Debates of Sept. 25th, 2024

Old Age Security Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I want to thank the sponsor, my colleague from Shefford for moving this bill.

The bill before us today is about increasing old age security by 10% for those who are between the ages of 65 and 74. These people were initially excluded by the Liberal government when the government decided to increase the OAS for seniors. The government decided to create a two-tiered system of seniors, those who were over 75 and those who were under 75. Those aged between 65 and 74 were going to be penalized and not get the increase. This is similar to what the Conservatives did when they raised the retirement age from 65 to 67.

We are seeing a pattern of both Liberals and Conservatives wanting seniors to work longer, and this was no different. Seniors deserve better. Many seniors across the country do not have the resources to deal with the high cost of housing and the increase in inflation, especially those who are on fixed incomes. They are the ones bearing the brunt of this. I would argue that seniors and people living with disabilities are feeling the pinch the most.

Increasing the exemption for income from employment or self-employment is also important in the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement, from $5,000 to $6,500, which is also incorporated into this bill. We want to make sure seniors who do wish to participate in the workforce are not being penalized. We know we need to do more, which is why the NDP put forward a dental care plan and a plan for pharmacare, so seniors are not making the choice of whether they are going to buy food or take the medicine they need.

We are going to continue to work on ideas to help lift seniors out of poverty and ensure they have the best retirement possible, and a retirement with dignity.

In 2021, when the Liberals brought in the 10% bonus for seniors 75 and over, they decided to leave some seniors out, and they created those two categories I discussed earlier.

I am hoping we can move this bill forward quickly. This is a minority Parliament. To make this minority Parliament work, this is clearly a really important aspect of that.

I also want to speak about the cost of this. I have raised this in the House of Commons many times since the Liberals brought in this two-tiered benefit for seniors and neglected those who were over 65 and under 74. I have raised this also at the government operations committee, where I have asked the former president of the Treasury Board and the current President of the Treasury Board to re-examine this. I helped her break down the numbers, because we know that she knows we have the lowest corporate taxes in the G7. That was something the Harper government did. It did not do that for small business. It lowered corporate taxes by 5%. We have seen corporate taxes drop from 28% to 15%, from the Chrétien era to today.

The Liberals have maintained that low corporate tax rate while oil and gas, big grocery and big banks have had record profits.

The Liberals have also failed to tackle the issue around tax havens. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in 2019, calculated that between $21 billion and $26 billion a year was being lost to tax havens. The ultrarich get these tax benefits, but seniors who are trying to retire with dignity are being targeted.

In 2021, it was projected that $31 billion was leaking from the Canadian economy so the ultrarich and CEOs could get off the hook again while seniors struggled to make ends meet. What did the government do? It hired more people at CRA, but the people at CRA are focusing on small business people, on people struggling to make ends meet and seniors. Seniors in my riding have come to me and told me that the government is coming after them for small amounts of money, when in fact the government could have hired auditors at CRA to target those who are manoeuvring around the tax system to benefit themselves, the super rich and these big corporations. Instead, the government is focused on everyday people, and that needs to change.

This is an excellent bill and an excellent start. I have some ideas on how we can cover it because it is projected to cost $3 billion. Back in 2015, the PBO projected that a 1% increase in corporate tax would be about $2.6 billion. I would argue that that would be around the same amount today. Therefore, a 1% increase in corporate tax would cover the costs of taking care of our seniors. What will the government do? We know the Liberals and the Conservatives. They are always going to be there for the big corporations and their friends and are not going to do that.

The NDP was able to apply pressure to increase the excess profit tax on the big banks. That was a 15% tax on profits of over a billion dollars. That generated billions of dollars, that windfall tax. The PBO did an analysis of the government applying that tax to big oil and gas, which would generate a profit of $4.2 billion.

We know that Conservatives in the U.K. charge an excess profit tax, a windfall tax, on oil and gas. We cannot even get the Liberals to do that in Canada. The oil oligarchy here is always arguing in the House of Commons about who can build more pipelines between the two of them. I can tell members that they are both good at building pipelines, but they are not good at tackling climate change. They are also not good at taking care of seniors. We know that right across the country. We are seeing that constantly. Therefore, I urge the government to look at an excess profit tax, at closing tax loopholes for the super-rich and for tax havens, and at possibly increasing the corporate tax rate. It should not be like this for seniors.

I got an email from Janice from my riding. She writes:

I must ask, why is it seniors collecting cpp and old age pensions receive less than CERB?

The federal government stated they felt $2000.00/month a livable wage yet many seniors are receiving substantially less.

Many seniors are living silently in poverty. Are there any plans to address this shameful situation?

She wrote about being excluded from the OAS increase.

Today, with the bill put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, we had the opportunity for an annual basic income. The Liberals and Conservatives could have got behind that bill. They could have, at committee, prioritized people living with disabilities and seniors, the most vulnerable in our society, but they chose not to. It would have made sense.

When I ask people in my communities whether they think we should continue the corporate welfare that is happening with tax havens, with the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7, with the continued focus of CRA audits on everyday people while the big players get off the hook, and with preferential tax rates for CEOs. Everybody who I have talked to in my riding believes that we should be prioritizing taking care of our seniors and those living with disabilities. A guaranteed livable income could have done that, but the Liberals chose not to do that.

We are going to continue to come here to the House to bring forward good ideas.

I am really grateful to the Bloc for bringing forward this initiative. I do appreciate my colleague using her spot in the order of precedence to move the bill. We will be supporting this bill wholeheartedly. I hope everybody in the House does, and that we can move it quickly, because people are struggling right now. Seniors are struggling with how they are going to pay their rent, buy food and get their medicine. I am glad we are able to take some pressure off of them with dental care, but we know that, with the rising cost of inflation, they cannot keep up with it. Therefore, I hope we can move this rapidly along here today, and in the weeks ahead.

I want to thank my colleague one last time for moving the bill.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, with the little time I have, my first words will be for my colleague from Shefford. I am proud of her, just as I am proud to be a member of the Bloc Québécois, which has been calling for fairness for seniors since 2019. The main takeaway from Bill C‑319 is that it is about two things: fairness and dignity.

Why is it about fairness? My colleagues have talked about this. Old age security is a universal plan that applies to people aged 65 and over and falls under federal jurisdiction. By discriminating, as the government has done, on the basis of age—that is, by increasing the pension for those aged 75 and over—it has turned its back on people aged 65 to 74, even though they are part of the universal program. This is an infringement. In labour relations, we would call this an “orphan clause” or a clause that discriminates on the basis of age. That would be unacceptable, yet that is what the government did. The government can correct this inequity. This is an infringement that needs to be corrected.

We heard from witnesses in committee. We are talking about millions of people who are affected and what we need to keep in mind is that 30% to 40% of them live only from old age pensions. I will give an example. When it comes to the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ, and the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, half their members, including 39% of Quebeckers, live on an income of roughly $21,000 or $22,000. That is what they get from OAS and GIS. It is unacceptable.

It is true that seniors groups are not homogenous, but there is no more homogeneity among seniors 65 to 74 than there is among those 75 and up. We need something universal. People who retire at 65 need an equal and fair OAS increase. Not increasing it is totally unacceptable. That is why we are calling on the Liberal government to correct this injustice, to work on giving seniors dignity. We had support in committee and we will have support in the House.

We are being told it will cost $3 billion, but is that an expense or an investment? When people are left in a vulnerable or precarious situation, their whole standard of living is negatively affected. Financial insecurity is a form of isolation. One witness told us that a person who earns $21,000, $22,000 or $23,000 will come up with excuses not to go when they get invited to the movies because they do not have any discretionary income. That is the situation. If we want people between the ages of 65 and 74 to be healthy, then we need to make sure that they have a decent quality of life, which will also help them when they are aged 75 and over. As the Conservatives would say, that is common sense.

The Government of Canada does not have very many social programs. Employment insurance and old age security were created to protect vulnerable people. In committee, I heard government members saying that seniors aged 65 to 74 do not need this assistance. There is something really shameful about comments like that. This could make a big difference for people who are living on a fixed income, given the cost of housing, groceries and health care.

We cannot forget about women. A majority of these people live alone and are women. It is no coincidence that those over the age of 65, our generation, are in this situation. Often, women have chosen to stay at home. They have had odd jobs. They did not contribute much to the Quebec Pension Plan, or QPP, or could not afford a private pension plan. Maybe there was no group plan. Essentially, the system has made their situation even more precarious.

The AQDR rightly reminded us that in 1927, when old age security was introduced, it was seen as a major step forward. We were seen as an example. Now, we rank 13th among OECD countries in this area.

Increasing the baseline level of OAS—we are not talking about the GIS here—from the age of 65 will permanently benefit these people who have contributed so much to society.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Finance

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

Madam Speaker, tonight, I have a chance to revisit an exchange I had in question period at the end of May. Sadly, it was an exchange about the economy. Things have not gotten any better since May here in Canada, and we find ourselves dealing with a continuing economic crisis brought on by the policies of the Liberal government following, of course, the failed Trudeau economic plan of the seventies and eighties. Now, in successive Liberal governments led by that family, we have run 24 deficits in 25 years and had a constant stream of crises: housing crises, energy crises, unity crises and the like.

My question back then was about how the most incompetent, reckless government in Canadian history was undertaking radical experiments with objectively terrible results. Of course, it has been supported by the NDP and now the Bloc. Back then I referenced an RBC report that talked about “a slow bleed over the last 2 years [that] left per-capita output back at 2016 levels”, and I asked about that falling per-person income in Canada.

The response from the parliamentary secretary at the time was kind of interesting. He did not defend the government, talk about the successes that the government had or refute any of my claims. He took issue with the fact that I would use GDP per capita, or growth per capita, as a measure. He said it was “not a particularly useful one, as most economists will say.” Therefore, I did a bit of digging.

This was not very hard, actually, to find on the Statistics Canada website, so I am not sure whether the Liberal government is anti-Statistics Canada right now. However, this year, Statistics Canada had this to say: “Slower economic growth over the past year and near-record population increases fuelled by temporary and permanent immigration have put the spotlight on recent trends in Canada’s gross domestic product...per capita.” It went on to say, “Recent reports...have all stressed the trend towards weaker per capita growth, highlighting its negative implications for living standards and wage growth.”

This Statistics Canada document quotes information that the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the government, says is not credible or supported by economists. A little later in the same document, Statistics Canada said, “GDP per capita is widely used to gauge differences in living standards across countries. Higher levels of per capita output are generally found in more developed economies with advanced infrastructure, better health care and education systems, and higher levels of access to technologies and innovation.”

As such, whichever parliamentary secretary is going to answer the question today, I would like them to correct the record if they could or clarify the Liberal position on whether rapidly declining GDP per capita is bad. My assertion is that it is bad for Canada. The parliamentary secretary said it was not necessarily bad. More importantly, I want to hear something about a plan. We have four minutes right now; I hope we will hear something about a plan, moving forward, to reverse the economic devastation being inflicted on our country by the Liberal, NDP and now Bloc coalition.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this opportunity to defend our government's responsible economic plan, which has left Canada in an enviable fiscal position. Let me begin by stating some facts.

Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is well below that of our G7 peers, and we are one of only two G7 countries rated AAA by at least two of the three major global rating agencies. This has been achieved through our government's responsible economic plan. It has enabled proactive investments to support Canadians and Canada's long-term prosperity, which will have a direct and lasting impact for future generations.

In budget 2024, we provided an economic plan that makes generational investments by raising revenues through an increased capital gains inclusion rate. This will make life cost less for Canadians while making our tax system fairer for everyone.

Transformative investments in clean energy, in opportunities for workers, in innovation and to improve housing affordability will support a business environment that gives investors confidence that Canada's workforce is ready for more opportunities. This will enable our economy to attract more investment and will create more jobs.

Budget 2024 also supports fairness for every generation by sticking to the fiscal objectives laid out in the fall economic statement, setting deficits and the federal debt burden on a downward track. Moving forward, we are committed to keeping deficits below 1% of GDP beginning in 2026-27 and in future years.

Since the April budget, Canada's economic indicators have also remained positive. Canada was the first G7 country to lower its interest rates and to do so three times. This is good news for homeowners with mortgages up for renewal, as well as for first-time homebuyers. It is also good for businesses.

Canada's inflation rate dropped to 2% in August, marking eight consecutive months of decline and the lowest inflation rate since February 2021. In addition, Canadian workers are earning more on average than they were before the pandemic, even after accounting for inflation.

Overall, the Canadian economy, under our government's leadership, is strong and resilient. For Canadians, this means more jobs and better wages. Our government's fiscally responsible economic plan is delivering an economy that works for everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary talked about the enviable position we have in Canada. She touted good news for property owners renewing their mortgages. However, because of the policies of the Liberal government, a Canadian renewing, say, a five-year fixed-term mortgage in September today versus someone who had a mortgage in September 2019 could be paying between $500 and $1,000 more in monthly mortgage payments for the same house. That is for an average house in Canada, depending on where someone lives. I do not know that this is good news for anybody, and it is in a context of record food bank usage and unemployment that is 1% higher than it was five years ago at the same time.

I would love the hon. member to explain how that is good news for people renewing their mortgages.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in this House tonight to speak about our good economic financial plan.

From universal public health care to employment insurance to strong, stable, funded pensions like the Canada pension plan, there has always been an agreement that we will take care of our neighbours when they have the need. It gives our workers stability and our businesses confidence that the right supports are in place to keep our economy fair, keep people healthy and keep the middle class strong.

With budget 2024, our government is renewing its commitment to that goal by unlocking the door to the middle class for millions of young Canadians in a fiscally responsible way.

Later this year, the government will unveil its fall economic statement, delivering the next phase of an economic plan to build more homes, make life more affordable and continue to invest in Canada's clean, growing economy.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

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

Madam Speaker, on April 29, 2024, I asked the immigration minister to explain to Canadians why an individual convicted five times of criminal charges facing a deportation order upheld by a Federal Court managed to get ministerial intervention to stop his removal. Ministerial interventions are for serious, extreme circumstances, often life-and-death situations. I asked the minister if it was his intention to make a mockery of our legal and immigration systems, or if his intervention was guided by a political calculation to get more votes for his party. Regrettably, the minister responded by stating that these are not matters that we talk about publicly, much less on the floor of the House of Commons.

Given the total mess of the immigration system under the government's watch, I do not blame the minister for not wanting to talk about it. For the record, the minister was not asked to divulge protected, private information. I was asking him why he personally intervened in such a clear case of deportation, as it was upheld by his own department and the courts.

It is worth giving the background on this case as there are important questions that any reasonable Canadian would ask as to why that particular deportation was not carried out. First and foremost, why did a five-time convicted person receive preferential treatment? What warranted special consideration by the minister to personally overrule not only his own department but also the Federal Court?

I have constituents who have been waiting almost three years for family sponsorship and others with loved ones who have been waiting over a year for visitor visas, but a person with five convictions who blocked the building of national pipeline infrastructure, someone who was sentenced to two weeks of imprisonment for criminal contempt of court, who has also served time for blocking the main road to Vancouver's international airport warranted the minister's special attention and his personal intervention. Is there something Canadians do not know about that person which made him so special to the minister that he was willing to throw out the rule of law and the integrity of our immigration system?

At a time when Canada is still struggling to deal with the full scope of foreign interference in our country, the minister personally intervened to stop the deportation of a five-time convicted person who boasted about having $170,000 U.S. in foreign money to fund illegal blockades of roads, bridges and highways in B.C.'s Lower Mainland. At a time when the immigration system is leaking like a sieve, where literal terrorists are being granted citizenship after taking part in ISIS terror videos dismembering the bodies of people who were murdered, that was what the minister thought deserved his intervention. What was the criteria? Thousands upon thousands of applicants would love to know. Is there a new Liberal two-tier immigration policy? Does the new Liberal policy have a limit on how many criminal convictions is too many? Clearly, five criminal convictions were not a problem for the minister.

It is no wonder that the government has been such a doormat for foreign interference when people who boast about being foreign funded as they block key roads, bridges and other infrastructure are saved from deportation. Therefore, I am going to ask my question again. Now that the parliamentary secretary understands what I am asking, was the minister's intervention intended to make a mockery of our legal and immigration systems or was his intervention politically motivated to get a few more votes?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for raising this important issue. In general, applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis. Decisions are made by highly trained officers who carefully and systematically assess each application against the criteria set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, and its regulations.

IRPA sets out the core principles and concepts that govern Canada's immigration and refugee protection program, including provisions relating to refugees, sponsorships and removals, detention reviews and admissibility hearings, and the jurisdiction and powers of tribunals. A decision to remove someone from Canada is not taken lightly.

I would like to add that IRPA authorizes designated officers to issue temporary resident permits, or TRPs, to inadmissible foreign nationals when it is justified in certain circumstances. A TRP allows the holder either to enter Canada or to remain in Canada during the validity period of the TRP. A TRP provides the foreign national temporary resident status in Canada. If the TRP is valid for at least six months, the foreign national may apply for a work or study permit. Upon cancellation or expiration of the TRP, the foreign national must leave Canada.

TRPs allow officers to balance the objectives of the IRPA to meet Canada's social, humanitarian and economic commitments while maintaining the health and security of Canadians. Clear records of decisions allow for the monitoring and research necessary for the preparation of the annual report to Parliament. The number of TRPs issued is included in the annual report, and they are categorized according to the grounds of inadmissibility.

I would like to point out that, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirement of this act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

The Minister of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship is authorized by legislation to exempt foreign nationals, including those who may be under a deportation order, from any applicable criteria or obligation of the act, where he deems it is justified on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. The minister takes this authority very seriously, as well as his responsibility as minister to ensure that he is executing his duties in a fair and objective manner.

Due to privacy reasons, I will not speak on any individual cases. However, I assure members that he assesses each case brought to his attention to ensure that he exercises his authority in the best interest of Canada, Canadians and the people who use our immigration system. I hope this is helpful.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said three key words: “highly trained officers”. Why were the highly trained officers overruled by the minister? I am not asking for specific case details. What I am asking for is the criteria that led the minister to intervene in the case of an individual who was convicted five times by Canada's courts. Not only did the minister override the highly trained officers in his own department, he also overrode Canada's courts.

Frankly, it must take a lot of deep thought to overrule one's own department and ignore the findings of the court. I ask the parliamentary secretary why because, frankly, I really need something to tell my constituents who are not getting special treatment from the Minister of Immigration.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, generally speaking, all of the cases processed by IRCC are assessed individually. Decisions are made by highly trained officers who carefully and systematically assess each application against the criteria set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, and its regulations.

The Minister of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship is authorized by legislation to exempt foreign nationals, including those who may be under a deportation order, from any applicable criteria or obligations of the act where he deems it justified on humanitarian and compassionate consideration. The minister takes this authority very seriously, as well as his responsibility as minister, to ensure that he is executing his duties in a fair and objective manner. Due to privacy reasons, I will—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

Health

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

Madam Speaker, we have now lost 47,162 people to a poisoned drug supply. That is between January 2016 and May 2024. That is more people than we lost in World War II, yet we are not seeing a war-type effort to save lives in this country and to fight this crisis.

We have heard from the experts: the First Nations Health Authority; the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; the chief medical health officers of both British Columbia and Ontario; the chief coroners of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario, the provinces where the highest number of deaths are happening; the Canadian Expert Task Force on Substance Use, which was made up of a wide spectrum, including law enforcement; Moms Stop The Harm; and the Canadian Mental Health Association.

They have been consistent and unanimous in saying we need to stop criminalizing people who use substances; we need to replace the toxic street supply with a safer supply of drug replacement therapy; we need to have treatment on demand, no-wait treatment and no-wait stabilization beds, so when people want help, they get help; and we need to invest heavily in recovery and prevention focused on our youth and, of course, in enforcement, so law enforcement can go after the manufacturers of the substances and those trafficking, especially those at the high levels. Most importantly, all of them have said we need to treat this crisis like the emergency it is.

The government has spent less than 1% responding to this crisis than it did on COVID-19. Why? It is because of stigma. We know who is dying. It is mainly men. Those living in my home province are 5.9 times more likely to die if they are first nations; in Alberta, it is eight times higher. The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, in my riding, just declared a state of emergency. It is losing so many members. The Ahousaht First Nation has lost over 100 members because of the mental health and substance use crisis just in the last few years. I know many of them. It is very painful to see what is happening. Also, the big-city mayors have been calling for help. They are saying that not enough resources are being applied to respond to this.

We have seen countries do this. Portugal saw a 77% drop in chronic daily users because it got the politicians out of the way. That is what we need to do. We need to support the experts with evidence-based policy and provide the resources. The government put forward its drug strategy, and it is great. It uses the same language we see in Portugal, a compassionate, coordinated, integrated plan, but guess what it is missing. There is no timeline, and there are no resources, regarding how it is going to respond to the crisis.

The government had an auto theft summit. I am not saying that is not an important issue, but it has still not had a summit on the toxic drug crisis. In the substance use assistance program on Vancouver Island, only one riding, Victoria, got funding. Everybody else was shut out. There are first nations that needed that money. Greater Waterloo region, as my colleague was saying, got nothing.

We need action. We need the government to treat this with the war effort that it requires. Nobody is not feeling this right now. No community is being left. This is what I would call an emergency, and the government is not treating it like that.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his strong advocacy on the matter.

The overdose crisis is one of the most serious and unprecedented public health threats in Canada's recent history. It is driven by the increasingly toxic and ever-changing illegal drug supply. We are committed to examining all tools at our disposal, and evidence, to respond to the tragic increase in overdoses and to help save lives, while supporting a balance between public health and public safety.

We know that a comprehensive approach is needed to address the crisis. This includes efforts across the continuum of care to prevent drug use, reduce harms and support people in accessing treatment and recovery services, as well as enforcement efforts to maintain public safety. It also includes ensuring that people have access to critical supports such as housing.

The government of Canada has invested almost $200 billion over 10 years to support provinces and territories to deliver services, in addition to the $1 billion we have directly invested to address the crisis. Regarding the member's question, the minister has been clear: Officials are working to reconstitute the expert task force so our response can be driven by evidence, not by ideology.

The government remains committed to addressing substance use and addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one. People struggling with addiction are not criminals. They need health care, not to be in jail. We changed the legislation and issued guidance to make sure that in cases of simple possession, police and prosecutors must now consider referring the person to health and social services, issuing a warning or taking no further action. As a result, they can consider both public health and public safety.

We know that we cannot act alone. All partners must work together to make health and social services available and accessible so people can be diverted from the criminal justice system into health care. As with any policy, these efforts must be made with a comprehensive plan for implementation. An exemption can be one piece of the puzzle, but we know that the changes need to be complemented by a range of other actions to have their intended impact.

We will continue working in partnership with all provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and experts to determine the best ways to support the health and well-being of people who use substances. We remain committed to taking a public health approach to the crisis and keeping everyone in our communities safe.

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

Madam Speaker, I am urgently calling on the government to treat this as a wartime-like effort and to come up with a plan with resources and a timeline.

The Liberals have spent less than 1% of what they did during COVID in responding to the crisis. They keep saying jurisdiction is a barrier, but they found a way through it during COVID. They need to listen to local communities and indigenous peoples on how to work through it. We need to get politicians out of the way. Let experts lead with evidence-based policy. We need to debunk and fight back against the Conservative disinformation, and the Liberals need to stop the incrementalism.

This is an emergency. Here, it is just me and you, Madam Speaker, and the parliamentary secretary, again, at the end of the night. I will keep bringing them back here until the government responds. People are dying on our streets.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, we are committed to addressing substance use and addiction as a public health issue, while protecting public safety. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. We must keep working together to save lives, reduce harms and help people access the health care services they need, when and where they need them.

We will continue working with provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and experts to determine the best ways to support the health and well-being of people who use drugs. This includes working with partners to divert people from the criminal justice system into the health care system, and making health and social supports more available and accessible.

Our commitment to addressing the crisis is unwavering, and we will continue to consider all options.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:28 p.m.)