SoVote

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

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Hon. Ya'ara Saks (Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

May/9/24 2:55:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way seems to not want to recognize that in provinces like Alberta, where they cut back on a comprehensive continuum of care, including harm reduction, people are dying at astronomical rates. Diversion is illegal, and the member well knows that. We are committed to a full continuum of care to help those who need health care, not criminalize them, not force them into treatment but to get them the help they need. Shame.

79 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/9/24 3:41:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the situation is extremely serious, but today's motion paints a distorted and alarmist picture of it, and that is deplorable. The facts matter when we are dealing with crisis situations. When MPs say that Toronto and Montreal want to legalize drugs, they are not being truthful. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to clarify her thoughts. Perhaps I can offer some guidance. What is the purpose of this motion? Does she really understand the difference between legalization, decriminalization and diversion? Does she agree that those three terms are very different?

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

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

May/9/24 3:53:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this morning, something rather unusual happened, and we in the Bloc Québécois are taking it very seriously. When we asked the Leader of the Conservative Party about the difference between decriminalization and diversion, he said that they meant the same thing, that it was just semantics. In this debate, words matter. There is too much room for exaggeration. Does my colleague agree with his leader that there is no difference between these two terms?

80 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

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

May/9/24 4:42:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. He is a man I very much like and respect. He gave a nuanced and thoughtful speech with a few constructive aspects, which helps counterbalance a bit the speeches of many of his Conservative colleagues, who are firmly on the other end of the spectrum. My question is very simple. Does he make a distinction between the concept of decriminalization and that of diversion?

73 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

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 4:52:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague made an observation, noting that drugs do exist. I would add a second part to that observation: Diversion will always exist as well, for all substances, whether they are used for pain, anxiety or ADHD. I would like to know whether the member thinks it is still better to have access to these substances. Does he think that doctors are well positioned to make these decisions? What does he see as the threshold for diversion? Would it be zero?

83 words