SoVote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/9/24 12:26:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the manner and the tone in which the member speaks about what is a very serious issue in Canada today. While I was listening to him, I thought about how we need to recognize that the way we have to deal with the crisis before us today is multi-faceted. I thought about how important it is to work with health care professionals, first responders, communities and different levels of government to ensure that we get this right. Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is that we work in consultation, in a co-operative fashion, in order to save lives, as well as anything else he might want to add to that?

122 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/9/24 12:27:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not mention the Quebec plan, which has four pillars: more prevention, more treatment with opioid antagonists, more and better harm reduction, and enforcement to dismantle clandestine laboratories. We want a ban on precursors, which are the substances needed to make counterfeit and deadly drugs. These labs add fentanyl and other substances to the drugs. People cannot even tolerate a single dose. We have to be able to dismantle and prohibit these labs. The federal government should invest in the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces so that they can take care of their own residents. It is also high time to legislate in the matter of precursors.

113 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

May/9/24 12:28:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talks about so-called safe supply and harm reduction, saying that we need to do more of this, that we need more examples of this and that we need more programs to expand the scope, etc. I direct him to British Columbia. After barely a year, the NDP government there, which was a big supporter of this, all of a sudden pushed back and wanted to backtrack as fast as it could. It applied some common sense to say that it does not really make sense to have free drugs in public places. The irony is that the premier is facing an election. The people are filled with common sense, and with the voter protest, he had to do that. One of the key points of so-called safe supply is the government providing free hard drugs, hydromorphone. This is what has been happening in British Columbia. We know these free drugs are being sold to young people in particular. As they end up in the hands of young people, more new addicts are created. Does the member think it is a good plan, and does he support the federal government providing free drugs that end up in the hands of children.

206 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/9/24 12:29:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, saying that we need to do more harm reduction does not necessarily involve doing more to ensure a safe supply. It means that we need to make changes to safe supply. We need more measures to ensure that these drugs do not fall into the wrong hands. Safe supply does not kill. What kills are illicit drugs on the illicit counterfeit drug market. My colleague insinuated that safe supply drugs are making their way to schoolyards. I heard the same claims at the Standing Committee on Health, but the experts we met with said that there is no evidence for this. I invite my colleague to table an official document containing evidence about safe supply drugs being diverted and sold in schoolyards, rather than a mere newspaper article.

130 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/9/24 12:31:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who actually stands behind evidence-based policy, policy that is grounded in facts. We hear the Conservatives bring this moral panic around safe supply, for example, and give disinformation about it. This is harmful in a health crisis. We heard from the president of the BC Association of Chiefs of Police that the diversion of safe supply is nominal at best. She cited that it is actually fentanyl and toxic drugs that are killing people. She was unequivocally clear that pharmaceuticals are a small part of what is being found; actually, hydromorphone is even smaller. It is literally a fraction of what is ending up on the street. People are dying from fentanyl. Can my colleague speak about the danger of an ideologically driven health policy based on moral panic and disinformation and how harmful that is not just to the victims but to the future of our country and our health care system?

162 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/9/24 12:32:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I should say to add to my earlier answer is that harm reduction existed well before today's overdose crisis. When the Conservatives say that what we are seeing now is the result of harm reduction, they are wrong. The problem is the illicit drug overdose crisis. People working on the ground told us that we needed to do something for people like the mother who came to see us, saying that if her son had had access to a safe supply program when he was going through withdrawal, he would not have died. He lost all the tolerance he had built up because he went through withdrawal and ended up taking illicit drugs. He died right away, without having the chance to become the good citizen he wanted to be. I will avoid making things worse here. I could accuse the Conservatives of many things, but I will not. I just want us to talk, to tell the truth and to discuss evidence and data without letting political ideology get in the way, and especially without blaming the people who have died, their families and those who are currently suffering from addiction.

196 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/9/24 12:33:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Montcalm for his speech, which was enlightening as always, because he himself is enlightened and well versed in his files. It is a pleasure to hear him speak. This morning, several of us tried to get the Conservatives to explain the difference between decriminalization, legalization and diversion. They were unwilling to answer the question. However, we got the beginnings of a response when I asked one of my colleagues whether we were witnessing a public health crisis and he replied that drug addiction is a chronic disease. My question is simple: Once we start to view drug addiction as a chronic disease, how can we do anything but decriminalize addicts' behaviour if we want to ensure that they receive proper treatment instead of throwing them in jail?

137 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/9/24 12:34:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, decriminalization, British Columbia's pilot project, has nothing to do with overdoses, but it did make it possible to divert these people away from jail and the justice system. We need to be careful, though. Yes, this is true, but drug consumption can qualify for diversion too, because in co-operation with community projects, we can ensure that police intervene, that they be authorized to intervene, but that they refrain from arresting the individual. Perhaps this is what B.C. is returning to. The fact remains that we agree on one thing: These people must receive care, but above all, we need the resources to give them care, and we must stop feeling like we have done enough by simply diverting the individual, because we are leaving them in the street alone with their problems. We need to invest heavily in health care. The government has been miserly about investing in health care, and so have the Conservatives. Health transfers need to be increased, because the provinces and Quebec are the ones that are taking care of these people and that have to treat them, and they are crying poverty. We must not undermine all the good things that are being done to take care of these people with the inadequate means at hand. This needs to be heard in our debate.

224 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/9/24 12:36:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise today to speak about the leading health crisis, toxic drugs. Certainly in my own province, it is the leading cause of death for those under the age of 59. This issue is not just close to me; it is close to everyone in my home province, and it is a terrible tragedy. Highly contaminated toxic drugs are raging across the country and killing people every single day. Over 20 people a day are dying. I can tell members personally, coming from Vancouver Island and my hometown, of the impact it has had on everybody in my community. Nobody where I live is untouched. I cannot count on two hands the number of my friends' kids who have died, never mind friends. It is a terrible tragedy that is happening, and we can do better. We hear this huge debate about harm reduction versus treatment and recovery. However, we have to do both; they go hand in hand. We cannot help people who are dead, as my good friend from Vancouver East constantly reminds me. We need to move forward with policies that are grounded on evidence or evidence-generated and supported policy. The evidence says that what we are doing is not working. That is the evidence right across this country. We are now dealing with new substances that are highly toxic and addictive. Never before in our history have we seen such challenging times when it comes to dangerous substances. They are obviously lethal, because they are unregulated; they are manufactured, marketed and sold by organized crime. We have had a number of expert reports on how we should respond to this crisis, including from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Expert Task Force on Substance Use, which was created by Health Canada to inform politicians on how to move forward in responding to this terrible crisis. All of them are consistent in that we need to stop criminalizing people who use substances, as it causes more harm and is rooted in stigma. We need to create a safer supply of substances to replace the toxic street supply. We need to scale up treatment and recovery; to make sure that we are meeting people where they are, with those systems in place and ready; and to spend money on education and prevention. However, we have not done that, and I say this all the time: The Liberals are taking an incremental approach in a health crisis, which is costing lives. Conservatives are spreading disinformation, which is deadly in a health crisis. We need to move forward and listen to the experts. I will talk a bit about what is actually happening and the facts about some of the concerns we are hearing from the Conservatives. It is their motion today, and I will speak to them primarily. The Conservatives have created a moral panic. They are fundraising off the tragedies of families. It is absolutely unbelievable. It is so harmful. If they were truly here to try to help people, they would be bringing forward concrete solutions. However, I have not heard that from any of their speeches today. I asked the leader of the official opposition why he would not meet with the mothers of the victims of this crisis. I sat with them and listened to them, and their stories are informed. They know better than anyone how toxic the drugs are. They know how hard it is to support someone who is going through difficult challenges when living with a substance use disorder and navigating a system that is completely broken. They know better. We hear the Conservatives in terms of their moral panic that they have created around this issue. I will talk a little about what is actually going on in western Canada, where we are hearing primarily from Conservative MPs. Is my home province of British Columbia doing enough? No, it is absolutely not. Is any province or territory in this country doing enough? No, but they require a federal partner. Vancouver, British Columbia, has been ground zero for over 100 years when it comes to high amounts of substance use. It dates back to the opioid crisis in 1908. This is not new to us in our communities, but what is new is the toxicity of the drugs. It has been challenging because we have been at ground zero facing this terrible tragedy. When the B.C. Liberals were in government, in 2014, we went from 7.9 deaths per 100,000 people to 30.3 in just a matter of four years, a 383% increase. From 2017, we actually went up from 30.3 per 100,000, peaking at over 47 deaths per 100,000. That is absolutely brutal. After the last 11 or 12 months, we have seen an 11% decline in deaths. That is the trajectory right now for British Columbia. I am not celebrating that, but it is a relief. This is a tragedy. Every death is preventable. Every single one of these deaths is preventable. We are breathing a sigh of relief that we are heading in the right trajectory, but it needs to go down much faster. We need to come together and work together on that. We went from 7.4 people dying a day in my own province to 6.2. Six families are going to get a call today. I look at Alberta. The Conservative government got elected in 2019. Alberta had 15 deaths per 100,000 people; now it is at 41 deaths per 100,000. Alberta is leading the country in terms of deaths per capita. Alberta's death rate is skyrocketing. I will give some examples. In Lethbridge, which closed the safe consumption site, the death rate is 137 per 100,000. That is more than triple that of British Columbia. Medicine Hat is at 63.7 deaths, over 50% more than British Columbia. We see reports in the news about Fort McMurray having a record-breaking year. If we do not have safe consumption sites, then guess where people will go to use. They will use in public, in the back alleys and in the bathrooms of businesses, and they die at home, alone. We know that is deadly, when we have a toxic drug problem. I could speak about Saskatchewan. We constantly hear from members, whether they be the member for Lethbridge or the member for Fort McMurray, pointing a finger at British Columbia. I am not doing that right now. I am just trying to bring some facts so that we can actually have a proper conversation. I will get to that. In terms of Regina, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has pointed a finger at British Columbia, instead of coming here to fight to help people in Regina. That is a failure, while people are dying in his community. The death rate in his city is 66 per 100,000. That is straight from the Regina police force. Those two Conservative provinces are leading the nation in terms of death rates that are skyrocketing. We could look to Alaska, a Republican state, which had a 45% increase last year. There is no harm reduction, no safe supply, no decriminalization in those two provinces and that state. When members want to point fingers at safe supply and decriminalization, what is happening in their provinces, with their one-track, recovery-only model, where they failed to listen to the experts? They talk about wacko. What is wacko is when people ignore experts, ignore evidence, ignore science and ignore the facts. That is wacko. In the U.S., under Donald Trump, toxic drugs deaths doubled in 30 states, but they want to say it is British Columbia, an NDP thing or a Liberal thing. This is not an NDP, Liberal or Conservative thing. This is a societal issue. The problems and the solutions are not going to be based on ideology. They have to be grounded in evidence and supported by the experts, and led by the experts, not by politicians. I cannot think of another health crisis where politicians are deciding how we move forward. This is an issue that we know has been chronically underfunded. The Liberals have spent less than 1% responding to the toxic drug crisis. Why? It is because of the stigma. Are the Conservatives helping contribute to the stigma? Absolutely. We need to get away from that harm. We need to make sure that we listen to the experts. Now, we talk about safer supply. The whole concept of safer supply is that it is to be brought in to replace the toxic drug supply. This is recommended by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The law and order party does not want to listen to the police. The police testified at the health committee. They said that 85% of poison drug deaths are from fentanyl. Cocaine was found in the bloodstream. However, they said hydromorphone, safer supply, is not what is killing people. In fact, traces of it showed up in 3% of the analyses of toxic drugs in British Columbia. Prescribing pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs separates people from toxic street drugs and helps them stay alive so they can stabilize their lives and connect to treatment and care. There is no way to know the source of drugs purchased on the streets right now, even if a dealer claims it is from the prescribed alternatives program. The chief coroner of B.C. has indicated that we are not seeing an increase in deaths amongst youth or an increase in diagnosis of opioid use disorder, despite the claims of the Conservatives. The goal of the prescribed alternatives program is to help people at the highest risk of death or harms from the illicit poison drug supply stabilize their lives. Safer supply has not increased the number of people with opioid disorder. In fact, we have seen reductions in all-cause mortality and overdose mortality; reductions in overdose and in the use of unregulated opioids by those on safer supply; a decline in health care costs and fewer hospital visits; an increased engagement in health care and social services; improvements in physical and mental health; improvements in social well-being and stability; reduced use of toxic drugs from the unregulated street supply; improved control over their drug use; reduced injection; reduced involvement in criminal activities. The diversion of hydromorphone is not contributing to opioid-related mortality. In fact, we heard that for those receiving safer supply through the safer supply program, the risk of dying from any of those causes was reduced by 61%, and the risk of dying from overdose was cut in half. If they received four days or more, their overdose risk was further reduced by 89%. I want to go back to who is impacted the most. Indigenous peoples are impacted the most. The opioid epidemic and toxic drug crisis are yet another example of the large gaps in health care outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous people. Indigenous people are disproportionately affected and multiple times more likely to die from toxic drugs. They are seven times more likely to die in Alberta, five times more likely to die in British Columbia, and in some indigenous communities that can skyrocket to as much as 36 times more likely than the general population. We just heard that at the health committee the other day. I am going to read a quote from Dr. Judith Sayers, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council president. She sits on the BC First Nations Justice Council. She said: We want to work with the province in tackling the crisis and be part of a collaborative strategy.... The BCFNJC stands with our partners in healthcare and asserts that the toxic drug crisis needs to be treated and addressed as a public health issue, not a criminal justice issue. The criminal justice system is not the solution to a problem that, instead, needs to be addressed through healing. We have to stop this colonial approach and listen to indigenous people, who are more likely to die from this crisis. I have a quote from the police, which, again, the law and order party wants to ignore. The deputy commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said: As noted, in some of our supervised consumption sites or overdose prevention sites, there are no inhalation rooms or there is no ability to inhale. We find that most of our overdose deaths are related to fentanyl and to inhalation, so we need to provide spaces, I think, that would allow for that, but it can't be a space where someone has to take a bus for four kilometres and go across the city to find that space. Those spaces need to be readily available. This is against the Lethbridge model. I will talk about Fiona Wilson, president of the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police. She is a deputy chief in the Vancouver Police Department. She said, “85% of overdose deaths are attributable to fentanyl.... [T]hat's what people are dying from according to the coroner's data. They're not dying from diverted safe supply and they're not actually dying from diverted prescription medication”. She also said, “the reality is that there are seven people per day dying in British Columbia as a result of the toxic drug crisis. They are not dying as a result of prescription-diverted medication; they are dying because of the poisonous drug supply that is on our streets.” Lastly, she said, “we do not want to criminalize people by virtue of their personal drug use. Those days are gone. We want to support a health-led approach.... [W]e strongly support the notion of not trying to arrest ourselves out of this crisis. That is not going to save lives. In fact, it does quite a bit of harm”. That is from the police. I will talk about going to Portugal. I went to Portugal last summer, on my own dime, and I was very fortunate to have the Embassy of Portugal line up a deep-dive itinerary so I could go there and learn. Why did I choose to go to Portugal? My good colleague from the Bloc talked about Portugal, and I really appreciate his insight. I went there to learn from them. They had a death rate of over 1,000 people in a population of only 10 million, primarily from intravenous drug use. Heroin, as we know, was impacting their community. They had over 100,000 chronic daily heroin users. As my colleague cited, over a million people had tried heroin. They were able to bring their numbers down to 23,000 chronic users. They brought the number of deaths from 1,000 to 60. I thought it would be prudent for me to go and learn and listen to them. This is how they responded to their health emergency when they decided to treat it as that, instead of a criminal issue. They went from 250 people using methadone to 35,000 in two years. How did they do that? They engaged the military to build labs. They engaged the military to do that so they could reduce the price, get those labs up and running, and save lives. That is how one responds in a health emergency. They built treatment facilities right across the country so that there was no wait, no barrier to treatment, and it was covered under the universal health care system, not like the Alberta model. Good luck getting treatment in Alberta in a short period of time. It is not going to happen. We heard loud and clear from witnesses, including Petra Schulz from Moms Stop the Harm, who talked about the gaps in the system, and there are gaps in our system. Portugal also spent a lot of money on recovery, because we know that relapse is part of dealing with recovery. They caught people when they landed. They invested in a four-year follow-up cycle, when people came through treatment. We know that connection is a deep and important part of dealing with the underlying trauma. They made sure that people had housing, and they decriminalized drug use and treated it as a health issue. One hears my title as the NDP critic for mental health and harm reduction. We do not just see harm reduction as safe consumption sites and safe supply. Those are critical components. However, housing and all the different social determinants of health are also reducing harm. Our goal should be to reduce harm. We hear the Liberals talk about meeting the moment. They did not respond like Portugal. They have not moved in an expedient way. We need a coordinated, integrated, compassionate approach like that of Portugal. Portugal created an expert task force. That expert task force morphed into the oversight body for government to move forward. I will tell members why the politicians in Portugal were heroes: They got out of the way. They decided it was a health issue and they let the experts lead. They moved forward with their policy and implemented it. The politicians' role was to make sure that they had the resources to do it. That was the job of the politicians. We are not doing that today. We need to get to that point, because we know that over 20 people are going to die today. Over 20 moms are going to get a call. It needs to stop. The disinformation, the fundraising, the moral panic need to stop. People need to meet with the moms. The Conservative leader is the only leader who refuses to meet with Moms Stop the Harm. He cannot explain himself. They are informed. The Liberal government needs to treat this and to meet the moment, like it says. It needs to scale up resources and meet the moment.

3016 words

Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.)

May/9/24 12:56:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his ongoing work in this field and for his obvious depth of knowledge and relationship with individuals who are working to save lives. I am glad that he raised Moms Stop The Harm. I have met with Moms Stop The Harm and various spinoff organizations comprised of parents. “Moms” is in the name, but there are certainly dads involved in those groups, and other family members. Have you heard from Moms Stop The Harm and other groups like it, of family members who are working hard to help provide that safety for other families. Have you heard how they feel about the conversation the Conservatives are having?

117 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/9/24 12:56:56 p.m.
Watch

I will remind the hon. member that I have not heard, as it was the hon. member who made the speech. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

28 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/9/24 12:57:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to learn about this issues, because it is causing so much harm in my home community and I am so deeply impacted by it as well. I travelled the country, going to 13 different cities. I met with moms at very stop and at every stop, they said the same thing: That we needed to listen to the experts and that this needed to be grounded in evidence. They want the government to act like this is a national health emergency, to declare a public health emergency and to reinstate the expert task force. We have not had a summit, a first ministers' meeting, on this crisis; 42,000 people have died. We have had an auto theft summit. I am not saying that is not an important issue, but clearly this is a health emergency. Where is the emergency action from the Liberals? What did the moms say about the Conservatives? They want to meet with the Conservative leader. He is afraid to look them in the eye and hear the truth. He is afraid because he knows what he is doing is immoral, the disinformation he is spreading. He knows it is not grounded in evidence. The moms have the evidence; their kids are dead.

211 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/9/24 12:58:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is hard to rise and talk to a topic like this one, as so many young people are dying across our country. There has been a 166% increase in deaths since the Prime Minister took over in 2015 to 2024. That is what we are talking about. People's loved ones have died. The member politicized his speech and said that our leader was afraid to meet with mothers, when he has met with mothers across the country. That is actually beneath the member. I have a lot of respect for the member, but his speech was beneath him. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Warren Steinley: The House leader of the NDP can yell as much as he wants. Madam Speaker, Dr. Nickie Mathew met with the health committee members and said that there was a 22% increase in B.C. youth with hydromorphone in their system. That comes from the safe supply. In B.C., there is a 22% increase in hydromorphone in the bloodstream of deceased B.C. youth. How can the member possibly say that safe supply is not affecting and killing B.C. youth?

192 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/9/24 12:59:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that member comes from Regina, where there are 66 deaths per 100,000. That is more than 50% higher than British Columbia. Kids are dying from poisoned drugs in his community by accessing unregulated street drugs. In Saskatoon, where brownies are being sold to keep the doors open of safe consumption sites, the deaths are half of what is going on in Regina. When it comes to youth, it is extremely rare for any young person to be prescribed pharmaceutical alternatives and it is always led by physicians. To the member's question, young people can access street drugs anywhere, any time. The streets are flooded with drugs. The police have said that safe supply is not what is killing youth. That is not what is getting youth addicted to drugs. Addiction with youth has not gone up since safe supply moved forward. That is a fact; it is published data. The Conservatives do not believe in peer-reviewed published data. They only support anecdotes. That is what they do. They push it out, and it is harmful and dangerous. It is costing us lives in our country.

190 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/9/24 1:00:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate and informative speech. With their motion, we are hearing the Conservatives trying to convince us that their proposal will solve everything, that fentanyl will disappear overnight from the illicit drugs sold in the street, that drug addiction problems will be solved overnight and that the handful of treatment procedures they are suggesting will have a 100% success rate. This leaves me with the impression that, at best, they are engaging in magical thinking, but at worst, and this is the impression I am getting, they are approaching a social issue from a purely partisan perspective and trying to score cheap political points off people's misery.

115 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/9/24 1:01:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the evidence is in on how the Conservatives' policy is playing out. Alberta is leading the country per capita for death rates due to toxic drugs, and its rate is skyrocketing. In Saskatchewan, it is skyrocketing. Alaska has the same program of no safe supply and no decriminalization. The Conservatives want to point the finger at British Columbia. All they need to do is go to Lethbridge where a safe consumption site was closed. Even if the federal government wants to open one, the Province of Alberta will fine it $10,000 a day to save lives. It will be charged $10,000 a day to open a facility to stop public use and ensure people get connected to services so they stay alive by getting their drugs tested if they are using and being connected to treatment and recovery. However, the Conservatives do not want to do that. In fact, the Premier of Alberta is even going to block research and studying the critical benefits of safer supply. It is out of control. The federal government needs to step in. This is a raging crisis in those provinces. We know how the Conservatives will operate if they are in government and how they will deal with this crisis. They are basically saying that people can only go to treatment and recovery, where often they will wait or they will die. That is the only option.

238 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/9/24 1:02:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his never-ending advocacy and support, and bringing forward the voices of experts in field and families. Prior to becoming a member of Parliament, I worked in mental health and addictions, working directly with youth, families and those who supported them to provide wraparound supports. It was not good enough to offer a youth-only treatment, or only housing or only mental health support. It was essential that they were provided with the wraparound, person-centred supports people require to work through what was going on with them. The other piece was culture, tradition and connections to families. We need to be looking at wraparound, person-centred supports. Could the member please share with us the importance of having a multi-tiered approach in supporting people who are struggling with substance misuse and how that is the path forward in preventing more deaths?

150 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/9/24 1:03:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is grounded in experience. She worked in the field, on the front line, with young people, seeing the barriers and navigating a broken system. She also understands the importance of connection, peer support, the critical investments and having an integrated, coordinated, compassionate approach. However, that has to be funded. It has to be supported by government. Right now, people are asking why they should pay for all of the harm reduction, treatment, recovery and housing supports. I can tell the taxpayers at home who are watching that they are paying for it, and then some, much more. This is critical when we get into prevention, especially when it comes to young people. We have to scale up prevention and education. We have to support the people on the ground doing the hard work. We have to support peer support and ensure we have a coordinated, integrated and compassionate approach.

153 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/9/24 1:04:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, there is a safe injection site. About an hour down Highway 401, in Belleville, there is not one. We know, because it made national news only a few months ago, that in a 24-hour period, Belleville had well over 12 overdoses. It was extremely alarming and very scary. I recognize that my example is anecdotal, at best, but I cannot help but wonder why an area that does have a safe injection site does not experience the same thing that happened down Highway 401, where there is no safe injection site. Could the member speak to what he thinks about that?

112 words

Mr. Gord Johns

May/9/24 1:05:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can go to Lethbridge, which has a death rate of 137 per 100,000; it closed the safe consumption site. Imagine being a parent of a child in Lethbridge, where there is no safe supply, where it does not support decriminalization and where it closed safe consumption sites, or a parent in Belleville who needs safe consumption sites. Police are saying we need more, not less, safe consumption sites. They save lives. We have to listen to the experts and respond with urgency. The federal government has a role to play when it comes to safe consumption sites.

101 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 312