SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 200 - May/18/23

May/18/23 4:57:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question. Our program for reducing the number of overdoses is based on four pillars: harm reduction, getting drugs off the street, having a safe supply and having a safe treatment program for individuals who have unfortunately fallen dependent on these types of substances. These four pillars need to be working in unison and must be monitored to ensure they are working. We have estimated that the system has saved the lives of 46,000 people, which is something we need to speak to and look at. We can always strengthen the system, yes, but we need to do it with an evidence-based approach.

114 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

May/18/23 4:58:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear a very specific answer to this question: How many treatment beds has the government added in its wonderful program, and how does the member justify the $3.5 million spent on vending machines to dispense high-potency opioids like hydromorphone?

47 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/18/23 4:59:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester for his advocacy on health matters. I believe he is the health critic for the official opposition. I will say this. Our government is continuing to invest money in treatment programs and a safe supply program for individuals who are unfortunately dependent on these drugs. I remember many years ago walking into a Shoppers Drug Mart in the town my wife is from, and two young individuals were there getting a yellow mixture of water and a powder because they were dependent. We need to make sure these individuals avoid getting dependent on the substances they are on and that there is an available safe supply. That is exactly what they were doing that day, and I bet we saved their lives.

133 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

May/18/23 4:59:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very reasonable speech in response to the quite unreasonable motion before the House. In doing so, I would like to ask if he agrees with me on this. On Vancouver Island, there are more than a dozen overdose prevention sites, which people like to call safe consumption sites. They save hundreds of lives every year, but they also help connect those with addiction problems to social services and treatment programs in the community. Does he agree with me that the closure of those overdose prevention sites would contribute to more deaths and a larger number of addiction problems in the community?

113 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/18/23 5:00:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island for his very informative and substantive question. Those safe prevention sites are literally saving the lives of the most vulnerable in our society. We must always take care of our most vulnerable, and any closures of those sites would obviously be detrimental to them. We as a government, me as a parliamentarian and all parliamentarians need to make sure we are assisting and taking care of the most vulnerable in our society, particularly those dependent on substances, who in fact could pass away from taking them if they do not receive treatment or a safe supply of alternative medicines.

112 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Lib.)

May/18/23 5:01:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important subject. The director of my constituency office just buried her nephew after his fentanyl overdose on the streets of Montreal. I do not think anyone in this House would disagree that the issue of overdoses and addictions is of great importance. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he would elaborate a bit more on how a safe supply is going to save people like the nephew of my constituency director.

80 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/18/23 5:02:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I offer to my hon. colleague my sincerest condolences. We all offer our sincerest condolences to any person in Canada who has lost a loved one due to this crisis. We as a government must maintain and look at evidence-based policies, which can assist Canadians from having to go through this scenario. We will be there for them. In this case, I offer again my sincerest prayers for this young individual whose life was cut short because of this.

82 words

Mr. Shafqat Ali (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

May/18/23 5:02:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as everyone sitting in this House knows, the toxic drug supply and overdose crisis is devastating communities throughout Canada. We are losing 20 Canadians a day. Prior to COVID, 10 people were fatally overdosing every day in Canada, but now it has increased. Many more of our friends, family members and community members are being hospitalized, calling emergency support for services and grieving lives lost over the past seven years of this crisis. Unfortunately, we are now debating a misguided motion rooted in outdated ideology that will recycle a discredited, narrow approach rather than create a comprehensive plan to deal with a crisis that is killing people. Even former prime minister Stephen Harper's public safety adviser, Benjamin Perrin, has seen the light and describes the current Conservative approach, which is epitomized by this motion, as “rehashing Conservative, war-on-drugs tropes that have been long since discredited and have been found to be not only ineffective, but costly and deadly.” There are four pillars recognized internationally that are necessary for a successful substance use strategy: prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction, including a safer supply. In December 2016, our government launched the Canadian drugs and substances strategy, which uses a public health approach to substance use. In doing so, we committed to a comprehensive, collaborative, compassionate and evidence-based drug policy. Under the Canadian drugs and substances strategy, the Government of Canada has taken evidence-based action to address the toxic drug supply and overdose crisis and has announced over $1 billion in funding. This funding includes $490 million through Health Canada's substance use and addictions program to support community-based treatment, harm reduction, prevention, and stigma reduction activities. In addition, this funding has supported research and surveillance initiatives and strengthened law enforcement capacity to address illegal drug production and trafficking. Going forward, the Canadian drugs and substances strategy will continue to guide our government's drug policy approach, which includes a full continuum of evidence-based options, as well as innovative life-saving strategies to meet people where they are and provide them with the supports they need. Substance use is an extremely complex issue, and Canadians use drugs for a multitude of reasons. Not everyone who uses drugs is suffering from an addiction. Even when a diagnosis exists, treatment services may not be available or affordable. Moreover, not everyone is always willing, eligible or able to enter treatment. Recovery looks different for everyone. Services to keep people alive and safe and that support better health outcomes should not be limited to just treatment services for people with a formal diagnosis of a substance use disorder, given the crisis is affecting people trying drugs for the first time, people who use drugs occasionally and people who are struggling with an addiction in silence. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this crisis. We need a range of interventions that meet people where they are and reduce the potential harms related to substance use. Harm reduction is a key element of that work and this government's strategy to address the toxic drug supply and overdose crisis. Evidence has shown us that harm reduction measures, such as supervised consumption sites, in-person or virtual spotting services, safer supply, take-home naloxone, and drug-checking technologies, are supporting people who use drugs by connecting them to health and social services and, most importantly, are keeping them alive. For example, in one of the hardest hit provinces, evidence in British Columbia has shown that the combined effect of expanded access to take-home naloxone programs, supervised consumption sites and opioid agonist treatment has been crucial to averting overdose deaths in the province. In addition, between 2015 and 2021, nearly 125,000 naloxone kits were used to reverse an overdose in B.C. In 2016, there were only two supervised consumption sites in Canada, both in Vancouver. Since then, the number of federally approved supervised consumption sites offering services has grown to as high as 40, and they are available in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. This is because we are investing in what works and where the evidence is. At these sites, more than 46,000 overdoses have been reversed, and there have been over four million visits. That is a point worth repeating. The safe consumption sites the Conservative leader wants to shut down have reversed more than 46,000 overdoses since 2017. When we say that harm reduction meets people where they are, this is what we mean. These harm reduction services are saving lives every day. Spotting services support someone who is using drugs either in person or remotely by phone, video chat or an app, and they provide help in case an overdose occurs. During the first 14 months of operations, the virtual national overdose response service monitored over 2,000 substance use events and responded to over 50 adverse events. These events required an emergency response and no fatalities were reported. Although the Conservative opposition will tell us otherwise, harm reduction efforts are not antithetical to treatment. They are part of the continuum of care. They meet people where they are, and they can connect people with a spectrum of health and social supports.

877 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/18/23 5:12:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during today's debate, the Liberals have been conflating safe supply and safe consumption sites. They are two separate policies. The reality is that the member for Brampton Centre said safe consumption sites saved 45,000 lives. However, anyone who has spent some time on the Downtown Eastside or in the Fraser Health region in my community, which has even higher overdose death rates than Vancouver, knows that someone who has an overdose could receive good care from there, but that is not preventing them from accessing and using fentanyl and other illicit drugs in conjunction with the free drugs they are getting from safe supply providers. If the policies the government is pushing so hard are good, why do the death rates continue to increase in my community? Why do the death rates across British Columbia continue to increase? Why have the death rates continued to increase since the government decriminalized fentanyl?

155 words

Mr. Shafqat Ali

May/18/23 5:13:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, harm reduction is a major concern here and evidence-based strategies are a major player here to save lives. We know, prior to 2015, we did not have safe spaces, but with this strategy, we have more safe centres where harm reduction and assistance are being provided. We are saving lives by doing that.

56 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

May/18/23 5:15:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I like about the pilot projects created by Health Canada is the range of services provided to users. I am mainly referring to medical care and mental health counselling. The federal government certainly has a part to play in the fight against the opioid crisis, but I think that Quebec and the provinces do as well. That requires federal health transfers. The 10-year funding that the provinces and Quebec asked for is not at all what they got. The federal government only gave them one-sixth of what they were asking for. Currently, in Quebec alone, more than 20,000 people are on a wait list for mental health services. I think that what is being established at this time is very good, but does my colleague agree with me that the federal government must provide more funding for health care?

148 words

Mr. Shafqat Ali

May/18/23 5:16:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at supervised consumption sites in Canada, there have been more than 236,000 referrals to health and social services. These referrals are supporting individuals on their path to recovery and wellness, so that means the plan is working.

40 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

May/18/23 5:16:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton Centre for his quite measured speech on what is an unmeasured or moderate resolution from the Conservatives. I wonder if he agrees with me on something. The Conservatives seem to be conflating safe supply with new addictions and it is certainly not the case. Safe supply is a way of keeping those who are already suffering from addictions, suffering from substance use problems, alive until we can get them into treatment and we can get them out of the situations that have led to their dire circumstances. Does he agree with me that safe supply is certainly essential to preventing loss of life in our communities?

114 words

Mr. Shafqat Ali

May/18/23 5:17:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, health care professionals, including those operating safe supply services, must follow federal rules around the secure handling of controlled substances, including measures to help prevent diversions.

28 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/18/23 5:18:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to a challenging issue, and one that has affected the lives of too many Canadians across our great country. After eight years of this Prime Minister, everything just feels broken. Life costs more. Work does not pay. Housing costs have doubled. The Prime Minister divides to control the people and, worst of all, crime, chaos, drugs and disorder rage in our streets. Nowhere is this worse than the opioid overdose crisis that has expanded so dramatically in the last several years. The opioid crisis has now killed over 35,000 of our loved ones since 2016. Six individuals have succumbed to overdoses in my hometown of Swift Current, with two very recently, of fentanyl, just within the past couple of months. This is tragic. This crisis has claimed the lives of too many Canadians. It will continue to do so if we as legislators cannot work collaboratively to enact policies that will help reduce both the supply and the demand of these highly powerful, highly addictive taxpayer-funded drugs. It is clear that current policies implemented by the Liberal government to combat this issue are not working. 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 drugs supply projects across Canada, and plans to spend an additional $74 million to scale up these projects over the next five years. We might ask what we have to show for this huge investment. Have the trends reversed? Are our loved ones coming home drug-free? Let us look at the facts. 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 2020, slightly fewer than 7,000 people died of opioid overdoses, while only 3,000 died of overdoses in 2016, according to the Library of Parliament. It is clear that the Liberals' policies are not working and pumping taxpayers' money into funding these drugs is not solving the problem. This begs the question, what is the government hiding? I look forward to a response from the members opposite, and maybe, when I split my time with the member for Foothills, they will enlighten him as to what is happening. Ultimately, this issue is one about hope. We need to offer hope to our friends, families, neighbours, fellow Canadians and especially those who find themselves addicted to these substances and feel unable to free themselves from the grip of addiction. I would ask the House: if someone is struggling with addiction, what message does it send them to offer them more of these hard drugs? Does that send a message of hope to these individuals or are we saying that we have given up on them? At its root, funding these hard drugs is an inference that we believe that they may be unable to overcome these addictions. We know that this is not true. There are incredible stories of Canadians across the country who have found themselves at their lowest, despairing of ever being able to free themselves from the bondage of drug addiction, and yet their stories of recovery are powerful stories of hope. If we asked them how they recovered, the answer would not be one of safe supply programs by the government. It is about recovering in addiction treatment and recovery programs. I had a constituent reach out to me and tell me about a family member who has struggled with addiction. For this person, it started as an early teen with marijuana and quickly escalated to other substances like cocaine and morphine. It was treatment that was available. It was not safe supply that was able to get this person the help that they needed to be able to finish high school, and not only finish high school but graduate with honours and even win a provincial academic award. That is the story. That is hope. That is hope that has been realized. I also spoke with an organization that works with at-risk youth, and there is an individual who came to work there who had previously dealt with an addiction in his life. He was using his lived experience to help the youth there, to hopefully prevent them from doing what he did and going through what he had gone through. Unfortunately, this person had a relapse when he was back home and ended up taking fentanyl for the first time in his life. It took eight days for him to be able to detox from taking fentanyl one time. The Liberals' plan is not to prevent people like this from getting their hands on drugs, it is quite the opposite, it is to put drugs in their hands, and to make drugs more accessible. I used to work for a telecommunications company in a community that had a methadone clinic because of the high volume of drug users in the area. I would regularly come across needles in the back alleys where I was working. It was an occupational safety hazard, to say the least. Many people there had large dogs in their yards to ward off the would-be thieves looking to steal things to sell for drug money. One day I was working in someone's basement, running a telephone line. As I was running the wire, I threw a bundle up over the top of the cold air return. As the wire came over the other side, I gave it a pull to get the rest of the wire. I was standing underneath the cold air return, thankfully, because four needles fell. Three of them landed on the floor and one of them must have bounced off the wire and then bounced off my shoulder before it hit the floor. That was something that I did not expect to have happen. I certainly did not go into that day looking to encounter that on the job site. I have also been in many houses and apartments where it was clear that people were functioning addicts. They were uneasy. There was a look of hopelessness on their faces. Perpetuating that with more government drugs is not the way to offer those people hope. These people are just trying to get through another day. They are trying to get through another hour. In some cases, it might even be another minute. This gets to my key point. Where is the hope for these people? The government has done a lot of things, but all the things that it is doing only contribute further to the problem. It is contributing to the state of homelessness. Many of these people, because of what the government has done, are turning to drugs and hard drugs. They are losing their homes, they are losing their jobs, they are ending up on the streets. This perpetuates where people are and what the stats are showing about where people end up. That is why Conservatives are calling for 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 think about the amount of money going into supplying these deadly substances and how those same funds could be channelled into recovery programs that have a proven track record of helping Canadians overcome their addictions. I think it is safe to say we would be in a much better place today if our attention was placed on recovery. Above and beyond that, we also need to look at an upstream approach to this issue. We have to come to a point in our history as a society where we must ask, why is it that our neighbours and friends are seeking out these deadly substances? What is the root of the hurt and despair that is fuelling these addictions at an unprecedented rate? What is driving them to seek out drugs? Where have we failed our brothers, sisters, neighbours and family members in their efforts to find meaning and fulfillment in their lives? I have always believed that family is the foundation of society. While we work to reduce addictions, we must also work to ensure that the very foundation of society is preserved. We must ensure that children are growing up in safe and secure homes, where they learn the value of important things in life, and where they find the meaning and fulfillment in life. Modern medicine always encourages us to look at the root of the problem to find the upstream approach to health, and to examine the social determinants of health. While we work to combat the issue of addiction, we must also look at the root cause, and keep our loved ones from turning to these hard drugs in the first place. Every life lost to an overdose is one too many. These people are loved, and we owe it to them to offer them hope in the midst of despair. I started my speech by saying we must work collaboratively on this issue, and I will say it again. Human life, every single life, is too valuable. There is too much at stake. Let us get this issue right for the sake of our children and for the sake of our future generations. Let us bring it home.

1571 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/18/23 5:27:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives spoke a lot today about how they want to scrap the safer supply initiatives that have been put in place. Unfortunately, there are situations where those drugs are being resold so that the user can buy fentanyl. If we want to be able to implement support measures to help people recover from addictions, then we need to make sure that they stay alive first. What we want is to put in place a safe supply system where we could be sure that the person who receives the substitution drug is the one who uses it. In that case, would my colleague agree that we should continue with the safe supply initiatives so that people can have access to hard drugs that are pharmaceutically produced and do not contain fentanyl?

133 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/18/23 5:28:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the way the member is trying to ask the question, but I think the issue is that rather than offering people safe supply, we can look at what is in these drugs; one tablet of hydromorphone has the equivalent of 10 Tylenol #3 tablets. That is not the solution people are actually looking for, and that is a much different approach than offering somebody methadone or some of the other programs that are out there to try to help people come off of the high or deal with their addictions. We need to make sure that we are very pointed and specific about what we are trying to deal with here, and that is why we are concerned about the government's spending gross amounts of money on further heightening the opioid crisis, rather than trying to alleviate it.

143 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/18/23 5:29:37 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am quite concerned by what I have heard from the member. His language was creating a lot of negative labels and stigmatization. Having been an Inuk all my life, and seeing other indigenous peoples refusing to call themselves indigenous because of the racism that exists, it is hard to listen to people generating more stigma. I hope the member reconsiders how he thinks of people who are suffering from substance abuse problems and how people need extra supports. I want to ask a question. I think safe supply is a form of treatment and recovery. Because it is an option for people to recover from these struggles, it should not be eliminated as a treatment option. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all way that ensures we can do better to help people to get off hard drugs, which we know are causing many problems for individuals. Does the member agree there cannot be a one-size-fits-all way to treat people who are having these struggles and that it is better to have more treatment options for them?

183 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/18/23 5:31:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the majority of my speech was about trying to provide people with treatment and recovery. We want to provide people hope, and I do not think offering people recovery, treatment and hope is racist. Nobody has come into this debate with the goal of trying to stigmatize anybody; nobody is doing that. That is not what we are doing. What we are trying to do is make sure the government is not just worsening the crisis by offering more drugs and enabling people to get their hands on drugs so that they can sell them to get more and harsher drugs. We are trying to offer people hope and alternatives. That is what this is about. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. That is not what we are advocating for. We are advocating for the government to quit being a drug dealer.

147 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/18/23 5:31:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, recovery does not work if the person is dead before they get there. The member spoke about working collaboratively and in a less partisan way. Less than a year ago, the member for Courtenay—Alberni put forward a bill that would have at least moved forward with what Health Canada's expert task force on substance use has been calling for. It was not partisan, and the member opposite, the Conservative Party and most Liberals voted against it. Why is that?

84 words