SoVote

May/9/24 3:56:04 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, when I read the motion, I do not read it the same way that the member just read it. What I am seeing from this motion is that the Conservatives are asking the Prime Minister not to listen to the City of Toronto. They are asking the Prime Minister not to listen to the City of Montreal. They are asking provinces, territories and municipalities, who are asking for help, not to be heard. I find this quite distressing and contradictory to what the member has just been sharing. I wonder if he read his own motion from his party, to see that actually they are not encouraging municipalities, provinces and territories to work together to make sure that the people who need care get the care they deserve.

129 words

Mr. Ryan Williams

May/9/24 3:56:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this started from asking the government to listen to the Province of B.C. We have been adamant in our ask, which is to ban hard drugs. We are just reacting, and this motion is reacting to statements made by the City of Toronto's mayor and the City of Montreal, who are asking to make hard drugs legal. What we are asking for is to listen to the provinces. The Province of Ontario has asked to ensure that those hard drugs are illegal. I have not heard from Quebec or anyone else. At the end of the day, we are listening to Canadians who are on the front line and those who are suffering in small towns across this whole country.

124 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)

May/9/24 3:58:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very hon. member for Don Valley West. It is a real honour, as always, for me to be speaking on behalf of the amazing residents of my riding of Davenport. I am speaking to today's Conservative opposition day motion on the opioid crisis we have in this country. We have an opioid crisis. There are far too many deaths, and we have completely different approaches to handling this opioid crisis. The Liberal government has a very science-based approach. We also have an approach of treating this opioid crisis as a health issue and not a criminal issue. I will start off by highlighting some comments from an article that I found very helpful to put things into perspective on the different approaches of our two governments. I will then go into a prepared speech, which will focus on the over $200 million in research dollars that have been invested by our Liberal government related to substance abuse and the various attempts to try to wrestle this opioid crisis, which is killing far too many Canadians here in this country. As described in a Globe and Mail article from late 2022, the Conservative leader had released a video, and a “former public safety and justice adviser to the [former] Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper...condemned [the Leader of the Opposition's]...video on Vancouver's toxic drug crisis.” He described the opposition leader's comments on safe supply as “unsubstantiated”. Here is what that adviser said: “I was really disgusted by it. I honestly was so disturbed to see [the leader of the Conservatives] using people's really desperate situation here in the city I live in as a backdrop for a political propaganda ad.” This is from former public safety and justice adviser Benjamin Perrin. He is currently a law professor at the University of British Columbia. He also said, “It was a five-minute long diatribe that's not informed by any research, evidence or expertise. It's just [the leader of the Conservatives] rehashing Conservative, war-on-drug tropes that have been long since discredited and have been found to be not only ineffective but costly and deadly.” As described in the article, Mr. Perrin also took issue with the leader of the Conservatives “posting the footage without meeting the media to talk about his policy.” He said, “Politicians should be courageous enough to answer questions when they are going to propose that they have got solutions to a problem as complex and diverse as the opioid crisis instead of just posting a video on their social-media channels and just walking away without being responsible for what they said.” In a further response to this video, which outlined the federal Conservative views on the Vancouver toxic crisis issue, the B.C. mental health and addictions minister said that the leader of the Conservatives was “spreading a 'dangerous' message with his video.” The article describes how, in the statement, the B.C. minister of mental health and addictions “cited the finding from the...BC Coroner's Service that the vast majority of toxic drug deaths in the province are due to people using illicit substances alone.” She said, “One of the most important ways to save lives from toxic drugs is to separate people from toxic drugs - that's why B.C. prescribes safer supply and is the first province in Canada to do this. It is toxic, illicit drugs that are killing people - not the province's prescribed safer supply program.” I will go back to Mr. Perrin, who then further “criticized [the leader of the federal Conservatives'] suggestion that the crisis is caused by taxpayer-supported drugs as false, attributing the problem instead to street drugs contaminated with the potent opioid fentanyl and carfentanyl.” Mr. Perrin said: There is no indication that prescribed safe supply is contributing to illicit drug deaths.... Safer supply has been tested and found to be beneficial for people who have been unable to have treatment for whatever reason, and are long-term substance-abuse users. We're talking about essentially substituting a contaminated street drug with a drug that has known contents and potency to help people stay alive, first of all, and also to be able to stabilize. This is before they can get treatment and find a way off of an opioid. I will now talk about some of the big investments we have made on substance use research. Last fall, we introduced a renewed Canadian drugs and substances strategy, which has guided our approach to substance use policy since 2017. This is Canada's model. It is a comprehensive framework guiding our efforts to address the toxic drug and overdose crisis, centred on promoting public health and protecting public safety. The strategy supports a comprehensive, compassionate and evidence-based approach informed by the four pillars of prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. A strong evidence base is foundational to our federal approach to addressing the overdose crisis in Canada, and our government recognizes the crucial role of research in tackling this crisis. We have invested more than $200 million in research related to substance use. These scientific endeavours are increasing our understanding of substance use and mobilizing knowledge to improve health outcomes and ultimately save lives. Let us talk about how investing in research is helping inform policies and programs that would effectively address the toxic drug crisis in our country. Through the Canadian research initiative in substance matters, or CRISM, we are connecting more than 1,000 researchers, service providers, decision-makers and people with lived experience of substance use. Its objective is to translate evidence-based interventions for substance use into clinical practice, community-based prevention, harm prevention, and advice to deciders and health care. Since its creation almost a decade ago, CRISM has become a national asset with critical infrastructure and expertise for conducting clinical trials, producing national guidelines, developing and scaling evidence-based intervention, and guiding decision makers and health care providers as they respond to the overdose crisis. CRISM researchers have also recently published an important guidance document regarding take-home naloxone, which is a key emergency measure and targeted tool to reverse opioid overdose and prevent mortality. This document offers evidence-based policy guidance for federal, provincial and territorial programs distributing take-home naloxone kits. The guidance was developed in collaboration with people with lived and living experience; frontline overdose, response and harm reduction workers; public health professionals; and clinicians, among others. This work is being widely disseminated to ensure broad uptake and was recently published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. In 2022, the government announced the renewal of CRISM with an investment of $17 million to build and expand on the successes of its first phase. This expansion would enhance CRISM's geographic coverage to a total of five regional nodes. We have also launched a new funding opportunity that commits up to $8 million over four years for a new Canada-wide study on controlled substances starting in summer 2024. That is this summer. The study would generate much-needed baseline data, including estimates of the use of controlled substances across Canada. It would support decision-making and the evaluation of interventions, clinical guidelines and policies. Together with this program, CRISM would further expand through the creation of an indigenous engagement platform to expand the reach and impact of CRISM's engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, including urban indigenous communities. We have a number of programs in place to continue to fund research and find scientific, evidence-based solutions to the opioid crisis, which is killing far too many Canadians every day. It is an honour and a pleasure to speak on behalf of the residents of Davenport. I look forward to the questions members of the House will have.

1338 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

May/9/24 4:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, and she knows very well that the drugs coming into Canada are part of a hybrid warfare being conducted by the communists who control China. How are the member and her government going to genuinely care for these casualties of war and stop the weapons, which are the drugs, from coming in, let alone their providing more to the people who are already casualties?

77 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/9/24 4:08:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her participation and leadership on the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. With respect to her question, there is indeed an issue with illegal and toxic substances crossing our border. We have put in over a billion dollars to reinforce officials at the border, the CBSA, and we have had to put in far more money because the Conservatives, when they were in power, not only reduced the amount of officials and funding at the border but also cut the programs to address the opioid crisis at the time in half. We are left to deal with the problem here, and the problem has become even worse.

115 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/9/24 4:09:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's opinion on the impact of the Conservatives' rhetoric, demagoguery and lies and the lack of scientific content in the opioid file. I would like my colleague to tell me what impact this could have on drug users.

47 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/9/24 4:10:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my riding is in downtown west Toronto, and I am an avid walker. I walk the streets all the time, and when I notice things, I raise the issues with the local superintendent of police. One of the key things we have talked about was whether there were discussions or any knowledge of the City of Toronto being interested in a similar program as to what is existing in Vancouver. One of the things I find very problematic in the House is the fact there are no active discussions at all from the City of Toronto to put in a similar program to what Vancouver has right now. It is awful to be spreading that incorrect information and those lies, and it takes away our energy and our efforts from addressing the issue that is at hand. We need to do it from a medical perspective and from an evidence-based and fact-based perspective.

157 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/9/24 4:11:24 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, the member has responded partly to what I was going to ask her regarding whether she thinks the opioid crisis is a health issue or a criminal justice issue, specifically because the NDP did introduce a bill that would treat the toxic drug crisis as a health issue. I wonder if the member could instead explain, if this is a health issue, why the Liberal government is spending 60% of the budget on law enforcement.

76 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/9/24 4:12:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did mention in my speech that it absolutely is a health issue. I do not think it is a criminal issue. One of the things I did not get a chance to mention when I was giving my prepared speech is that a lot of our $200 million of funding is also going into expanding the indigenous engagement platform to engage with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, including urban and indigenous communities. We know indigenous peoples continue to be disproportionately impacted by the overdose crisis, and it is essential that we have partnership with indigenous leaders to address this issue in indigenous communities across our country.

112 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

May/9/24 4:12:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House. I want to take a moment just before I begin my formal speech to recognize and honour a young friend of mine. I met him as an infant, and I performed his funeral last summer. He was 22 years of age, and his name is Marek Seamus Henderson Pekarik. He died as a victim, as a person who was addicted to opioids and other drugs. He died, really, in the prime of his very young life. Marek came from a fine family. He was very close to both his parents and has a wonderful sister. He was really able to light up a room every time he walked in, with his imagination and his fun. However, there was always an insecurity there, and there was always something that led him to want to be part of a group. That part of the group that he got into led him onto a pathway that led to an addiction. Part of that addiction may have been hereditary; one never knows about addiction. Ultimately, a tainted drug supply led to his death just over a year ago. His family is still grieving. His friends are still grieving. I am still grieving. I wanted to raise his name in the House today because this is not just about giving family and friends a nod to say that we acknowledge their grief or their pain. This pain and grief in this opioid crisis is very real for many people. No pain or grief should ever be politicized. This is one of those issues where we should learn how to work together. We should find a way to look outside our political differences and to look at a crisis that is affecting people every day in our provinces, our communities and our cities. We need to open up a door to look at the fact that there is no silver bullet in this battle. There needs to be a multipronged approach in a way that we get best evidence and that we find a way to ensure that we use that best evidence to get a plethora of treatments, options and ideas to attack the problem, because one size does not fit all. Let me be very clear. The ever-changing, illegal, toxic drug supply is a primary factor driving this crisis, and too many people are losing their lives as a result of it. That is why Marek died. Of course, there are underlying issues all the time. Of course, there are easy and facile answers that are going to be offered to people. The reality is that we have to get bad drugs off our streets and away from Canadians, as 22 Canadians lose their lives every day in this unrelenting, tragic crisis. These are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, nieces and nephews, and aunts and uncles. They are grandparents. It is being driven by the increasingly toxic and unpredictable, illegal drug supply in Canada, which is killing, on average, 22 Canadians a day. We have to use every tool at our disposal. That means we will not have perfection on any one tool. We have to find ways to do prevention, to find ways to address addiction in the very early stages, to understand that this is a health crisis and to help people as human beings. It means that we need to provide treatment. That needs to be on-demand treatment, and we are not there yet. The federal government continues to supply money to provinces, to communities, to have more and better treatment. We are not there yet, but treatment is a critical part of this. Harm reduction is also part of it. We simply do not want people to die. This is not a moral issue, and it is not primarily a legal issue. It is a health crisis, and people are dying. It is the same as people dying of cancer, of heart disease, of obesity and of so many factors in our world where people are dying. We need to have a medical approach that does not further stigmatize people who are already suffering in their lives. This debate is doing nothing to further that issue. It is doing nothing to help the people who are the victims in this horrendous case. We need to focus on prevention. We need to focus on treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. All four factors are the central pillars of our government's approach. They need to be based on reason and on evidence. They need to develop best practices. We need to have an international lens to see what works and what does not work. We will make mistakes in things that work. We will honestly do that, but we will continue to learn every day as we try to solve this crisis together. We need to look at emerging practices and solutions from around the globe, and we need to listen to the professionals who are engaged. That does mean law enforcement officers, but more than that, it means physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and therapists. It needs to engage psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and street workers, the people who are listening, and it needs to involve the families of victims, people who love their children, who love their parents and who see the day-to-day destruction in their lives. Our policies are not driving this problem. Anyone who says that does not understand the problem and has not spent time on the streets, in hospitals, in treatment centres or in prisons, where we see the effects of this horrible overdose crisis. It means they have not been at the funerals where I have been and that I have performed to actually deal with the outcomes of this horrendous problem. To say our policies are contributing to it is simply incorrect. We know what the factors are, not all the factors, but most of the factors of addictions, and we are addressing them as root causes. We understand the complex issue around police enforcement, and we are working around the clock, and around the world, on enforcement. We also want best practices in understanding how it is that we are to get to the victims to make sure they are not further stigmatized and further hurt. We want to help, not to hurt. We know, primarily, that we want to stop deaths. The first way to do that is to stop toxic, illegal drug supply, the kinds of drugs that are getting to people and that are killing people. According to the latest national data, 82% of overdose deaths involved illegal fentanyl. This percentage has increased by 44% since 2016. That was when national surveillance actually began. I note that because it was just after the Liberal government took office. We were not getting the data we needed before the government took office. Now, we are getting better data to surveil this situation and to understand best practices. It is the illegal drug supply that is contaminated with toxic levels of illegal opioids, other drugs, that is at the root cause of the overdose crisis in Canada. To suggest that our programs simply hand out prescription drugs to anyone, including youth, is simply not true. It is not a fact. It is wrong. The clients of those programs are already using drugs and are struggling with addictions. They need care. They need help. They need the ability to fight their disease and to be given time so that compassionate, hopeful people can embrace them in love and can work with them in a medical way to ensure that they combat their addictions. It means we need roads to recovery as well. We need pathways to recovery and need treatment on demand, but it does not matter that treatment on demand is available if people are dead. They are dying from toxic drug supply. They have been marginalized in the medical system. They need to be brought home. They need to be recognized as part of the medical system in our country, where professionals are able to meet them with no judgment, no stigma and certainly not with the political jargon or rhetoric that we hear today from across the other side of the House. It means absolute training for primary caregivers and primary medical service providers to ensure that they have the best tools and the time to do their work. We hear a concern from the other side that there is a diversion of drugs from these programs. That is simply not true. Diversion is illegal, and steps are always being taken to stop it. We take those concerns seriously. We take them very seriously, and we encourage law enforcement officers to do best practices to counter that at every opportunity. The Conservatives are portraying a fiction that our streets are flooded by prescribed alternative medications. There is no data to say that. What we need to do is to continue to ensure that diversion does not happen and that people have a span of time in their lives to get the treatment they need, to work on the healthy lives they want to live, to make sure that people like young Marek do not meet their deaths without options for treatment.

1555 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

May/9/24 4:22:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that we need multiple tools, from prevention to recovery, to solve this issue. I also agree that we need to learn from our mistakes. Clearly, the decriminalization of hard drugs in B.C. tripled the death rate and the premier has asked the federal government to reverse the decision; it was a deadly mistake. Can the member explain why the Prime Minister will not emphatically state that he will not repeat that deadly mistake elsewhere in Canada?

84 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant

May/9/24 4:23:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we actually believe in provincial jurisdiction, and we actually believe in the Constitution, which gives provinces rights and responsibilities. This government listens to provinces. This government listens to best practices, and it will engage in pilot projects. Pilot projects are like an experiment; those are important things to be done. Safeguards are put around them. We listen to the provinces. The provinces invited us to engage in a pilot project. The government engaged in it. An evaluation took place. We will continue to listen to provinces, to cities, to municipalities and to professional caregivers. We will not necessarily listen to rhetoric and ideology that is counterproductive and that only hurts people.

119 words

Jurisdiction

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/9/24 4:24:25 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I want to thank the member for his excellent intervention. Does the member agree that what needs to happen is for the Liberal government to declare a national emergency on the toxic drug crisis so that there is a pan-Canadian response to addressing it?

46 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant

May/9/24 4:25:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always have time to listen to the member for Nunavut. I am very glad she was able to ask a question. There is a national crisis. It is clear. It is coast to coast to coast. It is hitting cities, communities, small towns, remote cities and remote villages. It is hitting everyone. It hits both rural and urban people. I will absolutely commit to working on best practices to ensure every part of this country, north, south, east and west, has an opportunity to engage in everything needed. I do not really know what a national emergency means. I know it is a personal emergency. It has hit my family. It has hit other families in the House. We need to work on it.

127 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

May/9/24 4:26:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke passionately on the matter; obviously, it has affected him personally, as it has so many Canadians. I wonder if he could expand on his point about stigma. He talked about how we have to address this as a health care issue, and then he talk about how unfortunate it is when it is politicized. Can he talk more about stigma and about how we should not politicize these matters? We should look at it, first and foremost, as an issue of health care when responding.

90 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant

May/9/24 4:26:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that comment gives me a chance to give a shout-out to an organization in my riding called Families for Addiction Recovery, FAR. It is made up of parents whose kids have been in engaged in illegal drugs and often had addictions. This group particularly has talked about this as a medical crisis. As long as we do not see it as a medical crisis and do medical interventions, but see it as a legal crisis, we will never get ahead. That further stigmatizes and pushes people away from getting the care the want. It excludes people from society. It pushes them away, and we need to bring them home. We need to bring them love. We need to bring them compassion. Stigma will never do that. What we need to do is to ensure that groups, like Families for Addiction Recovery, have the tools they need to be a community-based group, and we will do that work. I am proud to support them.

167 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

May/9/24 4:27:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Today is my son's 22nd birthday and, oddly enough, my mother's 91st birthday. I say happy birthday to Zac and Zetta. This is obviously a very contentious topic, and I certainly do not mean to be inflammatory in my remarks, because I do understand the nature of this illness and that it is a health care issue. However, we need to think of three different things: decriminalization, safe supply and banning precursor chemicals. We studied the opioid epidemic in HESA, where the member for Yukon referred to the Liberal government's policy of delivering drugs to vulnerable Canadians as an “experiment”, and that is the study that we continue to undertake at the Standing Committee on Health. According to the Collins English Dictionary, one definition of “experiment” is “a scientific test which is done in order to discover what happens to something in particular conditions.” The natural conclusion is that, when something is shown to work in certain conditions, one should expand on it. The obvious converse point is related to the fact that, if it has a potentially harmful outcome, then one should bring it to an end. That is how experiments work. In the health committee, we very clearly heard the deputy chief from Vancouver telling us that the police officers believed that the decriminalization experiment needed to be curtailed, and then people actually began to stand up and take notice. One of the difficulties we know of is that decriminalization has led to a lack of safety in downtowns across this country. I remember, perhaps a month ago, when I visited Sydney, Nova Scotia, that people were afraid to go into their downtowns. Of course, that goes all the way to Sidney, British Columbia, as well. Residents are scared. The police do not have the opportunity to attempt to make the areas around soccer fields, playgrounds, businesses or sidewalks safe for residents to use. I think that is certainly something to consider. Brad West, the mayor of Port Coquitlam, was quoted during an interview with the BBC on March 29. The article is entitled “Success or failure? Canada's drug decriminalization test faces scrutiny”. The article goes on to say: It is a debate felt not just in the bigger cities like Vancouver, but in places like Port Coquitlam, a suburb of 60,000 people east of Vancouver rich in walking trails, public parks and single-family homes. There, it was an altercation during a child's birthday party that was “the last straw” for Mayor Brad West. Mr. West told the BBC he had heard from a family who had spotted a person using drugs near the party, held in a local park. Confronted, the person refused to leave, he said. “That to me is unacceptable,” he said, adding that police had the right to intervene in that situation. Therefore, we know that this is a very difficult topic. Greg Shea, adjunct professor of management and senior fellow at the Wharton School's Center for Leadership and Change Management, wrote an article dated September 5, 2023, entitled “Is Portugal’s Drug Decriminalization a Failure or Success? The Answer Isn’t So Simple.” The article goes on to say: evidence of a fragmenting, even breaking, system abounds: Demoralized police no longer cite addicts to get them into treatment and at least some NGOs view the effort as less about treatment and more about framing lifetime drug use as a right. The number of Portuguese adults who reported prior use of illicit adult drugs rose from 7.8% in 2001 to 12.8% in 2022 — still below European averages but a significant rise nonetheless. Overdose rates now stand at a 12-year high and have doubled in Lisbon since 2019. Crime, often seen as at least loosely related to illegal drug addiction, rose 14% just from 2021 to 2022. Sewage samples of cocaine and ketamine rank among the highest in Europe [strangely enough] (with weekend spikes) and drug encampments have appeared along with a European rarity: private security forces. The decriminalization experiment is not working. Fortunately, I believe, for Canadians in British Columbia, that government has asked the NDP-Liberal government to reverse it, and that change appears to be coming. On safe supply, where did this all begin? It began with Purdue Pharma, as we hear in the vernacular, supercharging the sales of OxyContin. That, of course, is evidenced by the family that owned Purdue Pharma being sued successfully for $6 billion to help pay for that crisis. We know that street prices of hydromorphone have plummeted all over Canada. Around Ottawa, it has often been reported that the original street price for an eight-milligram hydromorphone pill was around $20; now it is around two dollars. In the last couple of days, we heard clearly in health committee from Dr. Sharon Koivu, an addiction medicine expert from London. She told us that safe supply has caused horrific suffering in her community. She also went on to talk about the plummeting price of hydromorphone. She believed that safe supply was diverting patients away from opioid agonist treatment, which we know has significant scientific evidence. We know that this therapy needs to be undertaken in this country as part of the suite of services to treat this terrible epidemic. The former minister of addictions said in June last year, “It is hugely important, I think, to understand that the people using Dilaudid or hydromorphone have been known to be able to share it with their family and friends, which is a safe supply.” That is nonsensical, I am afraid to say. The sharing of prescription drugs is illegal. We also know there has been significant diversion of Dilaudid or hydromorphone from so-called safe supply programs. For instance, in Prince George, police seized more than 10,000 pills, including hydromorphone, diverted from safe supply. In Campbell River, 3,500 government-issued hydromorphone pills were seized by the local RCMP, all of which were diverted from so-called safe supply; the pills had been in the possession of a “well-organized drug trafficking operation”. We know that these things are happening. We have also heard, again from Prince George, that organized crime groups are actively involved in the redistribution of safe supply and prescription drugs. In Prince George, we have seen people taking prescribed medications, some of which are dedicated as safe supply prescription drugs, and selling them to organized crime groups in exchange for more potent illicit drugs. The deputy chief of the Vancouver Police Department told HESA that half of the hydromorphone seizures in B.C. were diverted from safe supply. When we look at all these facts, we can clearly understand that safe supply is not working toward its intended consequence. We know that substance use disorder is a very difficult problem; people who suffer with substance use disorder want the most potent medication or drug out there. It is difficult for an average Canadian to understand that, if I were an addict and someone over here had a near-death experience with a particular substance, then I would want that. I would be willing to do almost anything to get that same experience. It is very difficult to understand. We know that precursor chemicals are the raw materials that are used to manufacture fentanyl and the like, and they are usually imported from abroad, often from the PRC. That is creating a significant problem. These precursors are difficult to seize, but banning them is something that we need to be mindful of. In October 2023, the U.S. DEA added 28 substances to its special surveillance list. Sadly, in Canada, only four of those 28 substances are on our banned list. This is a very difficult topic, but to paraphrase the great John F. Kennedy, we do not do things here because they are easy; we do them because they are hard. This is hard. Clearly, some of the ideas put forward by the NDP-Liberal government are not working. On the Conservative side of the House, we have some excellent ideas. These include opioid agonist therapy, bringing people back to safer communities, bringing those who suffer with substance use disorder into treatment programs and, as the parliamentary secretary alluded to, bringing them home in a drug-free state. On this side of the House, we do not believe that anybody was born hoping they would be addicted to substances. That is not what we want to see for the citizens of Canada in the future.

1460 words

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

May/9/24 4:37:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was at the Standing Committee on Health this morning, and I was very disappointed to hear my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester adjourn the meeting rather than debate women's reproductive rights. His leader intends to attack Canadians' right to access the health care that they or their doctors deem necessary. Do the Conservatives believe that they are in a better position than doctors or Canadians themselves to decide on their reproductive rights or health services? Would he, as a physician, have liked to be told what to do?

92 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 4:38:19 p.m.
Watch

I do not think that question is relevant to the debate currently before the House. Since the hon. member is rising to respond, I will give him the opportunity to do so.

32 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis

May/9/24 4:38:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, oddly enough, there was disorder and chaos at the Standing Committee on Health today, much as there is on the streets in many parts of Canada because of the careless NDP-Liberal drug policies. Certainly, the NDP-Liberal coalition decided it wanted to be disruptive, and that is not the type of committee my colleagues and I wish to participate in. Of course, that is not the kind of room the Speaker wishes to run here either. Again, on this side of the House, we believe the problem with substance use disorder is a medical problem. We will continue to put forth important and meaningful solutions based in science to help all Canadian citizens.

116 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 312