Debates of Oct. 17th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:40 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:55 p.m., so we can begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-320, a bill that makes a fairly significant statement. I truly believe that it does not matter what side of the House a member sits on as we all recognize that, whenever a crime is committed, there is a victim, whether it is collectively or individually. We want to be there in a very real and tangible way to support victims.

When I look at Bill C-320, I see a bill that moves us forward in being more transparent, and ultimately more accountable, through providing supports directly to victims. I do not say that lightly because I have had experiences, while I was an MLA a number of years ago in the mid-nineties, where I had the opportunity to participate in a youth justice committee.

For those who are not aware, youth justice committees were an alternative to young people having to go to formal court. I found out something very quickly when young people came before the committee, which in my case was based in a community in the northwest end of the city of Winnipeg. We were classified as honorary parole officers of sorts, and we listened to cases involving anything from shoplifting and automobile theft to some cases of minor assault types of situations. What I found was that, the more we gained experience as a justice committee, the stronger our desire to incorporate victims.

I believe that at the time we were one of the first justice committees looking for restorative justice. In that case, having restorative justice meant that we had young offenders sitting down to work out some sort of a disposition with us along with the victim. We felt that that was a good alternative to having the victim outside of the process. Rather, the victim was on the inside of the process, able to contribute to the disposition of an individual, a young person in the community, to ensure that justice was being served. What I found in a couple of the cases that I was able to participate in was that there was a much higher sense of relief in different ways, in part by the victim.

Since the mid-nineties, I have always had an interest in how we can support victims of crimes. The types of crimes that are out there are obviously exceptionally wide in the spectrum. The ones that have a strong element of violence against a person are, from my point of view, the most offensive. I am more sympathetic to having victim's rights being looked after.

When I look at Bill C-320, what I see are amendments to the CCRA that would require Correctional Services Canada and the Parole Board of Canada to provide victims with an explanation of how dates were calculated initially and at each time there is a change. I think that is the core of the content of the legislation that we are talking about today.

When I think of what we have done as a government to support victims, there are a couple of things that I want to highlight. Whenever we think of the role that the government plays, one can talk about legislation but I would also suggest that one can talk about budgetary measures.

For example, budget 2021 proposed to provide just over $85 million, over five years, to support a national program for independent legal advice and independent legal representation for victims of sexual assault and to support pilot projects for victims of intimate partner violence. I believe this demonstrates that the government is looking at supporting victims in a very tangible way.

I have seen legislation that we have passed that makes it easier for the victim; when a perpetrator goes before a parole board, the victim does not have to appear in order to present what had taken place, thereby making them a victim once again.

As a government, we have acted on budgetary measures and legislative measures to be able to protect the interests of victims.

Through the victims fund, we have made more than $28 million available to provincial and territorial governments and non-governmental organizations to increase awareness and knowledge of victim issues, legislation and available services.

The bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I believe that this disclosure of an offender's parole eligibility dates to the victims also includes the explanation of how such dates would be determined. This is consistent with what that the government has been doing, from a budget process and a legislative process previously.

The government is committed to supporting victims of crime and their families. Their right to information about the individuals who have harmed them should be respected at all stages of the corrections and conditional release process.

This disclosure of information to victims provides transparency and accountability.

We have seen legislation pass when we believed that it would receive unanimous support. I believe that this piece of legislation has wide support, possibly from all political parties in the chamber.

I hope that the mover of the legislation would be open, as the government is when it brings forward legislation that goes to committee, to possible amendments.

I reflect back on Bill C-48, which was dealing with the whole issue of parole and bail hearings, in particular the importance of having the reverse onus in specific areas of proof. I witnessed during the debates of that legislation an overwhelming desire to see it ultimately pass. It received unanimous consent.

I do believe that a vast majority of, if not all, members realize the importance of more accountability and transparency in protecting the victims of crimes. That is why I feel very comfortable in wanting to see this bill go to committee.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by stating that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-320. Simply put, our party is committed to supporting initiatives that keep women safe and that address violence against women.

I believe that victims have everything to gain from getting as much information as possible about their assailant and the situation surrounding the assailant's potential release. Our position is therefore in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-233. That bill amended the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. I sincerely believe that measures like this are good for victims. Members of the Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and strengthen the relationship of trust between the public and our institutions. It must be said that that relationship keeps getting undermined these days.

The bill before us now seeks to amend the Criminal Code to enable victims of a criminal offence to get an explanation about how certain decisions were made about their assailant. This includes the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, work release, parole or statutory release.

Adding a mechanism that would give victims access to additional information about their assailant's situation and decisions being made about that person is, in my opinion, certain to strengthen the justice system. That is why we support this bill.

Over the past few years, Quebec has positioned itself as a world leader in enhancing victim protection and strengthening victims' confidence in the justice system. For example, the Government of Quebec has launched a pilot project in a number of courthouses to create courts specializing in sexual assault cases. There is also the electronic monitoring device pilot project, which was successful and has been deployed across the province.

These advancements meet the objective of recognizing how vulnerable victims of an offence are and putting all the tools at their disposal so they can be safe. This way, the justice system can evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims of crime.

If it passes, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence, for example. I would like to thank the member who introduced this bill because, although we are talking about a fairly simple change, it is these small changes that can really make a difference in the lives of many people who really need it.

The justice system has to be more effective in general and more transparent, not least to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant. As I have already stated, we need to strengthen public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report their assailant to the police.

Unfortunately, the numbers are representative of this lack of confidence in the justice system. According to the Institut de la statistique du Québec, only 5% to 6% of sexual assaults in Canada are reported to the authorities. According to data obtained by Radio-Canada through the Access to Information Act in 2018, 77% of women who came forward did not see their assailant get formally charged. We can understand why they would not want to embark on a lengthy and often costly legal process that could ultimately let them down and force them to relive and retell their experience again and again.

While the vast majority of women remain silent before a justice system that lets them down, statistics show that there has been a rise in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, for example, femicides increased by 7.5%. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse that trend.

The reality on the ground highlights the deficiencies in the justice system status quo. For example, many victims continue to fear their assailant even while that person is being detained. My team and I wanted to do a tour on the ground to see what is happening back home in the Gaspé Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence.

Regarding violence against women, the numbers are troubling. Community organizations that support victims are stretched to the limit. A women's shelter called L'Émergence, in Maria, in the Gaspé region, says it is receiving more and more requests for outreach services, meaning services for non-shelter residents, because the shelter is almost always full. With only 11 second-stage units and a housing shortage, women stay in their homes in spite of the risks they face. In the past few months especially, the number of high-risk cases has increased. High-risk cases refer mainly to the risk of femicide. Increasingly, the women seeking out the shelter's services face intersectional challenges, such as mental health issues on top of domestic violence and substance abuse. Very few of the women receiving services from the shelter report their abuser, and most of the ones who do come to regret it because of the complex procedures they have to deal with and the burden of proof that they have to bear. The results are also very often disappointing. As I mentioned earlier, the abuser either will not be formally charged or will get a sentence that is little more than a slap on the wrist. The number of women at the shelter who file an incident report, forgoing formal charges, is also declining dramatically.

In Matane, requests for assistance have increased by about 80% since the pandemic. At La Gigogne, shelter services are also constantly stretched to the limit. Management is forced to either turn women away or refer them to centres outside the region, uprooting them from their communities. Requests for outreach services have at least doubled since the pandemic. Across all organizations, less than a quarter of women ever file a complaint, mainly because of a lack of confidence in the justice system.

If this bill can restore victims' confidence in the slightest, so they do not feel they will be left to fend for themselves during the process or once the abuser is behind bars, I will definitely be voting yes. I think I can speak for the shelters and organizations in my riding that help women when I say that this bill is a good thing. We asked them, and they think it is a step forward. Why do they think that? It is because these organizations benefit when the women they help regain their trust in the justice system.

This is a step forward. Bloc Québécois members will always support initiatives that help victims of crime. We are pleased to vote in favour of this bill so that it can go to parliamentary committee. I heard the member who spoke before me say that there may be some amendments to propose, but we are quite willing to work on this bill.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to my hon. colleague from Oshawa's private member's bill, Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims).

When I was asked to speak to this bill, the answer was an easy yes. It is easy to support Bill C-320 because this crucial piece of legislation prioritizes victims' rights in the Canadian justice system. It is the government's responsibility to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. It is time that victims and their families are prioritized by our justice system, not continuously revictimized by it.

However, the Liberal government repeatedly fails on that account. It has been easy on criminals while tough on families. After eight years of the Prime Minister's failed catch-and-release bail and soft-on-crime policies, crime has never been worse.

Ever since the Liberal government passed Bill C-75, it unleashed a wave of violent crime across our country. Since 2015, total violent crime has increased by almost 40%, homicides have increased by 45% and are up for the fourth year in a row, gang-related homicides have increased by over 100%, violent gun crime has increased by over 100%, total sexual assaults have increased by almost 75%, sex crimes against children have increased by over 125% and kidnappings have increased by almost 40%. With more crime and chaos across our country, there are more and more victims, and it seems that the system is putting the rights of criminals over the rights of victims.

That is why victims and families of victims like Lisa are speaking out and are the inspiration and driving force of this bill. Lisa's father was brutally murdered in 1991, and the offender received a conviction of 25 years to life. Lisa and her family, like many victims of crime, were caught off guard when they were notified that the offender was eligible for parole before the 25 years indicated on the conviction record. Her father's killer was eligible for early parole only 20 years into his sentence of 25 years to life. Victims usually think life means life. She believes, and I agree, that the lack of transparency regarding how parole dates and eligibility are determined causes the victims of crime to experience confusion, frustration, trauma and resentment of the criminal justice system.

This legislation makes a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide respect and dignity to victims and their families. It would require that information regarding the review eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated in writing to the offenders' victims, including explaining how the dates were determined for parole and explaining this process, to be as transparent as possible. Victims deserve accurate and timely information regarding the parole process.

Hearing about this bill and Lisa's story, I was reminded of a similar case in my own riding, a story I am sure all members are familiar with, the tragic case of Tori Stafford, a young girl whose life was cut short by a horrific murder. It serves as a stark reminder of why we must advocate for the victims' rights.

In April 2009, Tori, an innocent eight-year-old, was abducted, raped and murdered by two individuals. It was a senseless act that sent shockwaves not only through Oxford but through our country. The pain and anguish that Tori's family and loved ones endured was unimaginable. This traumatized Tori's family, our community of Oxford and our country.

Unfortunately, the Stafford family's journey with the justice system has not been a smooth one. Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic were both guilty of murdering Tori. McClintic pleaded guilty in 2010, and in 2013, after his appeals, Michael Rafferty received the same sentence. Both were sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years in maximum-security facilities. However, in 2018, we saw that McClintic made headlines for being transferred to a minimum-security healing lodge.

With the advocacy of Tori's family, the public outcry was strong and swift, and McClintic was returned to prison after the public safety minister intervened. However, this raises the question of how we have gotten to the point that, eight years after raping and murdering a child, a violent offender can be transferred to a low-security facility. Why is the criminal justice system providing false comfort to the families of our victims?

When I spoke to Tori's father about this incident, he stated that the Parole Board did not notify him of McClintic's transfer. He shared how, each time the offenders were transferred, it brought back the terrible memories, picked at the wounds they were trying to heal and caused them pain. At times when the offender of the crime was transferred to a lower-security facility or granted temporary leave from a prison for various reasons, it was not always communicated to them. It was traumatic for their family.

Tori Stafford's story is a heart-wrenching example of the dire need for comprehensive reform of our parole and justice systems. We need greater transparency. We must prioritize victims and victims' families, rather than allowing criminals to dictate how the process will progress.

While this incident is older, Rodney Stafford, Tori Stafford's father, was again in the media this summer when we heard about Paul Bernardo's transfer happening without much warning to his victims' families. Rodney discussed the need for transparency surrounding the incarceration of his daughter's killers, especially when they become eligible for parole. He knows that there is a chance that one or both will one day be released, but until then, he says that victims' families deserve more respect. He said, “The victim families, we don't have any rights”. He went on to say, “They've been eliminated.”

Ultimately, that is why we are here today. Bill C-320 would address the fundamental issue of victims' rights and aim to provide them with the support and recognition they deserve. This legislation would acknowledge that victims such as Tori Stafford and her family, and advocates such as Lisa and Rodney, should be at the forefront of parole board considerations.

The bill would seek to rectify the power imbalance that often exists between victims and offenders. It would ensure that the system itself does not revictimize the families. That is why this bill would be a crucial step forward in making our justice system more compassionate, supportive and responsive to families' needs.

It is necessary reform that pays homage to victims who have suffered immeasurable pain and deserve better. This policy has the support of the victims' rights community, and this amendment is a very simple one. It is the addition of a single sentence that would put victims first and make a world of difference.

Bill C-320 is an essential piece of legislation that acknowledges the pain and suffering endured by victims. By passing this bill, we would send a clear message that Canada stands with the victims and not the criminals. We would stand with victims by providing them with the rights and support they deserve throughout the parole process.

Let us not forget the lessons learned from cases such as Tori Stafford's and Lisa's: We have an urgent need for further parole reform and a justice system that would put our victims first. I urge my honourable colleagues to support Bill C-320 and make our justice system a more compassionate and just place for all.

We will and we must do more to support victims and their families. It is the right thing to do.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the debate on Bill C-320.

As my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-320. The Bloc's position is part of its commitment to supporting initiatives that ensure women's safety and that combat violence against women. We believe that victims will significantly benefit from obtaining as much information as possible about their abuser, as well as the situation surrounding his release, if applicable.

The Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with our support for Bill C‑233. As my colleague said earlier, that bill amended “the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.” The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and to strengthen the bond of trust between the public and our institutions. That last point is very important.

Our justice system is undoubtedly one of our most precious assets. We live in a society that is the envy of a lot of nations around the world. Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person”. These are the rights that the justice system has the duty to protect for all Quebeckers and all Canadians. This duty is the guarantor of a strong democracy that protects fundamental rights. As elected representatives, we are responsible for protecting and safeguarding these rights.

We know that our criminal justice system has many shortcomings, as shown by many studies and testimonies. According to the 2022 national justice survey, nearly 49% of Canadians believe that the justice system is not really fair. That is half the population. Almost 39% of them think that the justice system is not accessible to all. One cannot be against the idea of periodically reviewing a system that is mired in red tape and where the human element is commonly pushed aside.

We think that more transparency is needed, particularly with respect to victims. We need to strengthen and, in some cases, even rebuild the relationship of trust, which does not always seem to mean much.

It is vital that victims feel safe throughout the legal process and that they believe that the rulings handed down are enough to keep them safe. Otherwise, many people will not feel comfortable reporting their attacker. That is something that we have seen and continue to see far too often. Some think that the risks outweigh the benefits. When a person comes to that conclusion, then the system has failed in its primary purpose.

With the marked increase in family violence over the past five years, as demonstrated by Statistics Canada, women and girls are the greatest victims of this flaw in the system. It is already hard enough to report an attacker. These victims have to deal with judgment, prejudice, and procedures that are often far too long. They need to be very resilient and courageous to get to the end of the process, all the while hoping that the court will decide to put their attacker behind bars for a time.

Once that happens, survivors can catch their breath. They can feel a little safer. They resume their lives and go about their business. They regain their confidence. However, after a few months, sometimes years, they learn that their abuser has been granted a temporary absence, parole or statutory release, and they are given no explanation of the procedure that led to that decision. For many of them, it is back to square one. The feeling of insecurity returns with a vengeance. Our criminal justice system, at least in its current form, does not always know how to adequately protect victims.

In my riding, I had the immense privilege of speaking with a sexual assault survivor. I did so with great humility, and I must say I was impressed. Moreover, she was a victim of a repeat offender. Before assaulting my constituent, this individual had already been incarcerated as a serial rapist. It was not just one assault; it was a series of rapes. He was released on parole. He went back to prison for a few years because he assaulted a few women while on parole, but he was released again and he reoffended. Again, he assaulted more women.

What message are we sending to victims when we release such an individual without offering his past victims adequate reassurance or, if necessary, support?

My constituent that I was talking about is a real fighter. She stood up and fought to prevent the release of this offender despite her own injuries. I have deep respect for her.

I also have deep respect for every woman who finds the strength to stand up and urge her politicians to adapt our laws to guarantee her safety and peace of mind.

It seems clear to me, under these conditions, that providing victims with an explanation for the release of their attacker is a matter of basic respect. It shows the empathy we should demonstrate in enforcing legislation and in shaping our justice system.

It gives the survivors of such crimes the right to question decisions made by the system and to file an appeal, if needed, if they feel that it is necessary. It is about properly supporting them in the very essential healing process.

Although Quebec may not be perfect, it has always stood out as a leader in protecting victims, including by bringing in electronic bracelets and setting up courts specializing in cases of sexual violence. It certainly plans to continue to serve as a model within Canada and globally. It is always important to keep the interests of the victim at the heart of the process.

For the benefit of Quebeckers and Canadians, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑320. It is a small step, to be sure, but it is still a step toward building an effective justice system capable of fulfilling its mission.

This bill strengthens the right to safety of victims of crime, especially victims of domestic and sexual violence. It is somewhat in keeping with the spirit of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that I mentioned earlier that guarantees everyone the right to security of the person.

In short, when passed into law, this bill will strengthen the protection of victims, the transparency of the criminal justice system, respect for everyone's rights and, above all, democracy as a whole.

More importantly, it will help build confidence in our justice system among women who, all too often, still do not dare to report their attackers because the system does not always seem to be on their side.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Oshawa has the floor for his right to reply.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like begin by thanking all of my parliamentary colleagues and particularly the new member for Oxford for his speech.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues who participated in this debate and who expressed support for the bill. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Lisa Freeman, the person who inspired Bill C-320, a bill we like to call the truth in sentencing bill.

As stated before, this bill is intended to help families who are plunged into unfathomable situations. They can be retraumatized and demoralized by actions of the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada, institutions that say they are supportive of victims of crime, but unfortunately, this is at best an illusion.

Lisa's father was tragically bludgeoned to death by an axe murderer in 1991. I think it is also worth noting, as colleagues have spoken tonight of this happening in their constituencies as well, that this murderer was out on parole when this horrific crime took place.

Lisa's family was shocked to hear that life did not mean life for this murderer. Transparency for victims was not a priority for our parole system. Victims did not have the right to know or the right for information, for transparency, so Lisa bravely took it upon herself to right this wrong and fight to improve the system for victims, victims' families and future victims. It is a reminder that it is the responsibility of the government and our responsibility as elected officials to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity.

As stated earlier, this legislation is a simple, very short legislative change. It would make a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act for disclosure of information to victims that would provide such respect and dignity. It would require that information regarding the review and eligibility of all forms of parole be communicated in writing to the offender's victims, including the explanation of how the dates were determined for parole and explaining this process in an effort to be as transparent as possible. We cannot argue with the logic of this bill, and I hope that we shall have full support among members in the House.

Sadly, victims do not have any support compared to the support our government gives to criminals. I would like to remind my colleagues that it is the job of the Minister of Public Safety and this government to keep the public safe. The job description is public safety, not criminals' safety. A murderer's rights should never trump a victim's rights.

A sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years is meant to imply a severity of punishment. This is simply not true, and it is misleading to families and the general public. Offenders serving a life sentence without parole for 25 years can actually be released on other forms of parole well before then for personal development, temporary absences and community service work. In prisons across the country, offenders who have committed some of the most heinous crimes, such as murder, can be housed in minimum-security prisons, and families are constantly aware that the level of security does not match the severity of the crime. This is exemplified from an update from Lisa Freeman and the recent, outrageous communication she received from our soft-on-crime parole system.

Lisa Freeman said:

I was notified in July that:

My father's killer’s day parole was extended for 6 months and when it goes up again for renewal in January of 2024 and even if he doesn't request full parole, he can be automatically granted it at the same time. No hearing I can attend, and no opportunity for me to object...just an in-office, paper decision.

Also at the same time I was notified that the 'conditions on parole' that I have in place—no transfers to the province of Ontario, and parts of BC—can be lifted at any time his Case Management Team feels that he 'would benefit from attending courses in these areas'.

What an outrage that the only comfort for me and my family from this axe murderer can be lifted at whim of his team.

The system needs to be recalibrated. The rights of victims should be made equal to, or better than, the rights of the offenders.

So here we have it. A killer can be released into the community where victims live at the whim of his case management team, and no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made and when the release will take place. I know that we all agree that this is unconscionable. Victims deserve better, and at the very least, they deserve accurate information.

I want to thank my colleagues here this evening, and I hope I get full support when this bill comes up for a vote in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Health

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

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight on behalf of the 40,000 Canadian families that have lost loved ones since 2016, since the Liberals formed government, due to the toxic drug supply. I am here also on behalf of those living with problematic substance use and recreational substance use who are dying from preventable deaths.

Just to give some context, right now in Canada, about 180 Canadians per million die due to toxic drugs. In British Columbia, my home province, it is 430. In the Island Health region, it is over 500, and in the Alberni Valley, where I live, it is over 1,000. For those under the age of 49, it is right now over 2,100 people per million who are dying from toxic drugs. It is off the chart.

I have been asking, and New Democrats have been asking, for the federal government to come up with a plan, a timeline and resources to respond to this health emergency. In fact, not only has the Liberal government failed to do that, but it also has not spent even 1% of what it spent on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Why is that? It is because of the stigma. That is the only reason it has not responded. There are solutions out there.

I took it upon myself to go to Portugal last summer, on my own dime, to learn from Portugal, because it had six deaths per million. To paint the picture of how many people are dying in Canada, just to put things in perspective, more people have died in Canada from a toxic drug supply than in all of the European Union, with a population of over 450 million people.

The Portuguese story is quite interesting, because that country had a massive drug crisis that was claiming the lives of many people in the mid-nineties. Over 1,000 people were dying, primarily heroin users. There were 1,000 heroin users in a population of 10 million people. Just to put things in perspective, in my home province of British Columbia, we have 100,000 chronic substance users in a population of five million people. We have double what they had, in terms of per capita usage, of chronic substance users.

The Portuguese realized it was a health emergency and responded like it was a health emergency. They convened a table of experts. They decided to move forward with expert-based policy. They created treatment on demand and a safer supply of substances. They scaled up. They had 250 people on methadone at the start of their program, and they scaled that up to 35,000 in two years. They used the military to create labs, to lower the cost and to get supply out the door. Today, they have 20,000 chronic substance users. They focused on harm reduction, making sure that people got the support they did.

I will talk about the politicians and what they did. They were the heroes. They took the gloves off, stepped out of the way, stopped playing politics and got rid of their ideology. Portugal focused on evidence-based decision-making led by experts, and put forward a plan with resources, a timeline and a strategy. It was unbelievable.

We actually had an expert task force on substance use from Health Canada. What did the federal government do? It chose to ignore them. There is still no plan, no timeline and no resources. When is the government going to treat this as a true public health emergency? Where is the urgency?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his passion on this topic. I have spoken to him several times already since I started in this role, and I can only learn from this member and continue to appreciate his passion and knowledge on this topic.

This toxic drug and overdose crisis is having a tragic and unrelenting toll on Canadians, their families and communities, and the member knows this. There are four pillars recognized internationally that are necessary for a successful substance use strategy: prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. We are committed to a comprehensive approach that implements policies and supports in all four of these essential areas. The member opposite is a key ally in solving this crisis.

Every person who overdoses is somebody who has a family and somebody who has people who care about them. I believe these deaths are, as the member said, preventable. Many of these individuals have perhaps hidden their drug use and feel unable or afraid to seek help. Many died alone. We must take urgent action to save lives and protect the health and safety of Canadians.

We have committed more than $1 billion for a full range of evidence-based actions focused on prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. Sadly, this crisis is evolving and worsening. The drugs are getting more toxic. Substance use intersects with other issues like poverty, homelessness and mental health. We need to evolve our understanding of the crisis and continue to improve the government's work to save lives, and protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Substance use is a health issue and health care is a shared responsibility across all levels of government. Most importantly, because I know some members in this House still disagree with this, harm reduction is health care. This is why we continue to support provinces, territories and indigenous communities to improve access to integrated, evidence-based substance use services and supports for all Canadians when and where they need it.

Creating false narratives is not useful to anyone. I am happy that the member for Courtenay—Alberni agrees with us on this and is helping us fight misinformation. We are providing nearly $200 billion to the provinces and territories over the next 10 years to support health system reform across Canada, and $25 billion of that money is for shared health priorities such as improving access to mental health and substance use services.

These historic investments will seek to integrate mental health and substance use care across the entire health system. This means that no matter where, when or how someone reaches out for help, there will be no wrong door, and I am optimistic we can get there. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to address this complex crisis. Each person's circumstance is unique. Solutions to the crisis must recognize that people use substances for different reasons and in different ways.

Offering treatment alone is not enough. Providing a broad array of care options and wraparound supports allows people to access the right services at the right time to improve their overall health and well-being.

We cannot end this crisis alone. It is our collective responsibility to work together as parliamentarians, with the member for Courtenay—Alberni, local communities, provinces and territories, as well as indigenous communities. We cannot be working in silos or through an approach that is not integrated.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member talked about an integrated approach because the Portuguese model is a coordinated, integrated, compassionate model. Here in Canada, we do not have coordination. There are no resources. In fact, we are in a health crisis.

I will say this: The Liberals' incremental approach costs lives in a health crisis. The disinformation from the Conservatives costs lives in a health crisis. What we need is action. We need a timeline to invest in harm reduction, treatment, recovery, prevention, education and a safer supply to replace the toxic street drugs.

Where is the plan? Where is the timeline? Where is the compassion? When is this going to be a priority? When are they truly going to end the stigma? Do I have to keep coming back here every week to fight the same fight? When is the plan going to be tabled in this House of Commons? The families deserve it.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree, and we do know that substance abuse is an extremely complex issue.

Discrimination and trauma can place individuals at an increased risk for substance use harms. We are focused on improving the availability and accessibility of a range of services and supports as a means to address the overdose crisis. This complex issue calls for a comprehensive and integrated response, as I said and as the member acknowledged. People who are struggling need everyone at the table. They need everyone in the House of Commons, including the federal government, working with the provinces and territories on a system that includes health and mental health teams and services.

This is a public health issue, not a criminal one, and it must be addressed that way alongside well-trained, monitored and resourced public safety components. I look forward to discussing the trip you took and learning a bit more about the model in Portugal.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:36 p.m.)