Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be a part of the discussion despite the late hour.
We are gathered here this evening to address a major public health problem, the opioid crisis. We are here because the member for Ajax tabled a notice of motion on February 4 calling for a take-note debate on the opioid crisis in Canada to take place tonight, February 8, 2022.
The opioid crisis is not an especially divisive issue. I believe everyone here would like to stop it. Our approaches to achieving that, however, can be very different indeed. In a nutshell, the Bloc Québécois wants to implement diversion for simple possession, with the support of frontline health care services.
Let us begin by defining opioids. Opioids are natural or synthetic substances that act on one of three main opioid receptors in the central nervous system. Whether injected or ingested, these substances can have an analgesic or depressive effect. Just to be sure we are all on the same page, here is a list of some opioids: oxycodone, morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, codeine, heroin and methadone.
Whether prescribed or not, these types of drugs cause users' tolerance to increase over time. Users might need to increase the dose to feel an effect. This goes hand in hand with the obvious psychological and physical dependence that can lead to overdose. Opioid deaths in Quebec and Canada increased from 3,000 in 2016 to over 6,000 in 2020. In four years, the number of deaths doubled. The same statistics are seen in the United States. This is huge. It is sad. It is a crisis. It is unacceptable.
Although this crisis is now occurring from coast to coast to coast, Quebec has historically been spared, to some extent, relative to the western provinces and Ontario. I will get to that. I am not bragging about Quebec, but I think Quebec has been wise and proactive. We did not wait for this to reach national crisis proportions before taking action and creating the 2018-20 national strategy for preventing and responding to opioid overdoses.
This strategy was based on compiling reliable data. It talks about science, awareness raising, information, access to integrated and adapted services, and, of course, prevention. For instance, Quebec has been successful in reducing overdose mortality by providing free, universal access to naloxone, an opioid antidote, and ensuring that first responders can administer it to anyone who is, sadly, experiencing an overdose.
Quebec has set up supervised injection sites. We in the Bloc Québécois are very much in favour of this. In our view, these sites have myriad benefits, such as the ability to reach vulnerable populations, reduced numbers of overdose deaths, reduced health risks, and better care for drug users. I would like to point out that the Bloc Québécois considers supervised injection sites to be a powerful tool for fighting the opioid crisis.
We are asking the federal government not to undermine the rollout of these tools by interfering in Quebec's drug access policies. Quebec currently has the situation under control. Even if Quebec's mortality rate is not what it should be, it is nevertheless lower than in the rest of Canada. I would appreciate it if the federal government would let us work on matters within our jurisdiction.
Opioid overdose deaths are common. In the vast majority of cases, the drugs were purchased illegally on the streets, such as fentanyl mixed with heroin.
For that reason, the Bloc Québécois is advocating for diversion for simple possession of these drugs, with the support of frontline health care services. In concrete terms, this means that an individual arrested for simple possession of heroin could undergo training, rehabilitation or another appropriate measure in exchange for the charges being dropped. We have to treat these people as what they are: drug addicts, not dangerous criminals.
I would like to remind the House that my first degree was in criminology, so I am looking at this debate through that lens. People need opportunities to get treatment for their addiction. They do not need to be sent to crime school. We could kill two birds with one stone because helping drug users recover from addiction would also ease pressure on our legal and prison systems. These people are not criminals; they are addicted to a drug. We must prioritize recovery over punishment.
I think everyone here would agree that the opioid crisis is a public health matter, not a criminal matter. If members have any doubts, I want to emphasize that the phrase “public health” is very important in my speech.
The Constitution Act, 1867, states that health care is a shared provincial-federal jurisdiction with clearly defined roles. The Constitution states that the provinces are responsible for health care, the practice of medicine, professional training, the regulation of the medical profession, hospital and health insurance, and so on. The provinces are responsible for all of that.
It is therefore clear that Quebec is responsible for delivering the vast majority of prevention, treatment and harm reduction programs in a public health crisis such as the opioid crisis. However, the federal government is responsible for funding research, initiatives and pilot projects and promoting awareness.
To that end, Quebec and the Bloc Québécois are calling for an annual supplementary health care contribution of 6%, as well as an increase of the federal share from 22% to 35% of Quebec's health care costs, which are directly related to this pandemic.
As my colleague from Jonquière said yesterday, the federal government's chronic underfunding of health comes at a cost. There is a price to be paid for pushing health care networks to the limit. Today, Quebeckers are the ones paying the price.
I think it is imperative for the Liberal government to take note of this consensus and to sit down with its provincial counterparts to discuss it.