44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 30, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this private member's bill.
In the very short time that I have, I would like to address my concern that I raised to the sponsor of the bill when he introduced it earlier this evening; specifically, that this bill inevitably is going to require royal recommendation. We know this, because a bill in almost the exact same form, Bill C-265, came through the House in the 43rd Parliament. It went through this deliberative process in the House. It was voted on after second reading. It went to committee. The Speaker entertained suggestions as to the need for royal recommendation, as he flagged it to be problematic in his view. After it came back from committee, the Speaker ruled that it would require royal recommendation before it could move to the final vote.
It is problematic, because we know it is very rare that a government would provide royal recommendation to a private member's bill. The vast majority of private members' bills that come through the House do not have monetary impacts on them exactly because of that. This is not something that is unique to this particular Liberal government: This is something that is a followed course with all governments throughout the last number of years, decades and perhaps even beyond that.
Although I admire the initiative that is being brought forward by the member, I think it is very clear to him that this will be the inevitable fate of the bill. It leads me to conclude that perhaps the only reason to introduce this bill was to somehow try to shame the government or make it look bad because it would not attach royal recommendation to it. I do not see the benefit of this, or how that would actually advance this particular issue.
To that point, I am thrilled to say that a number of the initiatives that this bill seeks to entertain are actually covered in the budget of 2021, so although this member might be seeking slightly more, a lot of the measures were actually covered in that.
Although I am concerned about the royal recommendation aspect of it, I am certainly interested in hearing more of the debate, and I know that you will give me my remaining seven minutes when we resume it.
394 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
29 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 6:53:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to again highlight the government's failure to address the poisoned drug supply in this country, which has cost 27,000 lives, and the government's inaction.
The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions was at the Standing Committee on Health and said that decriminalizing heroin and other street drugs was no answer to preventing deaths. She also said that the legalization of marijuana did not stop users from buying on the black market and that decriminalization still meant people went to the street to get their drugs.
I am going to speak a bit about how there is no silver bullet to tackling this crisis. It is going to take a multi-faceted approach, and decriminalization is a critical step. Saving lives, like I said, is going to take multiple actions. I agree that decriminalization alone will not be enough, but saving lives will require relieving drug users of the fear and shame of criminal behaviour.
For many drug users, this is a necessary prerequisite to accessing a regulated safer supply or stepping forward for trauma-based treatment or help from health care providers. As long as users are living in the shadows of criminal behaviour and are afraid of losing their supply, their employment, their income, their freedom or their social relationships, the likelihood of them trusting essential harm reduction services is very low. That is a fact.
We all need to understand that cherry-picking one or another public policy reform will simply not be enough. Responding to overdose deaths, which are epidemic in our country, requires a multi-faceted response with interlinked and complementary measures that will provide a safe, social environment for users. It cannot be either-or. We cannot say yes to safer supply and no to criminalization. It cannot be one or the other. It cannot be yes to treatment but no to a safer supply, or no to expungement of criminal convictions for simple possession. It cannot be that.
The measures recommended by the government's expert task force on substance use are intended to work in concert. We can walk and chew gum here in this country.
Accessing safe substances will save lives, but walking through the door of a government-sponsored safe injection site takes courage when the very act of using drugs is a criminal offence. Decriminalization will reduce barriers to accessing a regulated safer supply. Expungement of criminal records will help Canadians overcome the barriers to employment, housing and child custody created by criminalization. Universal access to trauma-based treatment will help many recover from the consequences of substance use and allow them to live lives free of the consequences of substance use.
Decriminalization, providing a low-barrier regulated safer supply for users, expunging records of criminal conviction and providing universal access to treatment are all policies that must go hand in hand. A multi-faceted response is needed to a multi-faceted crisis in our society that is taking lives.
I want to thank The Globe and Mail's editorial board, which outlined the failed policies of the government and the lack of priority in taking action to tackle this endemic, which is taking the lives of our daughters, sons, mothers, fathers and community members in this country. It says:
...in the House of Commons there is an NDP private member's bill, C-216, that proposes decriminalization, as well as a national strategy on substance use that includes “low-barrier access to a safe supply of medically regulated substances” and “universal access to recovery, treatment and harm reduction services for problematic substance use.”
C-216 sits in the purgatory of second reading. How to change the course of a ruthless epidemic of overdose deaths is right there in front of all MPs.
The pile of evidence, from too many deaths to the policies to save lives, is sitting right there.
I hope the government will listen to that.
664 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 6:58:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his efforts, his commitment and his determination to end the opioid overdose and toxic drug supply crisis in Canada, and for raising this important issue in the House this evening.
I would like to reiterate that our hearts go out to all the families and communities of those we have lost to opioid overdoses.
Our government recognizes that problematic substance use is first and foremost a public health issue.
We will continue to work with partners to look at ways to support programs and services that divert people who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and toward supportive and trusted relationships in health and social services, such as supervised consumption sites and drug treatment services for those who are ready. Since January 2016, the number of supervised consumption sites operating in Canada has increased from one to 38.
This month, our government announced that $3.5 million from the substance use and addictions program will be used to fund four safer supply pilot projects in Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria.
In total, our government has invested more than $63 million in safer supply projects across the country, and they have saved thousands of lives.
We will ensure that these funds get to where they are needed most for people who use drugs so they have opportunities to access treatment and recovery options at their own pace.
Our diversified approach is built on our previous actions, which included over $700 million invested in community projects aimed at reducing risk, preventing harm and providing treatment.
Our government believes that the provision of a safer supply of drugs, through pharmaceutical-grade drugs, is one of the essential tools to help prevent overdoses. It is one part of our comprehensive approach to the opioid overdose crisis.
We enabled pharmacists and doctors to extend, refill and transfer prescriptions to make it easier for people who use drugs to access the medication they needed during the pandemic.
On December 7, my colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, introduced a bill that, among other things, would require police officers and prosecutors to consider non-criminal responses to drug offences, such as diversion to treatment programs.
However, even with these government actions, we must continue to expand public understanding that substance use disorder is not a choice but a treatable medical condition that requires a broad range of care and treatment options. Decriminalization, while an important part, is only one facet of this issue. We also have to ensure that the toxic drug supply is eliminated, that a safer supply is provided and that we do everything we can, with a whole-of-system approach, to ultimately save lives.
That is why we are working closely with our provincial, territorial and municipal partners, and with other key stakeholders, to reduce the risks, save lives and give people the support they need. Canadians can rest assured that fighting the opioid crisis remains a top priority for this government.
514 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 7:02:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pilot projects alone are not going to solve this crisis. Twenty-seven thousand Canadians have lost their lives from a poisoned drug supply since the government came to power. It has an application from British Columbia that is asking for decriminalization, as well as one from the City of Vancouver and now the City of Toronto. This is supported by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, medical health professionals and the government's own expert task force.
I guess my question for the parliamentary secretary is this: How many people have to die before the government listens to its own expert task force? Is it 30,000, 35,000, 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 or 100,000? When are the Liberals going to start to listen to their own experts? Are they just going to let people continue to die from a preventable poisoned drug supply? We know the answer. When will they act? I ask because 75% of people who have died from a poisoned drug supply died at home instead of getting help.
Decriminalization is part of the solution. They need to answer to the families of the people who have lost loved ones and they need to act.
205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 7:03:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our government obviously understands the urgency of the situation and is moving forward with an evidence-based approach to ending this crisis.
Overcoming the stigma associated with substance use is also essential in addressing this whole-of-society problem and turning the tide on this crisis.
That includes the investment of more than $13 million to help change attitudes towards and perceptions of drug users, and a commitment of an additional $25 million in our platform to reduce stigma.
Our government is working with provinces, territories and communities to develop a comprehensive, health-based strategy to address the ongoing tragedy, including $500 million that we committed in our platform to support partners in providing access to a full range of evidence-based treatments. We will continue doing everything we possibly can to save lives and to end this national public health crisis.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 7:04:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I had the opportunity to ask the health minister a very simple question. I asked when the government would put an end to the arbitrary and unscientific PCR testing requirements at our land border. In response, the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I am obviously very pleased to hear one more colleague who cares about the industry of tourism. I do as well, as I just said. That is why we are working to protect both the health and safety of workers and travellers, but also to make sure that our tourism industry can thrive. We know how hard it has been for workers and small businesses over the last 23 months, and that is why we look forward to further investing and...supporting our tourism industry.
That was all very nice and lovely to hear; however, I think it is quite obvious that it did not answer my direct question. We also know that, two weeks later, the health minister announced that the government would be putting an end to that PCR testing requirement.
I am certainly pleased to see that the government has taken the action that I called for, but it is too little, too late for many tourism operators. Frankly, the lack of transparency and lack of ability of this government to provide clear information to Canadians, at this point in the pandemic, is especially frustrating for me and for many across my riding and across northwestern Ontario.
My question for the government side today is this. I am curious to know what changed in order for this policy announcement to change. What happened in those two weeks? What new evidence came forward that the government did not know before? If there was no new evidence brought forward, I would like an explanation from the government about why it was not able to be transparent with Canadians and provide an answer to my question two weeks before the minister made his announcement.
330 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 7:06:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the opportunity to provide an update on the measures our government is taking at our borders to protect Canadians from COVID-19.
Throughout the pandemic, the government has used available data and scientific evidence to inform its decisions regarding border measures. The health and safety of Canadians will continue to be our top priority, and our actions at the border reflect that. The evolution of data and the epidemiological situation, both in Canada and internationally, are what dictate our actions.
In addition, thanks to the many Canadians who rolled up their sleeves and got vaccinated, we have a highly vaccinated population. We also have continued access to vaccines, access to therapeutics both in and outside of our hospital system, and increasing access to rapid tests.
For all of these reasons, we continue to move towards a more sustainable approach to the long-term management of COVID-19 at our borders. This approach includes removing the requirement for fully vaccinated travellers to provide a pre-entry COVID-19 test result to enter Canada by air, land or water. This change will come into effect on April 1, 2022. Fully vaccinated travellers who arrive in Canada before April 1 still have the option of providing a valid, professionally observed, negative COVID-19 antigen test or a valid negative molecular test, or proof of a previous positive molecular test result taken between 10 and 180 days before arrival to meet pre-entry requirements.
Fully vaccinated travellers arriving in Canada from any country may need to take a COVID-19 molecular test on arrival if they are selected for mandatory random testing. Travellers who are selected for mandatory random testing are not required to quarantine while awaiting their test results. There are no changes to requirements for unvaccinated travellers.
Given the current international context, I would like to mention that Ukrainian nationals continue to be allowed entry to Canada even if they do not meet Canada's definition of being fully vaccinated. The Public Health Agency of Canada is working closely with its partners across government, including Global Affairs Canada, Transport Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
The changes we announced on March 17 are encouraging, but they are also subject to re-evaluation as data and scientific evidence are updated.
389 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 7:09:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with respect, the parliamentary secretary unfortunately again was not able to answer my question. She did mention that the government is looking at the evidence and basing its decisions on science, but what we see across the country is that provinces are moving forward from their COVID-19 restrictions. The federal government, although it has lifted one restriction, is keeping many in place. It is our federal government here that is the outlier.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can explain what scientific evidence they have specifically to justify continuing with the other COVID-19 restrictions at the federal level. Simply, does the government believe that it is right and that every other health official at the provincial level in this country is wrong?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 7:10:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, border measures continue to be an important part of Canada's response to the COVID‑19 pandemic. COVID‑19 numbers continue to rise here in Canada and around the world.
We will therefore continue to use the latest scientific data and evidence to guide us as we adjust our border measures. We will continue to work with our provincial and territorial colleagues, our indigenous partners and our international counterparts.
Although the latest changes are encouraging, Canadians must continue to be cautious when they travel abroad. They still run the risk of becoming ill while they are out of the country. Canadians must be aware that they may have to extend their trip if they test positive for COVID‑19 while they are abroad.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/22 7:11:44 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon not being present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:12 p.m.)
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
