Debates of May 18th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Opioid Crisis

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

Mr. Speaker, much as I am disappointed to see this motion come forward in the manner it has, I am also happy to see that we are having this conversation and debate today, because over 35,000 people have died from a toxic drug supply in this country since 2016.

This is not an opioid crisis as the motion states; rather, these deaths have occurred because of a toxic, unregulated drug supply, and I am going to speak to a couple of things in the motion.

First, (iii) of the motion states:

since tax-funded drug supply was ramped up in 2020, opioid deaths have only gone up, according to the Public Health Agency

Yes, of course, they have. Between 2016 and 2020, fentanyl became the predominant drug on the market, meaning more people were accessing it instead of pills like oxycontin. Fentanyl analogs, like carfentanil and benzodiazepines, also appeared in the drug supply at this time. More people have died because the fentanyl supply has become more widely accessible and more volatile.

There were fewer than 1,000 people across Canada, probably around 500, accessing safe supply in 2020, with a denominator of tens of thousands of people were using fentanyl, and probably hundreds of thousands. There were 22,000 people who died from an overdose by 2020 under the current government. It is impossible that the 500 people or fewer who were on safe supply, the mass majority of whom are alive in 2023, drove those 22,000 deaths. Conservatives need to learn to do the math and listen to the experts.

It states in (iv) of the motion:

in 2020, slightly less than 7,000 people died of opioid overdoses, while only 3,000 died of overdoses in 2016, according to the Library of Parliament

Again, Conservatives cannot back that up. Those people died from a toxic drug supply. We know these deaths are not occurring because of the government's safe supply and safe injection programs, and to assert that is disinformation.

I am going to talk about some of the activists the government has highlighted. It said that activists are leading the safe supply charge. We know that provincial chief coroners and chief medical health officers across the country, like in my home province, and the police have said that.

I will read a quote from the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, which made it very clear that its members cannot police their way out of this because it is a health issue. It proposed “diverting people dealing with substance abuse or addiction issues away from the criminal system and toward social services and health care. The association stipulated such a change would need to be synchronized nationally.” The government has not done this.

It also cited in its report that it “endorsed access to users of a safe supply pharmaceutical-grade opioids to combat the uncertain composition of illegal street drugs, which is the cause of many opioid overdoses.”

“It further made a recommendation in favour of supervised consumption sites — where people could use drugs in a clean, safe environment, under the supervision of health professionals trained in emergency intervention.”

The activists are supporting safe supply. This is deeply concerning when I see the Conservative leader cite that it is only activists who are advocating.

Also, there is one thing in the speech by the Conservative leader that I would like to correct. He talked about incidents of youth being trafficked safer supply.

Today, in The Globe and Mail:

Vancouver Police, asked...about the possible sale of such narcotics, said in a recent statement that “there's always a potential” for safe-supply medication to be sold on the illicit market.

However, the force added they are not aware of any incidents in Vancouver in which safe supply has been trafficked to youth...

This was in response to the comments the Conservative leader has made here in the House of Commons. I can assure the House that the members of the Vancouver police know and are certain that youth are being targeted with illegal, unregulated, poisoned drugs, such as fentanyl, which is not regulated. This is what we are dealing with.

In (vi) of the motion it states:

recently, a Global News reporter in East Vancouver was able to buy 26 hits for $30 in just 30 minutes of a dangerous and highly addictive opioid that is distributed in tax-funded drug supply programs and flooding our streets with cheap opioids,

People can buy anything on that corner and have been able to for decades, at least over 50 years, so it is not great evidence if they go to the most robust drug-selling corner in Canada and that is what they come back with.

The photos of what they purchased show that most drugs were in a blister pack. A blister pack is issued to one patient. So, the Global reporter bought most of the 26 pills from just one person, and it is not evidence of a wide-scale diversion to buy from one person.

The motion today could have been about calling on the government to create an emergency committee of Parliament to deal with the toxic drug crisis. It is the leading cause of unnatural death in my home province; more than motor vehicle accidents, more than homicide and more than death by suicide. However, the Conservatives did not do that. They chose to bring forward this motion, which creates more stigma and more harm actually.

A person who decides to use a single dose of a toxic drug at a weekend party is as vulnerable as any struggling person with problematic substance use, and the result can be the same: a fatal, toxic drug overdose. I know this, because in my home community, we have seen lots of people die, and lots of young men. The average age of people who are dying is 44, and the majority of them are men dying at home alone.

Guy Felicella, a peer clinical supervisor at the B.C. Centre on Substance Use, said that “People who aren't ready, able or interested in addressing their addiction don't deserve to die from the toxic drug supply.” I agree.

I have risen in the House on many occasions, as members know very well, in support of a health-based approach to substance use. I would like to welcome all members from all sides of the House who are joining our call for increased investment to respond to this crisis and for people who are suffering with substance use disorder. The sooner we can actually come together across political lines to make this happen, the sooner we are going to save lives.

This is a national health crisis, and we are not acting like that. However, we need to understand what we are dealing with when looking at this crisis. It is not the easy, simplistic approach that the Conservatives are bringing forward. This crisis will never end through just investing in treatment and recovery without recognizing that this is a complex emergency, it is multi-faceted and it requires harm reduction as well, which go hand in hand; they are not pitted against each other.

Government members want to say that they are doing everything they can, but they spent less than 1% of what they spent on the COVID-19 health crisis. This is not responding to a health crisis in the way that needs to happen. We saw how they responded to SARS, HIV and COVID, and they need to do what they did there. They need to pull everyone together. They cannot just download treatment and recovery to the provinces. We saw what Portugal did. It stepped up and showed us what courage looks like and what is needed: investments in therapeutic treatment, housing and ensuring that we are dealing with this issue as a health crisis, not a criminal issue. It takes a multi-faceted approach, and I am really encouraging that today, but we need to simply do more of what we talked about.

We need to listen to experts. It is so important that everybody in the House listen to the experts. I travelled across this country when I was talking about my bill, Bill C-216, which was just a reflection of the Expert Task Force on Substance Use. I was able to meet with people on the front line of this crisis, such as people who use substance and experts, and the whole time they encouraged us to listen to the report.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police of Canada, as I have cited, has come forward very much in alignment with the expert task force, and actually had a seat on that task force. The task force was unanimous in that we need to stop criminalizing people who use substances, we need to expunge records of people who have been charged with personal possession, and we need to ensure that people have access to a safe supply and treatment on demand. So, we meet them where they are at and we invest in recovery, education and prevention, because we know that when people relapse, we need to catch them, but we also need to meet them where they are at through the whole thing.

My bill was defeated, as members know. The Conservatives teamed up with the majority of the Liberals and they voted against my bill, which was supported by the Bloc, the Greens and the NDP. I know that members of the Bloc had some issues with my bill, but they wanted to at least get it to committee and listen to the experts, which both the Conservatives and Liberals would not do, despite the fact that it just reflected the government's own Expert Task Force on Substance Use.

Moms Stop the Harm is coming to the Hill on the anniversary of the bill, which comes up not next week, our break week, but when we come back. It will be June 1. They are coming here because they are upset that, a year later, not a lot has changed. That bill would have given the government 12 months to come back with a strategy on how to respond to the expert task force on substance use, but they voted against it. I am hoping that every member in this House will at least meet the moms, and when they go back to their riding, talk to their chief medical health officer. I have not found one chief medical health officer, or a coroner, who does not support taking a multi-faceted approach and supporting safer supply.

I also urge the leader of the official opposition to meet with the chiefs of police. Hopefully, again, he will meet with the moms from Moms Stop the Harm. I know that the leader of the official opposition has been using Global News reports, the National Post and even Conrad Black to get his advice on how to move forward in terms of this toxic drug crisis.

We really need to get back to ensuring that we are listening to the report by the expert task force. I want to talk about who was on it. There were public health officials; indigenous health leaders; community health leaders; business, labour, university and social service agencies; the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs; public policy thinkers; and people with lived and living experience. They were unanimous in their recommendations. I want to give huge credit and thanks to that task force, because they put a lot of work in. Again, they embraced the four-pillar approach.

I understand that it takes courage to make this journey. We saw courage in Vancouver under former senator Larry Campbell. He was a police officer, then the chief coroner for British Columbia and then the mayor of Vancouver. He was the one who brought in Insite and safe consumption sites to save lives. That is the kind of courage we need today from everybody here. Again, we can look to other countries, such as Portugal, for their treatment and recovery programs. We can look at Switzerland, which has a safe supply model. There are models around the world.

I hope that we can come together today and talk about how we can find a pathway to actually work together. However, the stigma that is attached to substances is a huge barrier for people when it comes to getting help. We know that even today's motion is triggering a lot of people who use substances and were looking at safe supply as a pathway out of supporting the unregulated toxic drug supply that is coming from the streets. This supply is manufactured, distributed and marketed through organized crime.

We know we need to go further. We have to invest in a full spectrum to support people who use substances, including supervised consumption sites; real-time, on-demand public treatment options; and pharmaceutical-grade options and alternatives to illegal street drugs. We also have to ensure that people have housing. I was in the riding of my good colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and we went to a no-barrier housing place. It was great to see some of the people there being able to access OAT or safer supply, which they could not do when they were homeless, living in the bush or living wherever they could. We need to make sure that this is included.

When we call for more treatment services, let us recognize that, first, we must keep people alive by reducing their exposure to the toxicity of illegal street drugs. My good friend, the member for Vancouver East, represents the Downtown Eastside, a community struggling for survival and ravaged by toxic drug deaths. She once told this House that dead people cannot be treated. How true is that?

I just want to also do some fact checking here. I am going to read a quote from Corey Ranger. He is a clinical nurse specialist from AIDS Vancouver Island. He cites that there are “more sensationalist media hit-pieces about safe supply than actual safe supply. In BC, well-over 101,000 people are at risk of fatal drug poisonings, and less than 5% of those individuals are able to get a ‘safe supply’”. That is exactly what is happening. This incremental approach by the government is failing people who use substances. We know incrementalism costs lives in a health crisis.

However, the Conservatives' misinformation also costs lives. It is deadly. I do appreciate the Conservatives bringing forward this notion to move money from harm reduction to treatment, but even that is not close to enough money.

I want to read a quote from Guy Felicella. He says, “I've been to/left treatment over a dozen times to try & stay sober. If it wasn't for harm reduction services like supervised consumption sites, safer alternatives, naloxone and clean supplies to protect me in my relapses, I wouldn't be alive today or have the decade of sobriety that I do. Don't listen to people who attempt to misinform you that harm reduction enables drug use; it enables people to stay alive and for many to try recovery again.”

I want to make sure that we talk about the importance of trauma-informed treatment and ensure that it is available to people. A constituent wrote to me and said he was going to have to sell his house to keep his son in treatment; it was $300 a day. That is completely unacceptable. We can look to Portugal, which has taken huge steps on this. In my home community of the Alberni Valley, we lost 20 people by the eight-month mark last year. It is a community of 30,000 people. We are four times the national average, and this disproportionately impacts indigenous people.

I think we all know the numbers. I do not need to get too heavily into that. I hope every member of this House will read the report from the expert task force on substance use. I hope everyone will reach out to their community leaders, to their chief medical health officer, to their law enforcement, to the experts in their community and, most importantly, the moms who have lost loved ones, in the week ahead. This is something that I will be advocating for.

I am going to talk about safe supply and the pilots that have been happening. Ottawa has had a significant increase. There is a claim that people do not actually use their safe supply and that they just sell it to others. This is a quote from the former Stephen Harper legal adviser, Professor Ben Perrin. He stated, “Participants in the Ottawa safer supply program reduced their use of illicit fentanyl by 85% while on the program.”

We have seen great results at Parkdale Queen West. In London, Dr. Sereda has been running a really important program. We know that safer supply reduces the risk of death and overdose, reduces reliance on an unregulated supply of drugs, increases access to engagement with health and social services, improves social well-being and stability, reduces ER visits and hospitalizations, improves physical and mental health, and reduces health care costs. It also reduces criminal activity. Those are the facts from these studies. It certainly helps people get their life back.

We have heard some participants speak about what safe supply has done for them. These are some of the things people have said: “My whole lifestyle improved”, “Got my life back”, “My life has improved drastically”, “It saved my life”, “I function productively in society”, “My life is getting better”, “Frees time to do more constructive things”, “More energy and confidence to focus on my art” and “Opened a whole new outlook and positive way of living”. The list is long.

I know that what we are doing is not working. We are seeing a government take a very weak approach in responding to a health crisis; the lack of investments and the lack of urgency show the underlying stigma. This is the stigma, right there with the government and its failed approach, as well as its inability to pull together all parties in this crisis.

One thing I understand about the Conservatives and what they are bringing forward is frustration. Canadians are frustrated by the lack of action by the government to respond to this crisis. However, this does not mean that the response should be guided by misinformation. It does not mean we cut off safe supply as a tool to keep people alive, to ensure that people are able to get the help they need and to find a pathway to recovery and to treatment.

This motion today, to gut the harm reduction program and to stop safe supply in its tracks without proper evidence and science, does not make sense. It goes against what police, chief medical officers, coroners, moms, experts, those the Conservatives deem as activists, and the expert task force on substance use say.

I hope this dialogue, this conversation, can be turned around. I hope we can try to come together and find some common ground to deal with this crisis that is right before us. It is impacting everybody here.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his strong advocacy.

In April of this year, the BC Coroners Service affirmed that there continues to be no evidence that prescribed safe supply is contributing to illicit drug deaths. In fact, B.C.'s chief coroner said, “safer supply...is absolutely not driving this crisis.”

I am disappointed with the misinformation and misconceptions the Conservatives are promoting. We know the street drug supply is toxic and poisoned. Recovery is possible, but it looks different for everyone.

Could my colleague speak to how people need to be alive to benefit from treatment?

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

Madam Speaker, the choice is this: If they can get access to a safer supply, then there is interaction, which means an opportunity to work with individuals; if they do not have that option, they are going to the street. That means they are getting their drugs from an unregulated supply from organized crime.

The motion today would take away safe supply and tell people to go to the street. The police have said that they cannot arrest their way out of this problem; this problem is not going away. We have to listen to the experts. The chief coroner in B.C. is going to be reporting today. She is saying that we need a safe supply program to be rolled out, not this incremental approach, by the way.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing I agree with is that what we are doing today is not working. We know that. The ideological approach of the NDP is causing havoc in my communities of Cranbrook and Nelson.

I am wondering if the member can maybe talk a bit about why he and the NDP voted against a private member's bill that would have allowed addicts with two-year sentences to go to facilities that deal with addictions rather than prisons, where there are gangs, organized crime and hardened criminals. Instead, the NDP voted to put addicted individuals in prison rather than having them go to facilities that would help with their addictions.

I know personally from my family that people who are addicted to opioids can recover and become part of our communities, yet the NDP voted against that. Could the member explain why?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a former police officer, and today's motion goes against the position of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and many other police forces across this country.

I will speak to the bill that the member talked about. The bill was to ensure that people in federal penitentiaries who were serving two years plus a day would get treatment. Here is why New Democrats voted against it: First, it excluded people who had been charged with drug trafficking or violent crime. How many people in federal penitentiaries would that exclude? It would exclude a lot. Second, the bill was not supported by the national organizations that advocate for prisoners and their health in prisons. In fact, Conservatives got caught using quotes without approval from some of those stakeholders and organizations. Those organizations raised that with me and told me not to support that bill or anything like it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think one thing is clear in all of this debate. The debate must, of course, appeal to our emotions, because we are talking about human beings who are in this situation and who are living with this reality. However, at the same time, the debate must also appeal to reason. We need to look at statistics and data and what works and what does not. We need to have this debate, but we need to do so in an intelligent manner.

That is why I did not like it when my colleague asked a question earlier and was told “shame on this member” in response. We are here to debate. There is a solution on the table. Just because a member says that they do not agree and that they do not think that the solution will work does not mean that the member is complicit in and fuelling the opioid crisis.

In my question to the Leader of the Opposition earlier, I spoke about the American model. At the other end of the spectrum, we have Portugal's model. My colleague mentioned it briefly.

Just before coming here, I was reading an excellent academic paper on this subject. It indicated that 20 years after decriminalization, the rate of illegal drug use remains below the EU average and that, although the prevalence of problematic opioid use remains high and persistent, there has been a significant drop in the number of overdose deaths. There has also been a drop in the transmission of viruses, such as HIV and hepatitis. Access to care has improved, as has the availability of risk reduction interventions. Pressure on the court and prison systems was immediately reduced, and legal representation and practices have changed.

I think we can learn from that.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I do agree that we need to have a proper, respectful dialogue.

I just want to backtrack to the question from the Conservative Party. Every person incarcerated deserves health and treatment. That is actually the law in this land. It is not being delivered by the government, so that bill would be ineffective in what it was asking for. It is just an action and, again, the government is failing people who are incarcerated as well.

On what my colleague was saying about safe supply, the evidence speaks for itself. We need to continue to be driven by evidence and science in how we design our policies. The expert task force on substance use guided my bill, which was voted against by Conservatives in the House. They voted against the government's own expert task force.

They do not want to hear from the experts. They call them “activists”. They call the police chiefs “activists”. They say the chief coroners are “activists, public health officers are “activists”, and moms who have lost their kids are “activists”. They are not activists. They are people with lived experience who understand this issue and have actually done the work.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau, we have seen a dramatic increase in opioid deaths—

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

We do not use names in the House.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

After eight years of the Liberal government, we have seen a dramatic increase in opioid overdoses across the country. Obviously, whatever the Liberals are doing right now is not working. Even in the last two years, we have seen dramatic year-over-year increases in overdoses. It is obvious that handing out free drugs to people who are addicted to drugs is not solving the problem. Will the member not agree that this is a failed approach and that we need to return to treatment to get people off of using drugs?

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

Madam Speaker, this is the false dichotomy: that we cannot have harm reduction and we need to have treatment. We need both. We need to meet people where they are at.

With respect to the notion that this is failing, it has not even gotten off the ground yet. It is in its infancy. It has basically just started, and the results and evidence are staggering. It is lowering people's involvement in criminal activity, and there are fewer people using the deadly fentanyl. They are not going to organized crime to get their drugs, which is everywhere in this country.

Is the government failing? Yes, it is. However, the war-on-drugs approach the Conservatives are bringing forward would be a disaster. We know that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I was listening to the leader of the official opposition give his remarks today, I felt sadness. I feel it is quite insulting when he refers to woke academics or speaks of people who are employed in the “misery industry”. That is insulting to my constituents who have dedicated their life's work to helping people with very real problems.

I have taken the time to tour the streets of my community to speak to those people and meet those who are suffering from trauma. Overwhelmingly, the result is that people who are taking chances with buying their drugs on the street are playing Russian roulette with their lives. Having safe supply and treatment options are not mutually exclusive. We have to meet people where they are at, or it is going to be unsuccessful.

I would really like for my colleague to underline that point because central to today's debate is this trauma-informed approach of meeting people where they are at and keeping people alive long enough so they can come into contact with the services, help and treatment, eventually down the line, that will help them.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, my colleague brought me to his riding and I got to see first-hand some of the really great work that people in his community are doing, especially around no-barrier housing, ensuring people have a safe place to live while they are getting away from the toxic drug supply, and using safe supply or OAT.

The difference right now is that, if they go to the street supply, it is a toxic concoction. They do not even know what they are getting. Using a safer supply of substances means people can stay alive. We are not seeing people dying from a safer supply. They are dying from fentanyl. That is what is happening.

It needs to be evidence-based. The chief coroner of B.C. has said that safe supply is not killing people and that over 80% of people who are dying had fentanyl, which was made on the street, sold on the street, and marketed and manufactured on the street. It is not acceptable.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything feels broken. Life costs more. Work does not pay, and housing costs have doubled. The Prime Minister divides to control the people. Worst of all, crime and chaos, and drugs and disorder rage in our streets. Nowhere is it worse than the opioid overdose crisis that has expanded so dramatically in the last several years.

This is an important debate we are having today. The opioid addiction crisis is real, and it is costing Canadian lives. The unimaginable pain that those who are suffering from addictions are going through, as well as that of their families, their friends and their loved ones, cannot be understated.

I know that many of us here have probably gone to too many funerals, and I know I have, of those who were suffering from addiction because of this crisis. Many times when we talk about those who are addicted or people who are struggling with addiction, we think about the people who we might see in the downtown or who might be homeless. It is true, some of them are. However, very often they are also the people we know, people we may not have expected, people who might be family members, co-workers, friends or neighbours, people who we would not expect to be in that situation but are in this crisis and are suffering from addiction.

We know there is no simple solution. The issue here is very complex and there are many factors that affect it. What we can see is that the Liberal government approach is not working. The Liberal plan is not helping those who are struggling to get past their addiction and fully recover. In fact, those Liberal policies have actually made the situation worse.

I want to read from the text of the motion today. It says:

...given that,

(i) Canada is in the midst of an opioid crisis that has killed over 35,000 people since 2016,

(ii) since 2017, the federal government has spent over $800 million on its failed Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy, including over $100 million in funding for hard-drug supply projects across Canada, and plans to spend an additional $74 million to “scale up” these projects over the next five years,

(iii) since tax-funded drug supply was ramped up in 2020, opioid deaths have only gone up, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada,

(iv) in 2020, slightly less than 7,000 people died of opioid overdoses, while only 3,000 died of overdoses in 2016, according to the Library of Parliament,

(v) in British Columbia alone, yearly drug overdose deaths have increased by 330% between 2015 and 2022,

(vi) recently, a Global News reporter in East Vancouver was able to buy 26 hits for $30 in just 30 minutes of a dangerous and highly addictive opioid that is distributed in tax-funded drug supply programs and flooding our streets with cheap opioids,

the House call on the government to immediately reverse its deadly policies and redirect all funds from taxpayer-funded, hard drug programs to addiction, treatment and recovery programs.

What would Conservatives do?

Conservatives believe that addiction is a health condition and that it should be treated as such. A Conservative government would have a recovery-oriented system of care that helps people on their journey. This means prevention, intervention, treatment and recovery. Conservatives believe that we have to meet people where they are at, but we need to stop leaving them there. We should be helping them get their lives and their families back, and help them fully recover.

It is not just that the Liberal program is a failed experiment that has been tried and which has failed in other cities in other parts of the world. The scary part is that their program is adding more drugs to the streets, which is making the drug supply cheaper, so there are now more drugs on the streets. It has become more affordable for those trying to purchase them.

There is a B.C.-based physician who says that, before safe supply, before the government's program, 8 milligrams of hydromorphone tablets sold for $10 in Vancouver's downtown east side. The doctor says it now costs between 50¢ and a dollar.

Dr. Vincent Lam, the medical director of Coderix Addiction Therapy, provided insight into the situation in downtown Toronto, so we are going from from Vancouver to Toronto. According to his patients, 8 milligrams of the same drug tablets that used to go for $20 on the street now sell for between two dollars and five dollars, and sometimes as little as one dollar.

A doctor in Ottawa said that 24 milligrams of hydromorphone, which they believe came from the city's safe supply facilities, sells for two dollars on the street. Before safe supply, they were selling for $20 to $30. A representative from the Nanaimo Area Network of Drug Users said that the system is broken. They estimated that up to 80% of safe supply drugs in Nanaimo, B.C., are currently being diverted. The system definitely is broken. It is not working.

What is happening is that those who are struggling with these addictions are selling the drugs they are receiving from the government. They are selling them because they need stronger drugs. These ones do not work any more. They are selling them at such a low cost that even our young Canadians, children and youth, are able to buy them for one or two dollars a hit. We are creating a cycle where more and more Canadians are getting more addicted rather than breaking that addiction.

This crisis has left Canadians struggling right across the country, and it does not see background or religion. I have talked to many parents in South Asian communities who have seen their children go through these addictions and go through the struggle.

I visited a gurdwara in Surrey where the head of the gurdwara said that they have sent home international students, and we are talking hundreds across the country. They have had to send home their bodies. Many of them have stresses. There are pressures that they face, having come to Canada. They are young, and it is different, so there is loneliness. There are pressures on them, financial stress. Many of them have become addicted to drugs, and many of them have overdosed. This itself has become a pandemic and a serious crisis in the community.

All of this, addictions, the use of drugs and the supply of drugs, have also led to more gang activity as well, which has led to more of our young people dying. They are being killed in gang activity. Conservatives' common-sense plan would end taxpayer dollars for drugs and put people in addiction, treatment and recovery programs. Conservatives will bring our loved ones home, drug-free.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, it seems there is conflation of a lot of issues, when I hear the member opposite speak. I was looking at a study from U of T about safe consumption sites, and it says that there was a city-wide overdose mortality reduction of 42% between the time when we started, before we had safe consumption sites, and now. Not only that, but in neighbourhoods that are 500 metres around a safe consumption site, the overdose mortality rate decreased by 67%. In the Canadian Medical Association Journal, there was also a study from London, Ontario, that showed that mortality decreased with safe supply.

While I am not denying that there is, in fact, an opioid crisis and that there are fentanyl deaths, does the member opposite not agree that there is medical evidence that safe supply is actually saving lives?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, the unfortunate part of this debate is that the government has chosen to pick certain facts to go on and it ignores other facts. The fact of the matter is that deaths have been going up. Opioid overdoses have gone up. Drugs supplied by the government to those struggling with addiction are now available on the streets, and the cost of drugs has been reduced, so they can be purchased by our young people. That is the reality. That is what is happening across our country, and that is what is making this crisis worse.

That is why we are saying that we need to stop the taxpayer-funded drugs and help these Canadians suffering from addictions with treatment.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can hear the Conservatives' concern. As my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert said earlier, we are addressing an extremely sensitive and important issue, but they are not providing effective and vetted solutions. The Conservatives' approach is very similar to that of the Americans. It has been said before. We have been saying it since this morning. The results in the United States are not very encouraging. Quite the opposite. The number of opioid-related deaths has dramatically increased since 2015. The Conservatives' suggestion is to focus more on rehabilitation centres, centres to help addicts get off drugs. Those already exist and they are working, but the crisis keeps getting worse.

Does my colleague not think that it is time to focus on new ways of dealing with drug addiction, as has proven to be successful elsewhere in the world, unlike the American approach, which has shown to be ineffective?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is true that we do have recovery programs in Canada, but the problem is that we need more of them; they need to be more available. I talk to many parents whose children are suffering from these addictions about recovery programs. There are long wait times, and some of these programs are extremely expensive, so they are not able to get their children into these programs, nor their family members, their friends or whoever they may be.

Our plan is to stop giving taxpayer-funded hard drugs to those with addictions, and it is to put all that money the government has been providing to that into addiction programs to help those struggling with addictions through treatment. That is what would help Canadians right across the country.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member said that Conservatives want to meet people where they are at. However, repeatedly we have said that people need options. Safe supply, treatment and abstinence programs offer different approaches and services, and they give people in those situations choices. In order to save lives, it is about the choice they need. Supporters of safe supply do not think that safe supply is a panacea, by any means, to solve all addiction problems, but in this place of privilege in which we sit it is our obligation to provide choices.

How can the member possibly say that he and his party are working to meet people where they are at, when they do not provide all the choices that we know consistently, with facts and statistics, do just that?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is about facts and statistics, and the very sad fact is that opioid deaths have been going up, especially after the government started this program of so-called safe supply. Just in B.C. alone, there has been a 330% increase in overdose deaths. Those are the facts. That is why we need to change the system. It is not working. The government's plan does not work. We need a better plan. A Conservative plan would focus on treatment and compassionate care.

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

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, everything feels broken. Life costs more, work does not pay and housing costs have doubled. The Prime Minister divides to control the people. Worst of all, crime and chaos, drugs and disorder rage in our streets. Nowhere is this worse than the opioid overdose crisis, which has expanded so dramatically in the last several years.

This is a really tough subject, and it is very tough when we are challenging what many people thought they knew. Addiction is a ruthless, cold-blooded thief. It is a vile disease that destroys families and lives. It is a disease that preys on its innocent host in unimaginable ways. Addiction will make the victim say and do anything to anyone in order to eliminate the pain.

That is where we need to focus our efforts, and that is what our opposition motion today does. Instead of putting a band-aid on the gushing wound, Conservatives are saying, let us treat the trauma and let us destroy the predator and save the host. Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to redirect their taxpayer money from safe supply to treatment and recovery and bring our loved ones home. Conservatives are asking to invest in understanding why and to fund recovery. Conservatives want to give people suffering with addiction back their life, their family and their body.

I believe safe supply is one of the most powerful marketing campaigns ever released. Let us be honest. If a loved one had a life-threatening disease, people would buy or agree to anything that would keep them alive. They would not ask questions. They would just hear that it would keep them alive and sign the dotted line. The idea of safe supply has sold a whole culture of people a falsehood, a hope that they will save their loved ones, but the reality is that safe supply just keeps them where they are. It allows addiction to continue to prey on its innocent host. Honestly, it is a hell of a business model. Why not keep the customer coming back for more?

There is a distinct difference between OAT and safe supply, and it is critical that everyone watching listens to the difference, because once they do, I believe they will understand that Conservatives are the only party offering a compassionate solution to the biggest crisis our country has ever suffered.

Evidence-based medication refers to opioid agonist therapy, or OAT. It includes drugs such as Suboxone, Sublocade and methadone. This is different from Canada's safe supply, which includes drugs like hydromorphone. Hydromorphone is equivalent to heroin.

OAT is a recovery-oriented therapy that addresses the torturous and sometimes deadly withdrawal symptoms that opioid addicts experience when they stop using their drugs. These symptoms are a major barrier to recovery if left untreated. I highly recommend everyone watch Dopesick. It is one of the best public education tools out there to understand this.

I have many friends who have lived a full life or who live a full life in recovery thanks to OAT. With OAT, those in recovery are given long-lasting, milder opioids that stave off withdrawal without providing any high or euphoria, helping patients live free of narcotic impairment. The administration of OAT is tightly controlled. Patients generally must come to a clinic every day for supervised consumption. Take-home use is strictly monitored.

In contrast to OAT, safe supply drugs are intended to mimic the highs of illicit substance use, not manage withdrawal. Safer supply does not move patients toward a drug-free life. It is, in theory, intended to prevent overdoses and death until one is ready to begin their recovery journey.

Many people who are not on board with our solutions will say that it is the deadly supply of fentanyl on the streets that is killing people, and they are absolutely correct, but guess how those dealing with addiction are getting that deadly, toxic dose of fentanyl? They are selling their government-funded safe supply. Why are they selling their government-funded safe supply? It is because they need a stronger high. Never before have we had such powerful drugs. The physiological dependence on these drugs cannot be overstated.

It turns out that hydromorphone is too weak to get fentanyl users high, and, for this reason, many safer supply recipients simply sell (“divert”) their government-provided hydromorphone on the street, at rock-bottom prices, to purchase more street fentanyl. Safer supply doesn’t dissuade illicit fentanyl consumption—it subsidizes it.

That is a direct quote from Adam Zivo from the National Post.

The type of studies they (safer supply advocates) are doing are the weakest. The bottom line is that they're not comparing—this is the unethical part—they're not comparing hydromorphone programs to the standard of care, which is methadone.... That would be more ethical.

That was said by Dr. Lori Regenstreif.

...it's very common for my patients to tell me that they know people who sold most, if not all, of their prescriptions for PSADs [public supply of addictive drugs]. Unfortunately, that means that the hydromorphone is going somewhere else.

That was said by Dr. Vincent Lam.

How do we prevent overdoses? We must invest in prevention, in naloxone and in programs that treat the “why” in addiction. Until people who are addicted understand why they are using, they will never be free. Until people have the support they need, they are stuck. Conservatives are asking this House and demanding that the Liberals redirect funding from safe supply to treatment and recovery.

Canada is in the midst of an opioid crisis that has killed over 35,000 people since 2016, and that number does not account for the collateral damage that addiction leaves for families. How many kids are traumatized because their parent is stuck in the grip of addiction or has lost a parent, a sister, a mother, a daughter, a brother, an aunt to addiction?

Since 2017, the federal government has spent over $800 million on its failed Canadian drugs and substances strategy, including over $100 million in funding for hard-drug supply projects across Canada, and plans to spend an additional $74 million to scale up these projects over the next five years. Since tax-funded drug supply was ramped up in 2020, opioid deaths have only gone up, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada. In 2021, more than 8,000 people died of opioid overdoses, while less than 3,000 died of overdoses in 2016. It is not working.

I just cannot explain a more horrible disease than addiction. There are parents at home right now who are waiting for a phone call because they had a bright, amazing child who maybe got hurt and was prescribed opioids or maybe had trauma and used drugs to escape the pain. They are waiting for a phone call saying their child has died. Imagine if the Liberals committed to spending $800 million on treatment and recovery instead of drugs that are funding drug dealers. I know this is hard. So many people got sold an idea and it was wrong. Again we see an example of the government spending money in all the wrong places.

The path out of addiction takes full commitment, and access to treatment and recovery must be available instantly. Seconds matter. We need housing away from the life that will put them back where they were, and we need to invest in prevention. Mentally healthy, resilient kids turn into mentally healthy, resilient adults. Treating the problem with the problem is not a solution. Safe supply is killing our children. The data is in, and overdoses are up 300%.

Today the Conservatives are asking the House to call on the government to immediately reverse its deadly policies and redirect all funds from taxpayer-funded hard-drug programs to addiction treatment and recovery programs. Let us be leaders and invest in recovery and treatment, and let us bring everyone's children home safely.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I will agree with the member opposite that there is much more beyond prescribed harm reduction to resolve the issues we are facing with the opioid crisis. Where I disagree is that the British Columbia coroners office specifically stated, “There is no indication that prescribed safe supply is contributing to illicit drug deaths.” It is British Columbia's coroner who said that.

How does the member opposite respond to that fact from what I would think is a respected source?

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

Madam Speaker, again, the statistics speak for themselves. Overdoses are up 300%; that is just the reality of it.

I really want to touch on a critical point, and that is the fear that has been instilled in experts who are on the ground. I am going to read something from somebody who has worked for three decades in treatment and recovery. This person, for the record, is not a Conservative.

This person says, “I have to agree with the leader 100%... But for people speaking out against it, you become vilified, like we don't care about people. Hydromorphone doesn't even come close to the strength of fentanyl. I had one young fellow tell me, if someone dies from an overdose, people are trying to find out who the dealer is so they can purchase from them because of the strength. We are just throwing—

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

I have to give the same time for the question and the answer.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will seize on what my colleague just read. I believe it is important to have a holistic and comprehensive view of the situation in order to support people with addictions and help them find a way out, while ensuring that we undercut the black market and resellers.

I would like my colleague's opinion about the importance of investing in mental health and support for people with addictions and making investments to deal with the black market.