Debates of May 29th, 2024

Department of Health—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, decriminalization as a tool is one that is well used in many jurisdictions across the world.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Chair, I will take that as a “no”.

When the minister decided to rescind the open drug use policy, was it because she heard, like me, that children were being exposed to hard drugs at schools and in parks?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, B.C. requested an amendment to its exemption and we worked with B.C., as we always have done and will continue to do, to ensure that there is a balance between public health and public safety in all spaces.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Chair, does the minister's decision account for the open and brazen use of drugs on B.C.'s public transit system?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, B.C.'s application was prepared with a myriad of experts in many fields, including chiefs of police, health experts and public safety experts. This is the work that we need to do collaboratively to address the problem.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Chair, given that drug toxicity is the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 10 and 18, should schoolteachers and parents be trained on how to deal with overdoses?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I am happy to talk about the “Know More” opioids awareness program, which is what we have implemented in schools across this country, and continue to do, to help inform and educate.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Chair, at the Mission legion, veterans clean up needles and confront crack smoking daily. Do veterans and legion volunteers need to be trained on overdose scenarios and public safety to keep their property safe and protect life?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to talk about the training and distribution of naloxone kits that we have done across the country for many communities and institutions. There have been 1.5 million naloxone kits distributed by the federal government, and even more so through our provincial co-operation.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Chair, B.C. businesses across the province have reported deteriorating public safety. The Surrey Board of Trade called it a “crime tax”. Does the minister agree with the Surrey Board of Trade that decriminalization is effectively a crime tax on small businesses?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, we will address this overdose crisis with every tool we have available, because communities are asking us to do so. I would encourage the member to speak to his community, to local law enforcement and also to his local provincial jurisdiction on what work—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has 19 seconds.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Chair, I would encourage the minister to visit the Abbotsford Soccer Association and address the fear that parents have due to the loss of public order caused by the government's policy. Will the minister meet with the Abbotsford Soccer Association?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, we have met with many communities. Will the Leader of the Opposition meet with Moms Stop the Harm?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Chair, I will start by talking, and then I will have some questions for the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I will let you know at the outset that I do not expect you to limit the time for responses to the time of my questions, if you would allow that.

I talked, in my first intervention this evening, about the common-sense revolution of Mike Harris and what that did for health care. This time I want to talk about the war on drugs in the 1980s and how successful that was. The reason I want to do that is that it is very clear the Conservative approach to drug policy is very similar to the 1980s approach to the war on drugs.

I was probably between the ages of eight and let us say 12 during Nancy Reagan's big push for “Just Say No.” It was Nancy Reagan, the First Lady of the United States, President Reagan's wife, who was leading the charge on the new-found approach to dealing with drugs, which was to just say no. How hard is it? All one has to do is just say no, and it is done. One does not have to worry about any of the problems that are associated with drugs.

That was, on the surface, what the issue was about, and that is, on the surface, how the Conservatives want to approach the current epidemics and issues with drug usage. However, under the surface of the war on drugs, something else was going on, which was a war against particular individuals in society who were being cast as problematic individuals who could not abide by the law. They were cast as people who were utilizing drugs based on just their own desire to do so, even though, according to the war on drugs, they could have stopped at any time they wanted. We all know that is not true.

What it did was that it took a policy approach of criminalizing to the maximum degree possible. In the United States, three strikes of simple possession of marijuana in some states would land someone in prison. There were situations where vast numbers of people were rounded up and incarcerated as a result of drug usage, quite often because it was something they could not control. For an individual who has an addiction, it is not as simple as to just say, “No, I do not want that.”

I speak as somebody who has experience of having lived with somebody with an addiction, somebody who is no longer with us. She passed away. When I was a city councillor in the city of Kingston, my partner at the time, whom I lived with, was addicted to alcohol. Ultimately she ended up dying as a result of her addiction.

One might ask why she did not just stop drinking. It is that simple, is it not? I remember having numerous conversations with her about it. I remember her going into the hospital, Kingston General Hospital, which would hold someone for 72 hours before letting them out. I remember her trying repeatedly on her own, and going to special places where people would try to help her with her addiction. It did not matter. She kept going back to the place of using in order to support her addiction because it provided a certain level of comfort and because it was helping her deal with other problems she had previously had in her life. It was mental health.

At the core of the issue is how one treats an addiction. Does one treat an addiction for the mental health crisis that it is, or does one treat it as a criminal offence and treat it how Conservatives want to treat mental health and addictions, which is by telling people that all they have to do is just say no, and if they do not, that they are going to go to prison? That is the approach of the Conservatives. It is a failed approach and an approach we know does not work.

My friend Kate, my partner at the time, is no longer with us. She eventually ended up getting to a point where she passed away, and she had been deceased for over a week before anybody discovered her. Because of the addictions that she had, she had pushed everybody out of her life.

We can approach this by just asking why Kate did not just say no and stop drinking. We can ask why these drug users will not just stop using; it is that easy. Otherwise, we can treat it as the real problem it is. We can treat addictions as the real issues and the real mental health challenges that they are.

I know first-hand that trying to cut people off is never the solution, and it never works. That is why I am very proud to sit on a side of the House that treats mental health and addictions as the real health challenges that they are.

I am very concerned when I hear Conservatives harking back to the days of Nancy Reagan as though that approach could work today when it did not work before. It is really important that we do things from an evidence-based approach, which is why I am glad to see our government and the minister, in particular, doing that.

I have some questions for the minister that I would like to turn to now.

Conservatives talk about investing in treatment, but they cut two-thirds of drug treatment funds when they were last in government.

Let us talk about what saves lives, such as safe consumption sites. There is a safe consumption site in Kingston. We have not had an overdose crisis similar to the one that my neighbouring community in Belleville witnessed recently. I like to think it is because there was a safe consumption site in Kingston. We also have other health care services, such as prevention, treatment and harm reduction.

Can the minister please tell us about how we are supporting life-saving actions instead of slogans?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Chair, on the other side of the House, they roll out slogans that are literally written on the back of a napkin, rather than talking to experts or speaking to families and communities about what truly needs to be done to address this crisis. Their solution is criminalizing their loved ones. To that, I say that we cannot arrest our way out of a health crisis, and we are in a health crisis. People are dying and families are losing loved ones. We have to open the door for those loved ones who are struggling with addiction. They cannot just snap their fingers and get there. We need to give them a pathway to safety, one that is compassionate and based on evidence.

We know that safe consumption sites save lives. Over 55,000 overdoses have been overturned at safe consumption sites. That is 55,000 lives saved and over 471,000 referrals from safe consumption sites to treatment options. Those 471,000 lives were given a pathway to make better choices for themselves, to get help with their addiction. We cannot look away. Safe consumption sites in communities that are well managed and well resourced mean that we are meeting people where they are. We are not judging them, not stigmatizing them, not telling them to go to a back alley to shoot up and die. Rather, we would say, “Come on inside. Let me help you. Let's talk about it. I see you in your struggle.”

On that side of the House, they pit harm reduction against treatment. This is not an either-or debate. This is about saving lives. We have all lost someone. I have lost a dear friend to an overdose, someone who I knew all my life. Every resource was made available to him, and he died alone, leaving two beautiful children and a wife behind.

I am a mother. I worry about my kids. We all worry about our young people. That is why prevention is so important. That is why we have the no opioids program and the ease the burden program for our tradespeople. We are doing the work with jurisdictions in every community that we can. If anyone wants help in this country, we are there for them. That is why we have the ETF of $150 million in budget 2024. That is $150 million over the next three years for communities, indigenous communities and municipalities that need our help. On top of that, there is $200 billion in bilateral agreements, where over 30% on average is for mental health and substance use. This is on top of the health transfers because there is not one silver bullet to this.

Treatment is not the only answer. We have to get people to treatment. We cannot treat someone if they are dead. We cannot treat someone if they are dying at home alone, in a back alley, or on the streets of many communities in this country. We are losing people because there is a toxic, poisoned drug supply. That is where enforcement comes in with our pillars, and that is why we work with law enforcement. However, law enforcement is asking us to stand up in our communities to work with evidence, to work with experts, to work with peer support workers, outreach workers and health care workers to save lives.

It is uncomfortable to see someone struggle with addiction. Seeing someone in their most vulnerable and worst moment is painful, but on this side of the House, a comprehensive approach says that even if it is hard, even if it is uncomfortable, even if it is difficult, we do not look away. We meet the moment. We meet the challenge. We have spent a billion dollars since 2017, as opposed to the two-third cuts that were put in place under the previous government.

We know that it is not just about throwing money at this. It is about building the systems that we need with provincial partners who are responsible for health because this is a public health crisis. This is not a criminal one. That is why we put into place bills such as Bill C-5, to ensure that we are moving people out of the criminal justice system into health care and into supportive environments. Why is that? It is because we care.

Governments are meant to invest in their people. That is what we do on this side of the House: We invest in people. We do not cut. We do not look away. We say we are going to find the tools so that people can live one more day, and we can show them a pathway forward and a way to get the health care they need. Someone will address that wound. Someone will lead them to the supports that they need, but we have to invest in them.

Harm reduction is a key part of that process. To pit harm reduction against treatment is to say it is either-or, it is all or nothing, it is black or white, and it just takes treatment. It means that they are not seeing the person in front of them and the health and services they need. On this side of the House, for every single one of us who has lost a loved one to this opioid crisis and who wants communities and young people to be safe, we need to invest in a strategy that we know works. That is prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery and, yes, enforcement too. Public safety and public health go hand in hand.

We will not look away. I will not look away from the people who know we can save their lives, whether it is with naloxone kits, drug checking or safe consumption sites. We know that, when we close safe consumption sites, overdose deaths go up because people go back into the shadows. We want to bring people into the light. We want them to know that they are going to see another day and that we are investing in them because they matter.

That is the work we are doing. That is what I invite every member of the House to stand up for and support. The Nimbyism, the slogans, the fear and the stigma we are seeing on the other side will just put people back in the shadows. I want us to see the light.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Chair, my questions will be for the Minister of Health, through you.

As the critic for agriculture, agri-food and supply management, that is what I will talk about. I will begin with questions about the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

In registering phytosanitary products, people in the sector are hoping for more efficiency and more transparency on the part of the agency. No one doubts the fundamental independence of the agency's scientists, or the precautionary principle, which is incredibly important and must be maintained. However, communication leaves something to be desired. The delays are extremely long. When people in the agricultural sector receive responses, they are extremely short and lacking in detail, which prevents any collaboration and any dialogue.

I would like to know how the minister sees the communication between the agency and the stakeholders.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Madam Chair, it is very important to ensure that communication is quick and effective, but it is also very important to ensure quality and health at the same time.

I can certainly work with my hon. colleague and with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to ensure prompt communication with stakeholders. It is important. We must ensure that the process is as quick as possible. In the meantime, we must also ensure quality and health.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Chair, times are tough right now due to climate change. Even scientists at the agency are concerned about emerging diseases caused by climate change and globalized markets. As the minister just mentioned, we need to be more efficient. At the same time, we need to ensure Canada's food resilience. That is fundamental.

While we have a duty to take precautions, we also have a duty to prevent plant diseases so that we can supply our population with food. In terms of reciprocal standards, I would like to know how the minister can explain the two specific examples I am about to give.

Last year, the formulation for linuron, a product used in growing carrots, was altered slightly. Canada's registration process was so slow that we almost ended up in a situation where our producers could not produce, and where we would have to import carrots from producers in the United States using the very same product. The concern here is efficiency.

Turning now to beets, nortron was not approved this year. It was put forward as a replacement for another product that there was an issue with. nortron's application for approval was submitted 12 years ago. I do not think that is a reasonable timeline for a response. The application was not approved. I would like to remind the House that we are not calling into question the independence of the scientists or the precautionary principle, but 12 years seems rather ridiculous to me.

Does the minister have a plan to increase transparency, communication and efficiency at the agency?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Chair, it is essential that we modernize our system in general and more specifically in the area about which the member asked questions.

The member is right. With climate change, there are many changes happening around the world, particularly in the food industry. I am very concerned about that. It is essential that we modernize our system and ensure that it is efficient. At the same time, we need to ensure quality and protect public health. We need to find a balance between the two.

I really appreciated the fact that, in his question, the member emphasized respect for the independence of the people who make these decisions. I want to work with the member on this issue.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a suggestion. It might even be a possible solution. It would involve recognizing what is being done in other countries, and perhaps partnering with other countries. A private member's bill has been introduced, Bill C‑359, which proposes taking into consideration the fact that a given product has been approved in two different jurisdictions recognized by Canada in order to develop a system that might be faster. I am just tossing ideas around. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will be there to collaborate, always with a view to maintaining the precautionary principle, the sovereignty of the decision-making process and the independence of the scientists.

I have one last question, which has to do with regulating tolerated thresholds in products. I say this in a constructive spirit to improve communication. How does the minister explain increasing the threshold for fludioxonil on beet roots for products imported from the United States last year, when, the year before, an increase in thresholds for glyphosate and fungicides in berries was announced during the summer construction holiday?

This news was released on Friday afternoon to keep it under the radar. I would not call that an attitude of openness, transparency and communication. It also spreads fear among the public. I would like my colleague to comment on that, and assure me that this summer, during the construction holiday, we will not be in for another nasty surprise.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Chair, first of all, it is absolutely vital that we find ways to modernize our system and ensure that processes become faster and more efficient. I agree with that. I want to work with the Bloc Québécois member on that issue.

When it comes to other issues and communication, we can work together on those with officials and departments. Maybe we could have a conversation to discuss these issues in more detail, considering how specific they are.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Chair, I hope that we will not have any nasty surprises over the summer holidays. That is good.

Now I want to talk about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. Right now there is a major problem in the duck industry, 80% of which is concentrated in Quebec. As for duck liver, 100% of that industry is in Quebec.

Again, this agency is not collaborating. I would also point out to the minister that the two agencies I am talking about, the PMRA and the CFIA, do not seem to be in regular communication with one another. We often see things like that in government institutions, and it is a big problem.

Currently, people involved in duck farming need to import breeding stock from France, where there has been a massive vaccination program. There is one supplier who does not vaccinate. Again, while we fully respect scientific decisions, there is a solution available. This has been dragging on for months. The CFIA seems to be closed to the idea of collaborating.

Could the minister make a commitment to people in the industry to look at this issue and try to move it forward quickly to resolve the situation and protect the industry?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Chair, that is entirely reasonable. I will work with the member opposite on this issue.

I agree. It is really important to ensure that there is collaboration. We can assess this issue and I will speak with the member as soon as possible.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Chair, we are always reasonable. This means that several meetings will be needed.

Still in the duck industry, it is extremely difficult for our producers to export to Japan, Taiwan and China at this time because of avian flu outbreaks. Producers now have to certify the absence of avian flu in their area.

We are currently in a period without any avian flu outbreaks. However, Japan, China and Taiwan, in particular, are requesting documents from the CRA. The CRA has so far refused to provide them. Apparently it considers them too voluminous. It is rather surprising that a Canadian government agency would consider documents too voluminous.

Could the government also step in on this? At this time, our producers cannot export their products. Meanwhile, ducks are arriving from Thailand, Hungary and France, and, according to our producers, this is not always done in accordance with our national standards.

I would like a brief response from the minister on this.