are not allowed to run deficits, is to cut services and cut routes.

What we risk here is a downward spiral. We are building new transit systems. We are building new infrastructure, and that is wonderful. However, we need to ensure that essential workers, seniors, students and all people who relied on public transit during the pandemic have that service available to them. If we cut transit service in Canada's cities, we are going to see people move to other modes of transportation, and it is going to be very difficult to get them back on public transit.

We need more people riding public transit, not fewer. It is important for so many reasons, including equity and climate reasons, and it is part of the future that we need to build together.

The big city mayors have spoken. We have not heard from the government. We do not see, in the fall economic statement, any money for transit operating costs. We need to see it. There is still a chance. I hope this government will hear the call of the FCM and the big city mayors, and make that funding a part of Canada's future.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a federal government that has invested in public transit, which is somewhat new. The question I have for the member is on whether he could provide some clarity.

Also, within the legislation we are saying that there is going to be a 1% annual tax for non-residents and non-Canadians for unoccupied dwellings. That is in its simplest form. Does the member support that, and is there any other initiative that he would like to encourage on that specific front?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there were two pieces to that question.

The first one was around transit funding. There was funding for transit operations as part of the safe restart agreement. I know that was welcomed by municipalities, but it ran out a long time ago. What they are asking for is continued support on the operating side until we get through the pandemic and transit ridership rebounds. It is absolutely vital that we get that in place.

Yes, the 1% tax is a very small step. We need much more on housing, including a dedicated plan on indigenous housing. I will leave it at that.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the problems with postal service, and it brought back memories of when I lived on the North Shore.

Canada Post has a service called Solutions for Small Business, and I was wondering if there is any way to improve it. Furthermore, how are medications, food and other goods shipped to my colleague's riding?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the situation facing small businesses in shipping goods is a huge issue, especially when shipping through the postal system. I think it is wrong that big companies like Amazon get preferential rates when they use our national postal system, compared to small businesses that want to do mail orders. They want to ship a smaller volume of packages and they have to pay exorbitant rates to do so. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

The issue residents face is a little bit different. I would happy to talk to my colleague about it afterward.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election I have to say that the most common global concern I heard was on the climate crisis, and my hon. colleague touched on public transit.

I am wondering if he can expand a bit on how a massive expansion of public transit in Canada may help us address the climate crisis, and particularly how that might reveal itself in terms of smaller communities like the ones he represents, and what that would look like between cities.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the climate crisis and driving down Canada's greenhouse gases, public transit is absolutely such an important solution, not just for big cities but for rural places as well.

When we look at the transport sector as a whole, we see one of Canada's fastest-growing sources of emissions. We know that when we get people on public transit, we have less congestion, we have better-developed communities and we have people who are more socially connected as well. There are so many reasons to get people riding public transit. We cannot do that unless the government helps municipalities with the kind of funding that they have asked for.

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

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak about one of the most important issues in our country, the public health emergency that is taking place in our country.

We know that the Public Health Agency of Canada expects that more than 3,000 Canadians will die just in the first six months of 2022 from toxic overdoses. We know that they will be from all ages and all walks of life, but it will disproportionately impact indigenous peoples.

We do not know yet how many Canadians have been lost from overdoses in 2021, but it is likely to be over 7,000 lives. That is almost double the number of deaths from toxic overdoses in 2019. Since the pandemic began in 2020, over 3,389 people have been killed from overdoses in my home province of British Columbia, while the COVID-19 pandemic has taken 2,455 lives. All are obviously a huge loss to our communities, but behind these statistics there is real heartbreak for families, as they lose sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and colleagues, and community members. As members of Parliament, most of us have had the call that we all dread, as I am sure you have too, Mr. Speaker, from a family member who has lost a loved one because of their use of poisoned drugs. I have had too many calls in my six years from loved ones, representing a rural riding and small communities, including just this last weekend.

Substance use and addiction are born of trauma, poverty, homelessness and colonialization. These are important areas of policy that we must act on with urgency, to be sure. However, we also need to take other measures. I look forward to the engagement of members from all sides of the House concerning the provisions of my private member's bill, Bill C-216, on a health-based approach to substance use, in the coming weeks.

Regretfully, as The Globe and Mail recently pointed out, “The words opioids, overdoses, decriminalization and safer supply do not get mentioned at all in the mandate letters” of the ministers of the government, nor in the Speech from the Throne. In fact, there is no mention of overdose deaths at all in the mandate letter for the Minister of Health. Problematic substance use ranks sixth on the list of top 10 priorities in the mandate letter of the Minister of Health.

The truth is that we know it is not addiction that is killing people. It is toxic, illicit drugs and a poisoned drug supply that are killing them. My bill calls for the decriminalization of possessing illicit drugs for personal use and for the expungement of records of conviction. These measures are intended to remove the stigma of drug use and remove barriers to accessing recovery programs, housing, child custody and travel. My bill also calls for a national strategy that will expand the availability of treatment and expand the availability of a regulated, safer supply of drugs.

The government has ignored the expert task force on substance use, which presented its recommendations before the unnecessary election last year. Most importantly, it ignored the call for a safer supply of drugs as an urgent priority. The Globe called the government's approach a “recipe for failure” and a “slow-motion policy response” to a national emergency, with a certainty of “more needless deaths”. This will mean more calls to members of Parliament from families that could have been spared unimaginable loss.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the member for Courtenay—Alberni has fully recovered from COVID-19.

I thank him for his work and his commitment to ending the opioid overdose crisis and eliminating the toxic drug supply in Canada, and also for starting this discussion this evening.

Our hearts go out to all the families and communities of those we have lost to opioid overdoses. Our government recognizes that problematic substance use is, first and foremost, a public health issue.

We will keep working with our partners to find ways to support the programs and services that divert drug users away from the criminal justice system and toward health and social service supports, such as supervised consumption sites and addiction treatment services.

On December 7, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, introduced a bill that, as part of a suite of measures, would ask police and prosecutors to consider alternatives to prosecution, such as diversion and treatment programs, for certain drug-related offences.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has also issued guidance, stating, “alternatives to prosecution should be considered for simple possession offences”.

Health Canada is also currently reviewing several requests submitted for a section 56 exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize the personal possession of drugs on a case-by-case basis.

Several factors are at play in this tragedy. The appearance of synthetic opioids in the illegal drug market coincided with a dramatic rise in fatal overdoses. We know the pandemic resulted in an even more unstable and dangerous supply of illegal drugs, which led to many more overdose-related deaths across the country.

Our government believes that providing a safe supply of drugs prescribed by health care professionals is essential to helping prevent overdoses. This is part of our comprehensive plan to tackle the opioid overdose crisis.

We have allowed pharmacists and practitioners to extend, renew and transfer prescriptions to make it easier for people who use drugs to access the life-saving medications they need during the pandemic.

However, in addition to this government action, we have to keep working on helping the public understand that substance use problems are not a choice, but a treatable medical condition that calls for an array of care and treatment options.

Our comprehensive public health approach is built on our previous actions, which included over $700 million invested in community projects aimed at reducing risk, preventing harm and providing treatment.

We are working closely with our provincial, territorial and municipal partners, along with other key stakeholders, to reduce harm, save lives and get people the supports they need.

Canadians can rest assured that combatting the opioid overdose crisis is a priority for our government.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the government got elected there have been over 25,000 Canadians who have died from this toxic drug supply and overdoses. It is not in anyone's mandate letter. It is not in the Speech from the Throne. It has been six years. The government has ignored its own Health Canada task force on substance use and the recommendations they put forward that are reflected in my bill.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said he understands this is a health issue, yet today it is still a criminal issue in this country. Why? It is because he is worried about votes. He is worried about votes instead of having the courage to do the right thing. Listen to the health experts, the criminal experts, law enforcement, the people working on the front line of this crisis and the drug users themselves.

I am calling on the government and all parliamentarians to support my bill and do the right thing.