Debates of May 2nd, 2022

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, who gave an excellent speech on Bill C-8. I thank him for sharing his time with me. It was wonderful to listen to him, and I might have been very happy just to continue listening to him.

I do have a few things to say about Bill C-8. One of the first things we can talk about is how this bill was presented. When the government provides an economic update, it is often referred to as a mini-budget, and everyone has expectations and wants to see what is in it.

When we saw Bill C-8, the economic update implementation bill, there was not much to it. Let us say that we were not impressed, but that does not really matter.

We expect better from a government. We expect a government to do important things and make important announcements. We expect the government to do serious work, since it has public servants and staff. There are all kinds of people making requests, sharing ideas and wanting to change society. Bloc Québécois has all kinds of good ideas. The members across the way do not often take these good ideas, but they do from time to time.

Today we are debating Bill C‑8, which contains different elements divided into seven parts, and I am going to focus on one of them. The Bloc Québécois had some questions about the other parts and was prepared to send them to be studied in committee, which is what happened.

We had serious concerns about part two of the bill regarding the tax on underused or vacant housing belonging to non-residents or non-Canadians. The government wants to impose a 1% tax on vacant housing to help address the housing crisis. Will that make a difference? I am not sure. Could the idea of a 1% tax on vacant housing curb speculation to some extent or prevent these properties from being left vacant? It is possible.

However, the most important question here is whether it is the federal government's role to implement this tax. Normally, when we think about housing and property taxes, we do not think “federal government”. In fact, if we take a step back, it becomes increasingly clear that this tax is nothing more than a federal intrusion into an area that is not under its jurisdiction, specifically municipal affairs and the property value of buildings. This was also pointed out by witnesses in committee, particularly the constitutional expert Patrick Taillon.

Generally speaking, we expect that everything municipal will be handled by the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. If there were a tax to be imposed, perhaps Quebec should do it, but certainly not the federal government.

I think we can discuss whether this is a good measure. There may be interesting ideas that warrant discussion in the context of such a measure. When we see who is behind it and wonder how it would be implemented, however, it no longer works, and that is the problem.

This means that, unfortunately, we may have to vote against Bill C-8. There is not much in the bill to begin with, but it does contain something that is just unacceptable.

In general, federal intrusion in one of Quebec's jurisdictions is often done through the government's spending power. This, however, is a different case, because this is not how the federal government usually interferes in Quebec's jurisdictions.

For those who do not know it—which I do not believe is the case for the members on other side, who are very familiar with this strategy, as they often use it—the federal government's spending power lets it do indirectly what cannot be done directly under the Constitution.

Essentially, the government will send a cheque, which it is not supposed to do, but people are going to take it because they need the money. There will be many strings attached. In the end, even though it is our jurisdiction and we should be making the decisions, the feds will be the ones deciding, because with all the conditions attached we are going to lose any possibility of truly controlling our levers and jurisdictions.

Quebec's jurisdictions include our education and health care systems. Year after year we ask for more funding, but it seems that we hit a wall in Ottawa. We are told that we are being given more funding. The government will increase funding by 3% a year, but system costs are increasing by 6% a year. They are making fun of us. We continue to hear the same nonsense from them.

The last budget was even worse. They basically added another layer, stating that “Any conversation between the federal government and the provinces and territories will focus on delivering better health care outcomes”. When they say “any conversation”, that is not about funding, it is about telling us how to manage our health care system. That is basically what they are saying. It is somewhat insulting to be told that. It is indicative of the direction that this government is taking, always encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction. The health care system is a good example, but there are many, many more.

We could take, for example, the infamous fight over pensions in the 1960s. I am too young, as my father was not even born in the early 1960s. When the war over pensions was being waged, some will remember that the Quebec government wanted to set up a system where people would contribute a portion of their money to a shared fund that would one day pay out a pension when they retired. It would be a big pool of money that would generate returns. That is what gave rise to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

The federal government did not like that. It wondered how Quebec managed to plan for such a big pot of money so it could have more control over its own destiny, which is why the federal level tried to bring in another regime that would compete or at least move faster. In the end, that did not work. The federal government ended up having to recognize the Quebec system because Quebec had been quicker. The federal level wanted to impose its own system to prevent Quebec from controlling the money. Perhaps the federal government wanted to provide better conditions for seniors, but we all know that, in the end, the aim of that battle was to determine who would manage the pot of money. Would those funds be invested to serve Ottawa's interests or Quebec's interests? That was the big question.

Thank goodness that big issue was dealt with, because now we have problems again. Take the finance issue, for example. Who remembers the Canada-wide securities commission? How many courts ruled that that was under Quebec's jurisdiction? It is not up to the federal government to create a national securities commission, but they did it anyway, both the Conservatives and the Liberals, they really pushed it. Fortunately, after multiple attempts and a lot of hard work, the Bloc Québécois succeeded in sending the commission packing. Its funding was axed. That feels good. It gave Quebec's financial system some relief.

What I just cannot fathom is the federal government's constant desire to get bigger. It is like a kind of spiderweb always out to suffocate the provinces, bit by bit. That is what it has done yet again with Bill C‑8. The federal government is going to take up all the space until there is none left for us.

The Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords sought to restore the balance. That was the original objective. Every time the federal government reviewed areas of jurisdiction, it would say that it could not give this or that to Quebec, and there was ultimately almost nothing left. Quebeckers voted against these two accords because the offers were ridiculous, it has to be said. The federal government never seems to want to make concessions but is always trying to get more.

We are seeing the same thing with Quebec's Bill 96. Ottawa, with its Official Languages Act, is finding ways to try to undermine this legislation and restrict it from applying to federally regulated businesses.

I vehemently disagree with this and with the proposed centralizing measures they want to impose with their pharmacare and dental care programs. These may be good measures, but the problem is that they are not well intentioned.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on this important topic.

For weeks now, teachers and farmers in my riding have been impatiently waiting for their tax returns, which this bill supports. It is a bill for workers. The Bloc Québécois used to be a party for the working class.

Will my colleague support workers or will he hide behind the issue of jurisdiction?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his French. He is working on improving his French, which is very laudable. I like practising my English, but outside the House, of course.

I did not quite understand the premise of his question. He spoke about workers. I can assure him that we support workers 100% and that this is a fundamental value of ours. We have a bias towards workers and we stand behind it.

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

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy my colleague's interventions.

We have talked a lot in the House about the housing crisis in this country. We keep hearing about incentives for developers and different programs for new buyers. We went from 10% non-market housing in the 1970s and 1980s, before the Liberals pulled out of the national housing program, to what we are today at 3%. Europe is at 30%, and Vienna is at 60%. We know the Conservatives' priorities and Liberals' priorities are to get developers to build housing. We are glad to see some co-op housing. We are glad to see some movement on that in this recent budget.

Does my colleague agree that we need to rapidly scale up non-market housing and co-op housing to solve the housing crisis for workers and for people who are homeless, and look at models that are going to make sure people have housing security? We need to take a new approach in how we look at housing and see it not as an investment, but in making sure people have safe, secure and affordable housing.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's proposals are quite interesting.

In my opinion, not enough has been done on the housing file. However, we cannot forget that the federal government should not be getting involved at all. Much like the infamous tax that was discussed earlier, this is coming, but it makes no sense. If the federal government is going to hand out money for housing, we will take it because we need it, but it has to happen according to Quebec's conditions and wishes. The problem is that Ottawa always imposes a million conditions and messes everything up. Ultimately, nothing moves forward.

We need new federal approaches, but they cannot be layered on top of Quebec's; otherwise, we will suffocate.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for his speech.

In his speech, he did not have time to share his thoughts on climate change in connection with Bill C‑8. I am curious about his views on how the government could use Bill C‑8 if it were serious about climate change.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague opposite.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see much about climate change in Bill C‑8. In fact, I do not think those words are even in it. I might have missed a page or skipped a sentence somewhere, but climate change does not seem to matter much to the government. It clearly is not focusing on it.

What could the government have done to fight climate change? Some of the actions we saw explained things that had been done previously, such as approving drilling in Bay du Nord or buying a pipeline.

The government is clearly not focusing on climate change. Unfortunately, Canada is missing the boat.

One good example of that—and I was talking about this in committee yesterday or today—was the government's move to force the hand of automakers and dealers to get electric vehicles in people's driveways. That makes no sense.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to request unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.

All those opposed to the hon. member's request will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at third reading to contribute to the debate on Bill C-8.

Two of the themes I have heard so far this evening that are emerging from the debate have to do, first, with inflation and, second, and relatedly, with the incredible increases in housing prices that Canadians have been facing that have made it very difficult for Canadians to afford a home. As we are hearing more often, it is causing many younger Canadian adults to give up altogether on the dream of ever owning their own home to be sure, and in many cases even just to find a home to rent. More and more people are having to stay with mom and dad a lot longer than they planned, if they have the good fortune of having parents who have a home that can accommodate them.

What I want to offer that I do not think has been said enough when we talk about inflation is to point to a couple of studies that have come out in the last several weeks by Canadians for Tax Fairness and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which have said that up to a quarter of the inflationary pressure that Canadians are currently experiencing can be attributed to price markups by companies for their products that go above and beyond their increased costs. Companies in the grocery business, the oil and gas business now as prices spike, banks obviously, insurance companies and big box stores have seen incredible increases or a growth in profit that is higher and faster than the growth of their costs. That is not to say businesses are not facing increased costs, but some of the largest businesses appear to be using that as an opportunity to gouge Canadians, whether it is at the pumps, the store or wherever they sell their wares. This is contributing as much as 25% of the increase in costs that Canadians are currently experiencing.

We could listen to the Conservatives talk about the problem of inflation all day. They would have us believe that it is only government spending that has contributed to inflationary pressures. They do not want to talk about international supply chains. We do not hear them talk about that. We just hear them talk about the government borrowing during the pandemic. They could be talking about the extraordinary increase in profits that far exceed the increase in costs that many of the largest companies in Canada are experiencing, but they do not. They only want to talk about where they see government as the problem.

The problem for Canadians, when they are looking for people to elect to provide some real solutions, is if they elect people who can only appreciate one kind of problem, it is like a tradesperson who only knows how to operate one kind of tool. The fact is tradespeople need to know how to use all of the tools in the tool box because they are confronted with novel problems and not all problems are the same and not all solutions are the same.

Cutting government spending sometimes is the solution to certain kinds of problems, but it is not the solution to all problems. Indeed, fixing some of the problems that we are facing right now requires government investment, but when we talk about the extraordinary price increases and profit increases that we have seen in certain industries that are really hurting Canadians in the pocketbook, the answer is to take those folks on. The answer is some regulation and legislation that will hold them to an appropriate standard and make sure Canadians are not getting fleeced by the private sector. As I said, there is some real evidence that that is going on, and it is not a big enough part of the conversation. If it is 25% of the problem for the budgets of Canadians, it certainly does not make up 25% of the conversation here, not even close, let alone 25% of the solutions that are being proffered by the government.

How do we know this is in part the case? We can look at not only some of the company profits I was talking about, but we can also look at some longer-term trends and the way they have accelerated during the pandemic. We have seen it with Canadian billionaires. There are not a lot of them, but man, do they ever have a lot of money, and man, have they ever managed to grow their net worth astronomically over the last two years of the pandemic. That is some serious evidence.

If we go back just to last fall, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a report that said that 1% of all Canadians have 25% of the wealth produced in the country, while 40% of Canadians are trying to get by sharing only 1% of that wealth. That was not always the case in Canada.

These are some of the important themes that are based in economic data that the government and the official opposition have to start taking seriously because we are missing the mark in the conversation about inflation by only talking about the extent to which government spending has contributed to that. In fact, we are in a time when, if we listen to most economists, we are in an inflationary period that is driven far more by supply constraint issues than we are in an inflationary period driven by excessive demand or money in the market.

It is true that, in some cases, there is an overheated market and housing, which is the second theme that I want to touch on. It is that par excellence. We have seen that. We have seen extraordinary price increases in the market. There are folks in the Conservative Party who have talked a lot about this here in the House. They would have us believe that this is simply attributable to some of the liquidity that the government injected into the market at the outset of the pandemic. They will talk about the Bank of Canada printing money. They want Canadians to believe that this is the whole story, that this is the only reason we have seen massive price increases in the market.

In fact, housing prices have been doubling about every five years or so for the last 20 years at least. I will speak to that, just because that is about as long as I have been paying attention to the housing market. This is not a new trend. It is a trend that has been accelerated, but it speaks to something that has been going on for quite a long time.

The particular financial measures that the government happened to adopt, most of which, incidentally, was money that was shared directly with Canadian households through the wage subsidy program and through the CERB program. There was a direct transfer of wealth from the government to individual households on an unprecedented level. If we look at the percentage of government spending that went to those direct transfers of wealth to individual households, while the pandemic was happening and while people were out of work, it is quite impressive.

These were not people who were then taking CERB money and buying multiple properties. Let us not kid ourselves. Two thousand dollars a month is not very much. There is nobody with an income of $2,000 a month who is going to the bank and saying that they wanted to buy the house down the street and having their bank sign off on that. Give me a break.

It is just absurd that people here would be out, say, on leadership campaign tours pretending that, somehow, the billions of dollars of government money that went to people who had lost their job during an unprecedented health crisis and were not making more than $2,000 a month are pouring gasoline on the fire of housing speculation and house prices.

What is a lot more likely is that these people, these 1% of people who have 25% of the wealth, for all sorts of reasons, including Liberal and Conservative governments, successive governments in this century, lowering the corporate tax rate from 28% in the year 2000 down to 15% today, were looking around and wondering, how are they going to make more money with their money, because that is what they do. They have whole companies, banks and advisors. There are whole industries predicated upon people with tons of money figuring out how to make tons more.

The fact of the matter is that anyone who has the job of figuring out how to make more money on money has been looking at the Canadian real estate market, not just in the last two years but in the last 20 years, and drooling all over the place, because it has been an excellent place to grow one's money for no effort.

Unless the government is going to get serious about taxing back some of that extraordinary wealth so that it can be invested by democratically elected governments in priorities like indigenous housing, reducing our emissions, and making prescription drugs more affordable and dental care accessible, we are not going to solve the housing problem. This is because part of the problem is that too much private money is trying to multiply itself in the economy and that it is free to do that. We have seen that with those tax breaks.

With regard to the 1% of people in Canada who share 25% of the wealth, they do not know what to do with all their money, so they are bidding up the price of houses and owning that because they like the idea of further growing their wealth by renting out houses and apartments at extraordinary rates to Canadians, and that is a huge part of the story of what is driving the extraordinary growth in housing prices, which is putting housing out of the reach of too many Canadians.

Here we are. If we just listened to the official opposition, all we would hear about is the role of government, and we would be missing the mark. That is why, if we listen to what they are saying, they do not have any good solutions.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member had a lot of comments on the failures of the government.

There are certainly things I would agree with and some I would not. He did have a lot of complaints about the government. I will note, though, that the NDP is, on this and other things, supporting the government and keeping it in power. I know he would probably stand up and say the NDP is getting all these promises and could extract all these things that the government is going to do. However, we all know, and he knows as well as I do, that the government is not very good at keeping its promises. I do not know why he would have any faith that it would keep its promises this time. I wonder why he would be supporting the government if he feels that way.

While I have the floor, I note that we do not have the quorum required under Standing Order 29(1). I would ask that we call for that.

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

There has been a ruling made by the Speaker earlier today that there are no quorum calls during late sittings.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, surely the member knows, as he said as much and I agree with him, that this is a government that has had a lot of issues keeping its promises.

I want to assure him that the negotiations that happened between the NDP and the government were not done from a place of naïveté. We are here to work. We are here to fight for the things that we told the people who elected us we would fight for. We are sincere in wanting to get those things. We are in the second minority Parliament that has largely the same character, in terms of seat distribution between the parties. We think a lot of Canadians wanted to see more political stability after the unnecessary election of last fall, and we were willing to negotiate with the government.

Part of the way we are trying to ensure that the government does follow through on those central commitments was to release the terms of the agreement and be very public about how it is meant to work. There are obvious milestones, which happen at budget time and in respect of implementing legislation, and dates for certain initiatives within that agreement that anyone is welcome to see online. We think that is part of how to create a culture of accountability. There is a bit of an experiment in democracy here, in terms of trying to hold a government that has not been very good at following through on its own commitments, to following through on these particular ones, because we think they are important.

We invite Canadians to pay close attention, to read those documents, to watch how we behave in the House of Commons and around the Hill, and to offer their critique of how they think it is going, what they think is working and what they think is not. That is how we are going to get things done here for people.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech, especially about rising margins in some sectors. I read a little about that in relation to the food sector, the supermarket sector.

What does the member think the cause of rising margins is? Is it price fixing in the grocery sector? Is the grocery sector too big? Do grocery chains need to be split up so there is more competition? What is giving rise to these inflated margins in the grocery sector?

In the oil sector, I understand it. If the international price goes up, oil producers are going to make a windfall. The marketing companies that do not have their own oil reserves, I do not think their margins are going up. However, in terms of the food sector, the retail food sector, what does the member think the problem is and how would he solve it?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is something I am hoping we are going to have an opportunity to get into at the finance committee in our study of inflation. I have been advocating to try to get some representatives from the grocery industry there.

I think it is a notoriously opaque industry, and in this time, when we step back and see the extraordinary growth of profit that exceeds the increase in cost, as it must, because otherwise we would not see an increase in profit, it is time to shine a little more light on industries like grocery. I would add telecommunications, for instance, where Canadians are known to pay extraordinarily high prices compared to other places in the world. We tend to have an oligopoly structure to some of these key industries. We should be applying more public scrutiny to those industries.

One of the quicker fixes that we have proposed as a party, and we saw the Liberals adopt it with respect to banks and insurance companies, is to have what we have called an excess profit tax or a pandemic profit tax, where we tax the extraordinary profits in the pandemic period at a higher rate.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise tonight to speak to the fall economic update.

Today, the families and friends of 20 Canadians will get the life-changing news that their loved one has died because of a toxic drug poisoning. Tomorrow, the families and friends of another 20 Canadians will get the same news, and again the next day and the next day.

The expert task force on substance use established by Health Canada accurately described what we are facing when it said:

The war on drugs has led to what ends up looking like a war on people who use drugs. People are dying every day, and the situation in Canada, already particularly deadly, is getting worse, not better. Canada has the fastest growing rate of overdose mortality in the world.

This is from the government's own expert task force.

The pandemic has accelerated the toxic drug supply crisis and there is no end in sight. The Public Health Agency of Canada, in its most recent modelling, predicted that opioid-related deaths will remain high until June and may even increase, yet the government has refused to take the urgent actions needed to stop the losses, including making investments, at the scale that this crisis requires, in addressing the root causes of problematic substance use, education and prevention, harm reduction and safer supply, and treatment on demand and recovery services.

The fall economic update failed to even acknowledge the public health emergency that has been devastating communities for years, and the 2022 budget added a mere $100 million over three years to be spread across the country. That is 10 provinces and three territories. The stigma is not just in policy, nor just in the laws in this country. It is in the amount of money the government spends to tackle this crisis.

The toxic drug supply crisis, which has arisen as a direct result of the failed war on drugs, is not just costing lives; it is costing significant amounts of money to all levels of government. Members have heard me say repeatedly in the House that this is a health and human rights issue, but this is also an economic issue.

The expert task force wrote about the financial burden of the criminalized approach to drugs on the health and criminal justice system. Its report said:

Criminalization leads to higher drug-related health costs because it keeps people who use drugs away from prevention and early treatment health services due to fear of being arrested, labelled, or outed.

“Criminalization drives people underground and means that people are less likely to seek assistance, or have difficulties if they try to obtain assistance.”

Because criminalization pushes people who use drugs to rely on an illegal, often contaminated drug supply, it is also responsible for high hospitalization costs.

“23,240 opioid-related and 10,518 stimulant-related poisoning hospitalizations occurred from January 2016 to September 2020 in Canada (excluding Quebec).”

In its second report, the expert task force put it bluntly, saying, “Current policies are currently costing Canada huge amounts. In—”

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

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères on a point of order.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech is really interesting, really passionate and deals with a very important subject, but I am not sure it relates to the content of Bill C-8.

Have I misunderstood my colleague's speech and remarks?

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

As I understand it, the member is raising a point of order on relevance.

I presume the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni will get there in his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, this is again the problem in the House. We have four official political parties and a fifth party, the Green Party, and what parties do not recognize is that when 27,000 people die in this country in six years, this issue should be addressed in the fall economic statement. In B.C. it has killed more people than COVID-19, yet COVID-19 responses are in this budget. Absolutely, this is a fall budget issue and it is missing in this document. It is missing in the funding and it is missing in the response from the government. I am disappointed to hear my colleague think that this issue should not be responded to in the fall economic update.

I am going to go back to my speech, if I can.

The second report says:

Current policies are currently costing Canada huge amounts. In 2017, the estimate of healthcare costs in Canada related to the use of opioids and other depressants and cocaine and other stimulants was one billion dollars, and the cost of policing and legal proceedings related to drug possession exceeded six billion dollars.

These are 2017 numbers. Yes, this is relevant to the fall economic statement.

The task force recommended providing sufficient and ongoing funding to address the issue and stated, “Although a significant initial investment will be required to reshape the system and address the drug toxicity crisis, costs can be expected to decrease over time as the impact of new, more effective policies is felt.”

That there are societal costs to problematic substance use is not news. In 2014, a report of the blue ribbon panel on crime reduction was prepared for the British Columbia provincial government. It states:

Clearly, substance abuse is an expensive societal issue. Drug treatment is also an expensive enterprise. This raises the immediate question as to whether treatment is worth the cost. According to the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, “every dollar invested in addiction treatment programs yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft. When savings related to healthcare are included, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.”

This is an economic issue. This was an opportunity missed in the fall economic update. The report recommended that quality mental health and addiction services be made more accessible, finding that evidence suggests such investments would lead to significant future savings. It is an economic issue and should have been addressed in the fall economic statement.

Beyond these health and justice system costs, there are less visible costs to communities from the war on drugs. These costs are something I have heard a great deal about, as I have travelled the country to learn about the toxic drug supply crisis and speak about my private member's bill. I have been on a “stop the harm” tour, listening to people in Victoria, Duncan, Nanaimo, Edmonton last week, Saskatoon and Toronto. I was in Montreal today, in my colleague's home province, listening to frontline people. I hope he does the same, because they will tell him it is an economic issue as well as a human rights and health issue. In Halifax I hear the same thing.

I was talking to Jean-Francois Mary at Cactus Montreal today. He said that for someone who gets HIV, it costs $35,000 a year to get medicine. For someone with hepatitis C, it costs about $75,000. He says he gets $250,000 in funding from the province but does not get any federal funding. He is here to stop the spread of HIV and stop hepatitis C, so this is an economic issue.

I also heard this from Kayla DeMong at Prairie Harm Reduction. She said it does not make any economic sense that we are not investing in harm reduction. She just got her funding pulled from the Province of Saskatchewan. They need federal funding.

I could go on, but I will go right to the fact that we need empathy right now. We need to listen to the people. We need to open our hearts on this issue. It is an economic issue and it is a human issue as well.

I listened to Isabelle Fortier this morning, from Moms Stop the Harm. When I was at Dopamine in Montreal, she talked about her daughter Sara-Jane, who was studying law at the University of Ottawa. She got into a depression and started using substances to cope with it. She died 600 metres from a hospital from a preventable overdose. She wanted to volunteer at Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the Red Cross. She lost her dreams.

One thing I have seen from coast to coast to coast in the eyes of the people who are struggling the most with this crisis is that they have fear in common. They are scared. They are scared about where they are going to sleep. They are scared for what they are going to eat. They are scared that they are going to die of drug poisoning. They are scared that they are never going to be whole again, or be with their families, friends and loved ones. They are scared that their dreams are gone.

I am calling on all of us to have empathy. Gandhi said that, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” I am calling on us to be leaders and to show that we have courage, that we care about the most vulnerable, that we do not fail them and that we unlock their dreams. It is good for the GDP. We have an opportunity. We can look to Portugal, which took a health approach instead of a criminal approach. It is proud of taking on a complex issue with a complex solution. It had courage, it did not have fear, and it was good for the country's economy.

This is a fall economic update issue. It has been a fall economic update issue for six years. It has been a budget update issue for six years, with failed opportunities. I encourage us all to have the love, compassion and courage to make this issue a priority. All of us can dream to open up and unlock the dreams of the people who are dying right now by supporting them, by investing in them and by prioritizing them. We can do this, and I hope we will all do it and stop letting people die unnecessarily.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I really appreciate the passion that this member has displayed today. I would agree with him that this is an extremely important issue. I really hope that we can see better funding come forward and better action taken towards dealing with this serious crisis that we have.

The member talked about the tour that he has been on in support of his private member's bill. I wonder if he can relay to the House what he has been hearing. What are some of the real-life experiences and stories that he has been hearing from people as he has been touring around the country? What they are saying, and what does he think they would want the House to know?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that they want us to listen to the experts, and listen to the evidence and the science. Health Canada has created a task force on substance use. It makes clear recommendations that are reflected in my Bill C-216, the health-based approach to the substance use act. They want to see us actually move forward, to look to other models around the world, to have courage and not put votes ahead of people's lives. That is what they want us to hear.

I encourage everybody in the House to talk to Moms Stop The Harm. It is Mental Health Week, which is built around empathy. I ask members to please listen to the moms, the experts and our chief medical health officer, and to talk to law enforcement. They will tell us that by criminalizing people we are just further harming them, and it does not work. It has not worked.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the NDP for his very passionate speech and his commitment to those suffering with addictions.

As the member mentioned, the theme of Mental Health Week, which is this week, is empathy. I think it has been said many times that the shortest distance between two people is in fact empathy, and that we can actually start to bridge some of the divides and heal our communities.

Can the member expand on some of the things he has been hearing in his consultations across the country on treatment and helping people get off some of their addictions?

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

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things in there.

First, the member talked about mental health. We heard a commitment from this government of $4.5 billion over five years in transfers around mental health. We did not see it in the fall economic statement. In fact, we did not see it in the budget, but we are eagerly anticipating it, given post-COVID or coming out of COVID when we have a serious mental health crisis as never before. We absolutely need to make sure that people get access to those supports.

When it comes to treatment, we need to make sure that it is on demand. Certain provinces do not want to do a safe supply: They do not want to decriminalize and they believe just in treatment as a model, but they are not delivering it. They should go to Edmonton and go to Saskatoon. I was just there. A gentleman I met had dreams and wanted treatment, but he said that it was going to take weeks or months to get treatment. We need to invest. It saves money, and I talked about some of that. We need to invest.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, which was indeed very passionate. It is obvious that he cares deeply about that issue. I do not think that this is the first time he has talked about this problem in the House.

Was my colleague surprised that the government asked him questions about what should be done? The government has been in power for six years, but it clearly has not done anything to improve the situation.