Debates of Feb. 8th, 2022

The Opioid Crisis in Canada

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

Madam Chair, one thing the member talked about, which I was glad to hear him say, is that this is a health issue, not a criminal issue. He recognizes that. However, in this country today, the personal possession of drugs is still a criminal issue. We heard this from the member for Vancouver Centre, and she said the same thing: The police are not enforcing it. People who use drugs are worried about their drugs being taken. They are not getting harm reduction supports.

Why are we here? It is because people are using drugs and there is a poisoned drug supply. They are not getting out and getting the help they need, and people are dying. It is a war zone right now in many communities.

The member says to do this when communities are ready, but British Columbia is ready. It is our home province; he and I share it. It has asked for an exemption, but the Liberal government has not responded. It has been seven or eight months and this is still sitting on the desk of the minister.

Does my colleague support decriminalization or not?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague for his advocacy and action in this space.

He mentioned some things on the section 56 application for exemption. I know that our minister is looking at this very closely. There are some questions about the quantum of the two proposals that really need to be discussed because it is important that we do this right. As a lot of folks have mentioned, at the same time as we are pursuing such a strategy, we need to make sure there are appropriate treatment facilities in place.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to join this evening's debate. I want to thank the member for Yukon for initiating the very important subject matter we are discussing today in the chamber.

Something my constituents in Parkdale—High Park speak to me about regularly is the issue of opioids, opioid use and the opioid crisis that is claiming lives in Parkdale—High Park, in Toronto, in Ontario and right around the country. The deaths were occurring prior to any of us ever hearing about COVID-19, and they have continued throughout the pandemic, in some months exceeding COVID death rates. Unfortunately, these deaths will likely continue once we have finished with the pandemic. This underscores the urgency of taking action on this pressing issue.

The history of what we have done as a party was underscored very recently in this debate: treating the issue of opioid use, and drug use generally, as a health issue, not a criminal issue. I therefore want to turn back the clock a bit and remind Canadians about where we were prior to the election in the fall of 2015.

At that time, we had a government led by Stephen Harper that was basically denying this health nexus. That government was denying supervised consumption sites, or supervised injection sites as they were then referred to, from proceeding. With the inability of the previous government to grant exemptions under the relevant federal legislation to allow supervised injection sites to occur, this ended up at the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Canada v. PHS Community Services Society. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, which is somewhat rare for the Supreme Court of Canada, written by the chief justice, the court affirmed the constitutional rights that were at issue and sided soundly with the applicants in the case, going against the Harper government.

I am going to read into the record part of what was said. In paragraph 136 of that decision, the court said, “The Minister made a decision not to extend the exemption from the application of the federal drug laws to Insite.” Insite was the applicant seeking to run the supervised injection site. “The effect of that decision,” the court wrote, “would have been to prevent injection drug users from accessing the health services offered by Insite, threatening the health and indeed the lives of the potential clients.” There is the nexus. By denying that ministerial exemption, drug users' lives were threatened.

The court continued: “The Minister’s decision thus...constitutes a limit on their s. 7 rights,” which would be the rights to life, liberty and security of the person. The court went on to say, “this limit is not in accordance with...fundamental justice. It is arbitrary...[and] grossly disproportionate”. It said, “the potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to injection drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition”.

There the court said in a unanimous decision that what we are doing by denying the ability to run a supervised injection site is threatening the lives of Canadians. That is what was so heinous about the approach of the previous government. In October 2015, an election occurred, and we have had a different orientation on this side of the House since we have taken power.

What have we done since then? We got to work and approached this as a health care issue and an addiction issue, as opposed to a criminal matter. We passed legislation in the 42nd Parliament on it, Bill C-37. Rather than withholding discretion, we started to provide discretion, subject to the parameters that were outlined by the court in its jurisprudence. Supervised consumption sites then blossomed.

Since 2016, the record of this government has been to provide 38 different supervised consumption sites, which are operating, and grant the exemptions that have been required. We are trying to empower supervised consumption sites. We are also taking a fundamentally different approach toward diversion and toward treating drug use differently.

As to what that comports with, I can talk about Bill C-5, which has been tabled in this House. I had the honour to speak to it in December. We are taking an approach that is endorsed by the director of public prosecutions, who is at the federal level in the prosecution service, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They have said that rather than using police resources to criminalize people who are using drugs, we should be approaching this from a different perspective by offering them treatments and getting them out of the revolving door of the criminal justice system.

That is the approach we have taken, but much more needs to be done. It is why participating in this debate is so critical this evening. I am looking forward to advocating on behalf of my constituents, who want to see the needs of drug users attended to so we can avert the concerns we are facing now with the opioid crisis.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Chair, my question is about diversion and its effectiveness if there is nowhere to take the patient. We absolutely do not want to criminalize addiction. It is absolutely a disease. I think we have all heard that this evening. However, if there are no resources, and there is nowhere to take someone, like a recovery centre, and no bed to take them to, how are we supposed to implement diversion tactics?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, I welcome the member for Peterborough—Kawartha to the chamber.

That is absolutely accurate. We need to encourage diversion, but we need available resources. What we are seeing on the part of our government is tens of millions of dollars being committed toward treatment. We saw the appointment of a mental health and addictions cabinet minister, a first in Canadian history. That is the kind of emphasis we are placing on this issue in terms of cabinet appointments and in terms of the dollars we are using to back it up. We need treatment systems and programs available so that diversion can be made to those very programs, and that is indeed what we are doing as a government.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, this has been a very moving evening, but I am worried that those feelings will not translate into solutions.

Earlier we talked about health. In my opinion, this is clearly a mental health problem. It calls for an increase in health transfers to the provinces. Every solution starts there. Earlier we talked about housing. Investments in social housing have been lacking for 30 years.

The link between opioids and homelessness is quite clear, but bricks and mortar are not enough. For 30 years, Quebec has been developing a social and community approach to homelessness that has proven to be effective and that is even envied across Canada. It takes money to pay stakeholders to support people who might be having drug problems. Once these individuals find housing, they need support so that they do not end up back in the drug trade two or three months later. It takes psychological support, but someone has to pay for it.

It takes investments in health and housing, as well as comprehensive and community support to combat homelessness. I think these are good solutions.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, I did not hear a question so I will simply comment on the situation my colleague mentioned.

I would like to note that we are here to support the provinces and establish a partnership with those who want to treat this situation as a health problem rather than a criminal justice issue. For example, as I mentioned, we already earmarked $66 million in the 2020 fall economic statement for care related to this specific problem.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for the trip down memory lane with respect to the Harper administration and its approach to addressing the drug addiction issue. It failed and the Supreme Court struck it down. However, now we are here in 2022, and it is within the Liberal government's authority to move forward and not adopt the approach the Conservatives took. The government can do so by supporting the member for Courtenay—Alberni's private member's bill to decriminalize to save lives.

Will the member support the private member's bill and decriminalize so that we can really move forward to save lives? He mentioned he wants to do something for his constituents. He can by voting for that bill.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, on the issue of decriminalization, we know there are applications under section 56 before the minister. They relate to the province of B.C., the city of Vancouver and indeed my city. We know the public health officers in those two cities in particular have taken a strong stance in this regard.

One thing we have been able to do as a government juxtaposes this notion that we are somehow following the Harper model when completely and antithetically we are not: We are providing what is called a safe supply. We know that the majority of drug deaths in the opioid context occur because people simply do not know what they are using, nor the potential dangers of what they are using. In my riding of Parkdale—High Park, I made an announcement of over $550,000, which is dedicated toward providing a safe supply to ensure those who use are using with confidence and with the understanding that what they are using is not laced with fentanyl. That is how we save lives. That is the approach to harm reduction we have taken as a government, and those are the types of policies we will continue to pursue.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. I am sure he is going to do a great job, and I am looking forward to his discussion.

I might just say that I respect tremendously the member who was just speaking, but I did not respect necessarily the tone of that speech. I would love to see us work together collaboratively. There can be no greater victory for our 44th Parliament as a team than for us to work to have a prolonged and permanent solution to the opioid crisis. I would hope that all members would have that tone of consolidation and collaboration, and not retell a past of seven years ago.

I rise today on a very serious topic. This opioid crisis is endemic. It is ravaging our communities. My community, which is in rural Canada, is just as exposed as every other community.

This is one of the largest public health crises of our time. Canada-wide, there are 17 deaths daily due to the opioid epidemic. There were 27,604 people hospitalized with opioid-related poisoning between January 2016 and 2021. In 2020 alone, there were 5,240 cases.

There is actually a direct connection between the COVID-19 pandemic and the opioid crisis. We have seen a huge increase in the use of fentanyl. Analysis was done of major Canadian cities, including Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver. After the lockdown was put in place, just months after the lockdown, the use of fentanyl had gone up by two and even three times. People are hurting. People are in pain. They do not want to hear partisan bickering. That is why I am here, and that is why I am speaking today.

As I say, it hits right at home. In my riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South, we are covered by the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit. There have been 265 hospitalizations of confirmed opioid overdoses and nine more in January alone. However, this does not tell the story. Numbers just do not carry it.

There are literally thousands of families across this community who have been ruined. They are promising young people. They are persons who could have grown up and cured cancer and those who could have spoken eloquently in this very House, on whichever side of the aisle. Their lives are ruined, sometimes beyond repair, by these terrible substances. There is nothing more that we could do as the 44th Parliament that would be more important than providing a lifetime cure.

I would like to talk about a couple of individuals in my riding who have been outspoken on the front.

Chief Paul VandeGraaf, a police chief in Cobourg, has been working and fighting the opioid epidemic every single day. He has talked about the fact that we need to not necessarily have police at the front line of this epidemic, that we need to have therapists, doctors and community leaders on this.

Another individual I would like to talk about whom I respect deeply is Chief Laurie Carr of the Hiawatha First Nation. She has made it a community effort to fight the opioid epidemic. She has gotten together therapists and knowledge keepers and has had community meetings where they fight this crisis, person by person by person, trying to get as many people as possible off of these horrible substances. Her work is being undermined, as the member from Peterborough said, because the nearest treatment centre that will support indigenous peoples is six hours away.

Anyone who has been touched by substance abuse in their life knows that when someone is willing to get treatment, they need it right now. Too many people are left out. They want help. They want to get better. They want their families. They cannot get help because they do not have the resources they need. Quite frankly, we need them now.

That is why I am so proud to rise on this issue. I beg every member in here to make this a top priority. Let us have a prolonged, lasting solution to this horrible, terrible crisis.

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

Mr. Chair, given the very nature of what we are talking about, I can appreciate that there is a great deal of passion and emotion. We are talking about life-and-death matters. As I pointed out to the member's colleague, all 338 of us, including the Speaker, could actually cite examples. The numbers are endless.

I would ask the member to reflect on the same question that I asked his colleague. As much as the federal government can play a significant role, and many, including me would say even a strong leadership role, the best way for us to overcome this issue, help it go away or minimize it is to get the different stakeholders to come together. I listed some of them: governments, first responders, non-profits and so forth. Could I have his thoughts on that?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I absolutely agree with the hon. member's comments. I would even widen the audience or the interactions we need to have. We need people who have battled through addiction and even people who are engaged in the battle against addiction. There should be nothing about people without them.

We need to bring all people to the table. We cannot wait. We need action. This crisis is now decades old. It is decades in the making. We need for a family who is dealing with someone who has been addicted to know where to go and when to go get help. We need to get help for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Chair, first, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South for his passion and compassion.

He talked about the lack of support for treatment. Clearly, that is an issue. I am really glad to hear Conservatives advocating for that. About 15% of people who are suffering with opioid disorder, with addiction, want to get treatment, but people cannot access treatment if they are dead. We are dealing with a poisoned drug supply.

I am glad to hear Liberals talk about a safe supply, but they need to scale it up rapidly. We have heard from the experts that the politically courageous answer is full decriminalization, regulated safe supply, record expungement, treatment on demand via the public health system, prevention and education.

These are things that are going to make a lot of us uncomfortable. It is going against societal norms, but as my colleague says, we have to do things differently. Is he willing to have the courage to step out and do things differently to save lives? This cannot be about votes. We got elected to do the right thing and listen to experts.

Clearly, people are dying. With 20 people dying a day, we need to move rapidly.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am willing to discuss. All options are on the table. As the member said, people are dying, so all options are on the table.

I will say that ultimately my dream would be to have a Canada where no one is using these substances and we are not just managing the crisis but actually overcoming it. I am open. Let us have discussions. Let us work it out. I always enjoy the member's collaborative approach.

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

Mr. Chair, it makes me very happy to hear the member say that he is open to suggestions, even the possibility of diversion, which is not generally in line with his party's policies.

What does he think about the need to increase health transfers to the provinces and Quebec and to increase funding for social housing? Both of these issues are directly related to this problem and are in dire need of funding. It is also essential to note that direct intervention in health care falls under the purview of Quebec and the provinces.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is astonishing. I will say that throughout this pandemic that the government does not appear to have even contemplated increasing health transfers. One of the pressures on our system has been, of course, COVID-19, but we also are, in many cases, lacking the sufficient ICU beds and hospital beds that we need. Like I said, we are always open to collaboration and discussion.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is good to be here this evening to share some thoughts. I want to thank the members from all sides for discussing this very important issue, which is something that touches us here and touches Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We probably all know people, loved ones, who have been impacted through drugs or through overdosing and dying.

In British Columbia, where I am from, 2,700 people have died from COVID since the pandemic began. During that time, almost 3,700 have died through the opioid crisis. That is 1,000 more people than died from COVID. It is very serious. COVID is serious, but this is a very serious issue that is impacting Canadians. Since 2015, we have seen an almost 500% increase in drug-related deaths in British Columbia, from 400 to now approaching 2,000 people. It is a crisis, and opioids can be unforgiving. One hit and someone can be dead.

I know different people who have died. I think of a young woman, a beautiful lady, who had a child. She was very outgoing and friendly. She was a bridesmaid at my niece's wedding. The next I heard, she had died. She and her boyfriend had died. It can hit so quickly.

I have been to thousands of doors in the past couple of years, and I do not know how many people I have met who have lost loved ones through this.

On December 14, 2021, a Canadian Press story quoted Dr. Nel Wieman, who is a deputy chief medical officer with one of the B.C. health authorities. In the story, she says that deaths were declining in 2019, but that lockdowns forced people into isolation and more people used drugs alone. She said:

The unintended consequences of the public health measures related to the COVID pandemic has exacerbated the toxic drug events and deaths.

That is difficult. For example, in February, 2020, there were 78 deaths in British Columbia. Then in March, when COVID struck, we had 119 deaths. These were not COVID deaths. They were drug overdoses. In April, there were 128 and in May, there were 187. In July, there were 185.

People are dealing with mental health issues. These are big issues, and they are leading to people going to drugs. They are feeling isolated. I talked to the RCMP superintendent at the Ridge Meadows detachment, who said the number one issue is mental health. The opioid crisis goes hand in hand with mental health.

I am indigenous. I am Métis. It is very troubling to hear that indigenous people are five times more likely to overdose, and three times more likely to die from an overdose. It is a terrible situation.

Last spring, I presented a motion to look at a framework for addiction recovery. I think that is something we need to look at. What we are doing right now is not going in the right direction.

We need to do something more, and there has been a real lack in the area of investment into recovery programs.

I visited some recovery places in my constituency. I think of Tiffany. When I talked to her, she told me that after she had been an addict for 20 years, the recovery place had given her the tools she needed to love herself so she could go home and be the mother her children needed. Another young woman told me she had been addicted to drugs and supported her habit through prostitution. She told me that she would be dead if it was not for the help she was now receiving.

Joanna is the manager of Hannah House in my riding. She said that a lot of money is being spent helping people stay sick and addicted. She said it is heartbreaking, and that it is important, and essential, to keep people alive. There is no doubt about that, but how about finding a way for them to be truly able to live?

That is it. We want to keep people alive, but we want them to have a life. That is where recovery comes in. We need a lot more investment in this at the different levels. I asked Joanna why there was so little funding from the government, from her perspective. She said that abstinence-based recovery was not really politically correct. That was interesting.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech, particularly for speaking about indigenous Canadians in his province.

It is true that the opioid crisis continues to have a disproportionate impact on the health and well-being of indigenous people. We are investing $425 million annually for community-based services to address the mental wellness needs of first nations and Inuit.

Would my colleague agree that those investments would help make it easier to access medication, to allow overdose prevention sites to be rapidly established, and to respond to immediate COVID-19 needs in communities?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Chair, there could be investments, for sure. However, the member used the word “medication”, and I believe that is code for giving people drugs, whether it be methadone or other drugs.

The objective needs to be seeing people actually recover, fully, and to give them help to move on. That takes a tremendous amount of work. It is mental health and all sorts of different things. It is not a simple solution. I think we need to come together. What are some ways? I believe that recovery has to be at the forefront.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, a homelessness initiative was started in my riding during the pandemic. A whole lot of these resources have emerged in Quebec and across the country. The pandemic has taken a toll.

What we are hearing tonight is that the pandemic has had major consequences in terms of mental health and opioid use. I think that cases have doubled in all provinces across the country. Some people have succumbed. They lost their job and started using.

There is a homelessness initiative in my riding. Although there was a little funding during the pandemic to support these people and these kinds of resources, that well has dried up. The government has not made any announcements about what will happen at the end of March. Organizations are waiting to pay people and keep the resource open.

Does my colleague agree that the government should extend funding for homelessness beyond March 31?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.

He asked what the alternatives are. I truly believe that recovery centres are essential. As I mentioned earlier, the pandemic has undoubtedly had an impact on the number of people dying.

The director of one recovery centre told me that many people living on the streets were receiving money that they were not really supposed to receive. Many of these people were negatively impacted as a result. That is one of the problems that was noted.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to tell my neighbour, the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, that I know how deeply this affects his community, and I know how hard he and other elected officials in his community are working to make sure that people are housed and cared for in Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

The other thing that the member and I share is the reality that the opioid crisis is responsible for the declining life expectancy of men in the province of British Colombia. We know much of it is related to tradespeople. Unfortunately, tradespeople do not have access to the care they need: the health care and the doctors they need to deal with the pain they are dealing with every day.

I just wanted to extend my wishes to the member that our communities remain healthy, and also ask the member if he supports the bill from my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, in relation to decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs, so that those who are working, who are trying to work through pain and trying to work through any type of opioid addiction are not at risk of losing their employment.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her comments and, yes, we are right across the river from each other. I know one of the organizations in my riding that is helping those to recover is Hope for Freedom. I know there are also facilities in her riding that are doing great work. It gives me hope to see people's lives changed and for them to be able to come out of this. It does give me that hope, so I am happy to work with her.

As far as the Conservatives' position, we are not for trying to go after the drug users but more those who are in the distribution and pushing on a large scale. That would be our focus. I would have to look at the bill before I comment further, but I do thank her for her questions.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important issue that has tragically touched so many lives right across the country and of course in my riding of Vancouver Granville.

British Columbia has been seized by the opioid crisis as we have heard from other members. It does not matter whether we are rich or poor, urban or rural, likely we know someone who has either lost their life or been touched in some way by this awful crisis. The impact of the opioid crisis is devastating individuals, families and communities. We all know it has become worse through the COVID-19 pandemic with isolation, stress, reduced access to services and toxic supply now entering the mix.

As a result, we saw a 74% increase in opioid-related deaths during the first six months alone of the pandemic. When we think about the opioid crisis, too often we fall back on stigmatized characterizations of people who use drugs. The ongoing effects of the opioid epidemic are pervasive. These overdoses are claiming the lives of thousands of Canadians of all ages from all walks of life. We continue to hear so many devastating stories from people who have lost a loved one to this epidemic.

I heard these stories during my more than 10 years as a volunteer and a board member at Covenant House in Vancouver, and I have heard them from my constituents about their loved ones, whether they are doctors, lawyers, teachers or kids. To this day, I am absolutely haunted by the stories of young people for whom the possibility of death from an opioid was just all in a day's living.

I was also moved by the desire of so many who were desperate for a way out, a way out that meant that they could get clean and stay clean and not worry about dying in the process. These young people, those who survived and those who did not, continue to be a reminder of why we have to act.

Those who were impacted by the opioid crisis still remain stigmatized by the public, and the stigma remains a huge barrier to ensuring that people who use drugs can receive safe, culturally competent and trauma-informed care. Harm reduction, safe supply and addressing this as a health care issue is what we must do.

Substance use is a health issue that requires care and compassion like any other health condition. It requires vision like that shown by Vancouver's late mayor Philip Owen and his four-pillar approach for addressing Vancouver's drug crisis.

The four-pillar approach reflected a comprehensive approach to the drug crisis by treating it as a public health issue and not solely as a law enforcement issue. Instead it involved a mix of prevention, enforcement, treatment and harm reduction. This approach was critical in changing the shape of how Vancouver approached the drug crisis in the early 2000s. Now almost 20 years later we know that there is lots more work and collaboration that we need to put into place, but we know that harm reduction saves lives and we know that we need critical action immediately to reduce the harms of the worsening toxic drug supply.

It is often said that Canada's opioid crisis started in B.C. and it has to end in B.C. I am proud of the work that we have done to date. In 2017, my colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam introduced the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, which provided limited legal immunity to those bystanders who called for help if they witnessed an overdose.

Since 2017, supervised consumption sites across Canada have received more than 2.9 million visits and have reversed nearly 27,000 overdoses without a single death at a site. We know that supervised consumption sites save lives by providing a safe, clean space for people to bring their own drugs to use and to be able to test these drugs safely.

To continue to effectively address this crisis, we know that we have to collaborate with all levels of government in effecting a meaningful response. As we move forward in addressing this crisis, we know that a comprehensive, collaborative, compassionate and evidence-based approach is what is going to work to end this national public health crisis.

We have to consider all options, from safe supply to drug checking, to stop this unending and preventable loss of life. We have a chance to lead on ending once and for all the heartbreak and devastation that is caused by this opioid epidemic. We do this by working with communities, law enforcement across all levels of government and, above all else, by keeping in mind that this is about saving the lives of our fellow Canadians. That should be reason enough to act.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to probe one aspect of the member's speech. He talked about the issue of safe supply, and other members have talked about safe supply policies. The term safe supply can be used in different context.

I would support, for instance, providing substances like suboxone that can be used in treatment. Suboxone can help treat opioid dependency and also has the benefit of being quite tamper-resistant. I would also support allowing doctors to have the discretion and flexibility to provide prescriptions to patients in the context of understanding their own situation or their own health needs. That could be considered a form of safe supply.

What I would not support is a policy whereby a broad range of dangerous drugs were made more easily available outside the context of treatment and not under the supervision of a physician. I wonder if the member could clarify what kinds of safe supply policies he supports. Is he talking about physicians making substances like suboxone more available, or is he talking about just a general policy of government funding and increasing the availability of dangerous drugs?