Debates of Feb. 8th, 2022

Opioid Crisis in Canada

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yukon for his leadership on this issue. The House is better with his contributions.

Earlier, the member for Courtenay—Alberni shared his passion on this issue, as well as the fact that he has put forward a private member's bill that would do what so many in the House have spoken of, which is to move toward this crisis being treated as a public health crisis as opposed to a criminal justice one.

Would the member for Yukon comment on his openness, and potentially that of others in the governing party, to working with other parliamentarians toward bringing that bill to fruition?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for highlighting the important private member's bill from the member opposite.

I support the development of a bill that looks at the spectrum of the opioid crisis in the country, as well as at what policy options we should be looking at, including, as the minister referred to, the question of decriminalization and supporting people toward a safe supply.

In my previous role as CMOH, I spoke many times to the subject of decriminalization and ensuring people had a safe supply when they were using drugs. I look forward to working with members on the development of this private member's bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that affects so many northern communities so profoundly, as the member indicated in his remarks. There was a Health Canada expert task force on substance use just last year that issued a number of recommendations, and those recommendations are reflected very closely in the private member's bill of my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

The bill seeks to decriminalize simple possession of drugs listed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, provide a path for expungement of conviction records for those convicted of simple possession, and develop a national strategy to show the federal leadership needed in helping provinces, territories and municipalities manage the harms associated with substance use.

Does the member support those tenets, and can we stand together in the House and prevent the kinds of needless losses of life we have seen in all our communities across the country? Will he stand with us?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the struggles that northern B.C. and the entire province are facing. I look forward to working with the members opposite on the development and passage through process, including in my role on HESA, the health committee, and to seeing it reviewed and studied there. I believe the tenets in the bill are important ones to address the urgent nature of the opioid crisis in our country, and this is an avenue for a way forward.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

On April 29, 2003, I got a call at home from my brother Dan. I remember everything about that moment, exactly where I was in the House, the fact that I just finished an episode of 24, then in its second season. It was a beautiful spring day and there was a light breeze coming in through the patio door. I had done an ab workout that afternoon for the first time in forever and the memory of the physical pain from that workout is an odd remnant that will stick with me for the rest of my life because of Dan's next few words: “Mike, are you listening to me? Are you listening to me, Mike? Dad died this afternoon.”

Our father, Mark, was 59 years old. The news was gut-wrenching but it was not surprising. As a dad, my dad was absolutely wonderful. He told us he loved us all the time. He was free with hugs, kisses and those regular “I love you's”, something that I did not always appreciate growing up but cherished as an adult. Not only did my dad not miss a single one of our hockey games, he almost never missed a practice. I could always count on seeing him with his trademark Grizzly Adams beard, standing behind the glass by the net. I do not remember him without that beard. He started growing it right after I was born in 1969 and never ever shaved it off.

As an adult, he also had a perpetual beer gut. Like his father and his sisters, his hair was a beautiful snowy white. He told me during our last conversation that he was finally embracing the idea of being Santa Claus during the next Christmas season. Quite honestly, he could have pulled that off when he was in his thirties. He never went to college but he was one of the smartest people I have ever met. He was very sensitive, genuine and powerfully connected with vulnerable people, I think because he could relate to them very personally.

I believe my dad started smoking and drinking around the time he was 11 or 12 years old. I do not know why. When he was 15, his father passed away and at 16 he joined the navy, likely a decision after a few too many drinks. He quit soon after when he realized he was prone to sea sickness. Again, the drinking probably did not help. About 15 years before he died, my dad quit drinking. While he had difficulty breaking some of his other negative habits, his drinking had started to affect the family. His love for his family was the one thing strong enough to give him the motivation he needed to quit.

I do not know when my father was first prescribed OxyContin. It was probably sometime in 2002 or 2003. Old football injuries and years of carrying the extra weight had caused him to experience significant pain in his back and hips. I believe at first the medication helped, but I really do not know how much he was taking. We did not then understand OxyContin the way we do now, but I did know my dad. Over time, something was changing. He seemed to be a little fuzzier. It is hard to describe, but he did not look well over the last several months of his life.

At some point not long before he died, my dad decided he wanted to get off OxyContin. At times, those of us closest to him had gently let him know that we were concerned that he did not seem to be himself. He would be a little defensive, something I was used to from my years trying to convince him to quit smoking.

The exact timing of events in April 2003 is a bit foggy for all of us 19 years later, but I know this. We had a get-together for Easter around April 20, nine days before he died. My mom and dad planned to come separately. My mom arrived, but two hours later my dad still had not shown up. I was worried enough that I drove 30 minutes to their house and went in, quite anxious, not sure what to expect. I shouted for him. I was relieved when he walked out groggily and said that he had just fallen asleep.

My brother and I debated this next part as we were reflecting on it the other night. I believe that my dad decided to try to get off OxyContin after that day and went back on it the night before he died. My brother thinks this might have happened earlier. What we agree on is that this withdrawal resulted in his being in agonizing pain. Dan tells me that he told him he thought he was going to die, something he also told me multiple times.

The ultimate irony is that a couple of months after he died, when I received the call telling me that the cause of his death was a lethal dose of OxyContin, I was also told that the autopsy showed that other than the OxyContin, his overall health seemed surprisingly good. His death, at least at that age, wasn't as inevitable as he thought it would be. After 19 years, my memories of my father are very good ones, and I am so thankful that, as imperfect as he was, he was my dad.

If I am being honest, I also have some other thoughts, and I hope that sharing those thoughts out loud can help us find solutions so that others do not face similar tragedies in their own lives.

I wish that he had not started smoking and drinking at such an early age. I wish that he had been better able to manage his physical health, a driver of so much of his pain in his fifties. I wish that, in his case, OxyContin had not been prescribed, and I wish that he had had access to better tools and guidance when he tried to get off of it. Most of all, while I understand that stories are very powerful, I wish that I did not have this one to tell, that instead my father could have known me as a member of Parliament and one he would be incredibly proud of.

I wish that we all had so few stories to share that a night like this, set aside in the Canadian House of Commons for this purpose, would not be necessary. However, all the wishes in the world will not change the past and they will not change the current reality. It is way past time we took meaningful action to tackle the opioid crisis and other significant issues of mental health in this country.

Tonight I have hope, hope that one day people will speak about this as a time when their elected Parliament set aside hyperpartisanship to find evidence-based solutions to a significant crisis, hope that one day someone will talk about how the trajectory of their life changed for the better because of what we are doing here tonight.

I am honoured to be with friends here, now, with the responsibility of turning this hope into action. Let us get to work.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my deepest condolences for the loss of the member's father. I was reflecting while he was sharing his story that it is clear that the opioid crisis does not discriminate. I have seen too many loved ones lost as a result of the opioid crisis and, in my work in addictions prior to becoming an MP, I saw it time and time again.

Would the member be in support of the recommendations of Health Canada's expert task force on substance use? These recommendations were supported by police chiefs, health experts, substance users and frontline workers. These recommendations were clear: full decriminalization, regulated safe supply, record expungement, treatment on demand via the public health system, prevention and education.

Could the member share with us today whether he is in support of these recommendations put forward by experts?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am broadly supportive any time we can bring experts together to discuss issues as important as this one. We are at such a unique time right now in our parliamentary history. We have just gone through an election campaign where every single party had major promises and a lot to say about not just the opioid crisis but mental health in general. I look forward to working with members on all sides to find common ground on the things that we agree on and move forward in a meaningful way that will save Canadian lives.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for sharing his story. I can say, as a naval officer who also gets seasick, we are so grateful to have had his father's service.

As I noted in my question for the Prime Minister last week, opioids claim the lives of 19 Canadians per day and, sadly, my riding of Spadina—Fort York has the second-highest fatality zone of 57 deaths.

It is not just the one death. It is death by a thousand cuts, 24,626 cuts. These are sisters, brothers, parents, grandparents, children and friends whose lives have ended too soon, 24,626 lives. The number of deaths and the destruction to our communities is staggering. I saw this first-hand during a community safety walk with Toronto police, where they had to stop to respond to two overdoses then and there during our walk.

What does my colleague want to see in an effective national strategy and when does he want to see it? We have to end this carnage.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things. One of the things that is not talked about enough in this country is the concept of recovery. I know for some people there are all sorts of different connotations when we start talking about recovery, but more than anything, I would love to have my dad able to be up in the gallery as I am giving a different speech in this conversation because he was able to recover. That has to be one aspect of a strategy.

If we are going to have a meaningful impact, members on all sides from all parties in the House have to be open to ideas that perhaps they have not thought about before. That is absolutely critical. It does not mean we are going to come to an agreement on everything, but my hope is that we come together in a common understanding that this is a major crisis that is the costing the lives the member talked about, and many more than just the ones we share in our personal stories.

If we are going to tackle a problem this big, we have to come together with minds and hearts open, and with a common vision and mission to save those lives.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly sad that I have to rise today, because I rose in this chamber to speak to this same subject in 2019. In the winter of 2019, we had an emergency debate on opioids, and we are here again.

I know we are going to hear a lot of stories, very personal ones like the one we just heard from my Conservative colleague. However, I want to note more than anything that this problem has not been solved. I asked the minister earlier what new improvements she has made, and I did not get a clear picture. Maybe that falls on me, but we are still here. I have some stories, because in my riding we have rural areas that have been forgotten about, and whether it be the flooding or the opioids, they need to be considered.

I bring a story today from my riding that many people may not want to hear and may consider partisan, but these are the stories we hear. I do hope that all members will listen. They can hold me accountable if they do not like the story, but this is something I promised a father I would tell.

Unfortunately, this pandemic has made a bad situation in my riding worse. We here in Ottawa in this place are partly responsible for that, and I would like to explain why.

I will never forget meeting with a father who wanted to share with me the story of his 19-year-old daughter. She was a recovered drug addict who had been clean for over a year. She was finishing up her courses to graduate from high school and she had a part-time job. Her family was happy to have their daughter back. Then COVID came along, and I hate to say this, but then came programs like the Canada emergency response benefit. Now, despite living at home and being fully supported, this 19-year-old was able to apply and receive it. Sadly, receiving $2,000 a month with few expenses proved to be too much to handle. A relapse occurred, and all the progress that family had made and that she had made was lost.

I do not want to share the rest of the story, because the details are too saddening. However, not long after I met with the father, I heard from an RCMP officer who shared with me the frustration of being the first on the scene of a recently deceased individual. Their CERB cheque was freshly cashed and the balance of the funds after buying drugs was still in their pocket. This individual had died of an opioid drug overdose.

This is not particular to the stories shared with me personally. As the Penticton Herald reported in May 2020 in an article called “Relief money refuelling opioid crisis”, operators of supportive housing facilities, places where people go to try to rebuild their lives, saw this too. To quote from the article, “the money has inadvertently refuelled the pre-existing opioid drug crisis, says the operator of the Burdock House and Fairhaven social housing projects in Penticton.” It goes on: “In some buildings, we’ve seen double-overdoses in a day with the same person”. Let me underline one particular quote: “But what we also see is people with such severe addictions that have no ability to emotionally regulate or behaviourally regulate (receiving) what for them is a vast sum of money.”

I will pass on one more quote, because this has to be heard: “We just emerged after a very, very challenging time working with this population with regards to the COVID-19 crisis, and now we're dealing with basically a financial windfall that has beset this population and is further compromising their ability to seek any form of recovery.”

Make no mistake. The CERB played a role in destroying these people's recovery and, in many cases, tragically ended their lives. Obviously, no one in this place ever wants to see that happen. I am confident when I say that all of us who voted in support of some of these measures did so at the time with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, what was not known to many of us was the exact manner the Liberal government would decide to deliver them and what safeguards were put in place to help protect the most vulnerable. Now we know there were none. As the operator of one supportive housing facility stated, “None of the people living at this facility met the criteria for the CERB, but there was nothing preventing them from receiving it.”

I have more to say on this issue, but I want to point out that when we do things in this place, they do affect things back home. I would like to see the government tackle this with new policy. Many New Democrats and many Conservatives want to see the government change its approach. I understand that the government does not have the answers to everything, but let us first promise ourselves to first do no harm.

I appreciate that these stories are hard to hear, but I look forward to hearing more of them. I thank everyone for their kind attention.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the opioid crisis has ripped through families on Vancouver Island, where I live in B.C., and across the country. In British Columbia, since 2016, there have been close to 6,000 overdose deaths. This is thousands of British Columbians who are community members and family members, many of them young people like the woman the member spoke about in his speech.

I have spoken to so many parents who have lost children, and as a new parent myself, it tears my heart to think about what that would be like. Most people do not even want to think about that possibility, but we have to talk about this. Health experts, advocates and even police are calling for a different approach to tackle the opioid crisis and the toxic drug supply. It is time to end the stigma to save lives.

My colleague from Courtenay—Alberni's private member's bill echoes these calls. I am curious if the member agrees. The Health Canada expert task force has recommended decriminalization and providing a safe supply. Does the member believe these are essential steps?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Victoria is a fellow British Columbian and someone who listens intently to constituents. I promised this family that I would raise their story today. What I am saying is that whatever we do, let us make sure that the other actions we take here in this place do not add fuel to the fire.

As earnest as the member for Courtenay—Alberni is in his private member's bill, two years ago we had a debate and we are back here today. The government has a new minister responsible for addictions, yet it is not the government producing new legislation and doing this; it is other members.

For a comprehensive approach, a transformative approach, ultimately the government has to do something different. Then we can debate it. It should not be up to private members to try to fix everything, because they do not have an army of researchers, experts and lawyers who can help them craft changes. The government needs to start putting in policy or start explaining why it is not working.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is very touching, and the facts I will share in my speech will be just as touching.

I think we are at a critical point. I am sorry to hear my colleague say that these initiatives keep dying on the Order Paper. I arrived here in 2019. How is it that, in 2022, with all the means and ideas that my colleagues are proposing and that I will be proposing later, we are unable to resolve this crisis?

An election campaign does indeed kill everything on the Order Paper, but I need more information. What does the current government still need in order to act? What can be done for us to collectively understand that it is time to address this issue? I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is here to share stories.

My home province of British Columbia put in place a minister for addictions several years ago, and now the Prime Minister has done the same thing with his government in this new cabinet. We have two governments that say they care about this. We have two governments that say they understand the problem. We have two governments that say, “but, but, but”. They have to start answering the question. They cannot just point to words. I know this is an opposition thing to say, but the government, more than any other government ever seen, is good at words and very bad at actions. The Liberals do not explain themselves.

Thousands of families are without a loved one and the government keeps saying, “but, but, but”. It should not be up to individual members to put forward legislation. I feel for the member for Courtenay—Alberni. He is trying his best. However, the government and the provincial government in my home province need to finish the sentence. They need to tell people why they are not. Is it because they need to raise taxes, or is it because the changes they have are too controversial? We need an answer and more action if they really mean it.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to say, but I really only want to take 10 minutes.

Today, we are talking about the opioid crisis, which affects every province. Quebec is no exception. The problem is that long‑term opioid use can build tolerance and therefore lead to the use of higher doses and ultimately addiction. We all have someone close to us who can be physically or psychologically affected, which can obviously lead to an overdose.

Why is this an opioid crisis? It is because overall opioid use has been on the rise since the 1980s. In fact, since 2016, opioid‑related deaths have increased dramatically, from 3,000 to 6,000.

Quebec, which was relatively spared, has been experiencing an increase in overdoses in recent years. Tragically, COVID‑19 has contributed to this increase. This gives us justification to take the time to look at drug policies and approaches, here and elsewhere.

I would like to explain what has been done and what is being done in Quebec. I think it could contribute to this debate. We heard some recommendations earlier. It has been clear from the outset that this is a matter of public health.

The action plan that Quebec has developed includes surveillance through a system that monitors opioid use and collect statistics on deaths and hospitalizations, among others.

Overdose prevention interventions also provide monitoring opportunities. This is very important. We consider that making naloxone universally and freely accessible and ensuring that frontline workers, such as firefighters, paramedics and police officers, are able to administer it when needed, is an important part of responding to overdoses and practising harm reduction.

I want to commend all the work done by Le Dispensaire, a community organization near my riding of Laurentides—Labelle. This organization, led by none other than the legendary Dr. Robert, as well as executive director Hugo Bissonnet and all his team, serves the entire region by providing information, handing out naloxone kits and supporting people experiencing homelessness.

Information on how to use naloxone in the event of an overdose is a key piece of the puzzle. It is important to know how to use it to counteract any harm associated with opioid use.

Quebec has also implemented guidelines for the community organizations and health and social service facilities that want to provide supervised injection services to injection drug users. This allows them to reach vulnerable populations, reduce the number of overdose deaths, lower health risks, reduce public disturbances and provide care.

The Bloc Québécois believes that injection sites are a powerful tool against the opioid crisis. This has been proven in Montreal. The Bloc is calling on the federal government not to hinder the deployment of this tool. We will give the federal government all the necessary tools to convince it of the tremendous usefulness of the work of organizations and health care facilities in connection with this plan of action.

Quebec has changed its medical practices with respect to prescriptions and research to account for the risk of opioid abuse. That is the best way to make positive changes to our response to the opioid crisis when it comes to medical practice, the social sphere and public policy.

Quebec is playing a leading role in the fight against opioids because health care falls under its jurisdiction. The federal government can also contribute in a positive way, but the last campaign highlighted the differences between the parties, in addition to creating a consensus: drug-related problems are a public health problem.

The Liberal, Bloc, Conservative and NDP members all spoke favourably about this change in vision. That was the first major step. We have to take action.

The process that should be put in place is one that would decriminalize simple possession. The whole thing should be supported by frontline health services. In practical terms, what that means is that an individual who was arrested for possession would be given the possibility of taking training or a detox program in exchange for the charges being dropped. That measure currently exists in Montreal and in Puvirnituq, Nunavik, but we would like it to be in effect throughout Quebec.

Again, funding is obviously the key to success. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, said that very thing again today. The government is very familiar with that request. I think we must have called for funding 152 times. It is unprecedented.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to increase its contribution for health to 35% of the cost of the system. That represents $6 billion a year, indexed at 6% a year thereafter to allow its contribution to keep pace with inflation and the increased cost of health care.

The Bloc Québécois is emphasizing this initiative because it aligns with what we want for society: a universal public health system worthy of a G7 country. Without that, we cannot adequately address health care problems related to drug addiction, or any other health care problem.

I would like to thank all our organizations in Laurentides—Labelle, including Maison Lyse‑Beauchamp, a shelter that helps the vulnerable who are homeless to overcome difficulties. According to the testimonials we hear, access to social housing is the foundation for giving these people all the power they need.

My colleagues now have recommendations for additional funding. For social housing it is simple. It is 1% of the annual budget. That is what will help us make up for the time that has been lost since 1995.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for her speech and her very relevant comments. I also thank the various Quebec stakeholders who are trying to address this major crisis.

This is a Canada-wide crisis. In the past six years, nearly 25,000 people have died in Canada, which is an average of 20 people a day. This number is particularly high in British Columbia, which sees six deaths a day, out of a population of about two million.

For those who have not experienced the impact of the opioid crisis first‑hand, I recommend watching the documentary series Dopesick. This series teaches us a great deal about the origin and spread of these drugs.

I have a specific question for my colleague from Laurentides-Labelle. My colleague from Courtenay-Alberni has introduced an extremely specific private member's bill that will reduce harm by decriminalizing simple drug possession. Decriminalization is proven and supported by experts. It removes the problem from the purview of the police and the courts and makes it a health and public health issue.

Will the Bloc Québécois commit to supporting the bill of the NDP member for Courtenay—Alberni?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for my colleague. In light of the recommendations and these proposals, we obviously agree that this is a public health issue.

Decriminalization also needs to be revisited. As I mentioned, we will support it. If the overall situation is similar to what is happening in Montreal, we need to act quickly. We would be pleased to examine everything so that, in 2022, we can take another crucial step for people.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague will forgive me not asking my question in French. I am not quite there yet.

I am glad that we are bringing up safe injection sites. I want to localize it to my community of Spadina—Fort York. As I am sure my colleague knows, there are 38 in the country. Of the 38, there are nine in Toronto. One is in my riding and the other eight are in very close proximity to my community.

Safe injection sites are important tools, as the member says, but they are also not the be-all and end-all. We also want to look further downstream in terms of the impacts this crisis is having, the cycle of addiction and how it brings about homelessness and so many other challenges. There are eight respite shelters in Toronto, and over half of them are in my riding. My community is bearing the brunt.

I am curious to hear from the member what her thoughts are in terms of how we break the cycle of addiction beyond safe injection sites.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I was elected, I did frontline intervention in the 2000s. One of the most remarkable things I witnessed was the key moment in the lives of vulnerable people who are given access to substances to help them with this problem.

Obviously, when we talk about being there for people and providing them with resources to prevent them from becoming even more vulnerable, this includes making a social commitment whereby a society ensures that means are in place to support prevention. The next step is to find ways to empower these people and support their recovery.

Right now, in 2022, there are people knocking on my office door. These people are not in that situation. Instead, they are in a situation where they cannot afford groceries or adequate housing because of the bubble and the inflation we are experiencing. Today, we are focusing on the distress that can lead to opioid addiction.

I listed a number of steps earlier, and I am certain that this year we will get the necessary tools by using every possible winning model. I had to help people far too many times and, unfortunately, we did not have sufficient resources.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to speak in French for the first time. I apologize for any mistakes I make.

Health experts agree with the NDP that the government should be asked to use its powers under the Emergencies Act to declare a national public health emergency. This would, for example, allow the Minister of Health to designate overdose prevention sites as emergency clinics, thus making them legal and eligible for federal funding. Does the member opposite agree?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Victoria, because her French is excellent. I understood her very well.

I am pleased to see that there are some things that can be done. It is what I was talking about earlier. A pioneer in this field, Dr. Robert, in Montreal, has created a model that works precisely to give people access to sites that help them avoid this tragedy.

Can we provide such sites in all areas where this vulnerability exists?

Once again, I congratulate my colleague on her French. I will have the opportunity to speak my other official language in another context.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Are there questions and comments? Seeing none, we will move on.

Before we do, I just want to remind everyone that I know this is an emotional and very difficult subject, but please place your questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to each other. I do not expect any arguments to break out tonight, but it keeps everything a little more in order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the good member for Edmonton Griesbach.

Last year, the government's Health Canada expert task force on substance use, with 18 esteemed experts in this field, came together. They cited in their recommendations and report that bold actions are urgently needed, including decriminalization and the development of a single public health framework to regulate all substances and the expansion of safer supply. This is in response to the 25,000 lives that have been lost.

The task force was mindful of five core issues: stigma, disproportionate harms to populations experiencing structural inequity, harms from the illegal drug market, the financial burden on the health and criminal justice systems, and the unaddressed underlying conditions.

The Prime Minister, just last week, agreed that this is a health issue and not a criminal issue. He had already told the nation, before calling an unnecessary election, that his government would be informed by the recommendations of this expert task force. In May 2021, we heard from the experts and were informed by its nearly unanimous recommendations. I urge all members to consider these recommendations, which mirror the measures proposed in the bill I tabled, Bill C-216, which is a blueprint for a truly health-based approach to substance use.

We agree on all sides of this House to consider the advice of public health officials in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is now time to act on the advice of experts about the overdose crisis, which is killing increasing numbers of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is killing 20 people a day.

We continue to hear from medical health officers from all provinces and territories, as well as our new good friend, the member for Yukon, who has been advocating that we tackle this issue. In our larger cities we hear it from law enforcement and from frontline workers who struggle daily to save lives in the midst of this overdose crisis.

We hear the same advice from those with lived experience, those who have used illicit drugs or continue to do so. There are many reasons, including trauma in their lives, poverty, homelessness or addiction. We have also heard from thousands of family members who have lost loved ones.

On Thursday, we will hear from the chief coroner of British Columbia. She reports on the numbers of overdose deaths in my home province for 2021. While I dread her report, I welcome it as more overwhelming evidence to act.

The expert task force recommendations are straightforward and common sense. They are evidenced-based and rooted in the fundamental need to save lives. It is harm reduction.

The expert task force found that criminalization of simple possession causes harms to Canadians and needs to end. These are not my words; the words come from this body of esteemed experts, gathered together by the government to guide the actions needed to save lives.

It has been more than nine months and hundreds of deaths since the City of Vancouver applied for a section 56 decriminalization exemption with the support of its medical health officer and the chief of police. This is the exact same process Vancouver used to get the first supervised consumption site almost 20 years ago. The federal government of the day backed the city against provincial opposition, as the need was so great. That took courage and political will, which is what we need right now. The need is more dire today, if that is possible, but for whatever reason, the Vancouver application, now joined by applications by British Columbia and the City of Toronto, sits on the minister's desk.

The government was informed by its expert task force that “As part of decriminalization, the Task Force recommends that criminal records from previous offences related to simple possession be fully expunged.” This should be complete, automatic deletion, and cost-free. Simply because those Canadians are burdened with criminal records for simple possession of illicit substances, they often face insurmountable barriers to employment, housing, child custody and travel.

The bill I have tabled calls for a national plan to expand access to harm reduction, treatment and recovery services across Canada. Importantly, this plan must include ensuring low-barrier access to a regulated safe supply for users, instead of leaving the drug supply to gangs that are driven to maximize profits at the expense of lives. We must support the domestic production and regulation of a safer supply that is readily available to users.

Unfortunately, even though these common sense reforms are supported on a daily basis by public health professionals, law enforcement, media, frontline workers, substance users and their families, they have been given very little attention by the government. This overdose crisis is not identified in the mandate letter to the Minister of Health. It is barely mentioned in the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions's letter. There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne.

I ask all members of this House to take the politics out of the overdose crisis. This crisis must be treated with urgency. Slow-walking essential reforms through protracted political and bureaucratic deliberation, or worse, ignoring them altogether, will only result in more preventable deaths.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his words of wisdom. He seems to know a fair bit about this problem and seems quite passionate about it.

I do not know if he knows anything about this, but I know part of the problem with the opioid crisis is that so many drugs are laced with fentanyl. People will be smoking what they think is crack, but it is laced with fentanyl. As a result, they have an overdose of narcotics and they die of that overdose.

Does the member have any suggestion or know of any policy interventions that can address this problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I appreciate my colleague's bringing up that point.

Not only do we have fentanyl on our streets, we have carfentanil. Carfentanil is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. It is 4,000 times more potent than heroin and 10,000 times more potent than morphine. It is killing people.

People who use drugs and people who are addicted to drugs need a regulated safe supply; otherwise, they are going to die. That is why we are here. That is what my bill is about. It is about addressing that and giving a response to that.

We need to decriminalize so that people are not using drugs while they are home alone and are not using harm-reduction supports, but they also need access to a safe supply. It is time for us to have courage and not worry about just votes and getting re-elected. We were elected to do the right thing: to save lives in a crisis like this. There were 25,000 lives lost in the last six years.

I am urging the government and all members to come together to listen to the expert witnesses, the health experts, the police chiefs and the frontline service workers. This is what they are calling for.