44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 5, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/5/23 7:39:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last Wednesday, I informed the Prime Minister that 35 doctors and addiction experts had recently written to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, recommending significant reform, or outright abolishment, of the safe supply drug addiction strategy.
These were not cruel and heartless recommendations; far from it. The letter was a response to those who champion band-aid safe supply strategies. These misguided champions seem totally oblivious to a simple, scientific fact: harm reduction without treatment does not break the cycle of addiction.
In Toronto and across rural and urban Canada, the safe supply strategy is not working. It adds to, not reduces, addict deaths. I asked the Prime Minister to listen to what doctors and experts were saying. These were not some ideologically twisted individuals. They were caring health care professionals who specialize in addictions and substance use.
I further asked the Prime Minister to provide appropriate funding to municipalities hosting injection sites so that they can keep their people safe. Instead of taking my suggestions seriously, the Prime Minister repeated the alleged mantra that the government “will remain grounded in science, not ideology”.
The government is not following the science. Additionally, why blindly follow questionable science that supports a strategy that basically amounts to government-assisted suicide? Where is the ideology in questioning a dubious safe supply strategy? Are addicts’ lives changed for the better by a strategy that, in the final analysis, leaves far too many dead?
What do the experts say? In a forthcoming Macdonald-Laurier Institute report by Adam Zivo, Dr. Meldon Kahan, who recently retired as medical director of the Substance Use Service at Toronto’s Women’s College Hospital, said that most patients who are actively using fentanyl will be far more attracted to the tablets than to opioid agonist therapy, OAT. Unproven fentanyl tablet programs could thus well end up diverting people away from life-saving, evidence-based treatment. Dr. Martyn Judson, an addiction physician who pioneered the use of methadone in Ontario, said offering powerful, short-acting opioids is the last thing which should ever be offered because that encourages the destabilization of the nervous system and physical tolerance, contributing to individuals seeking ever more supplies of opioids.
In the letter to the minister, which I referenced in my question to the Prime Minister, the authors are all expert clinicians who have extensive experience in addiction medicine. They sent that letter because they are deeply concerned about the continuing rise in opioid-related hospitalizations and deaths, and Health Canada’s inadequate response to this crisis. They pointed out that Health Canada’s current focus on safe supply ignores opportunities to fund and support the implementation of accessible, quality opioid agonist treatment to help people across Canada break the cycle of addiction.
OAT is considered to be the most effective public health strategy for reducing opioid overdose deaths and opioid-related hospitalizations. Therefore, in addition to asking again if the Liberal government will listen to the experts on reforming or abolishing safe supply, will the Liberal government prioritize the safety of communities that host injection sites and provide them with the resources needed to keep them safe?
I also call for Health Canada to increase funding for projects that increase access to OAT and improve treatment retention rates of OAT programs.
558 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:43:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, substance abuse is shaped by complex factors, many of which are beyond an individual's control. These factors include experiences in trauma, physical and mental health, income and access to stable housing, and the ongoing effects of colonization and the residential school system on first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. That is why we need a comprehensive, integrated, evidence-based response that is grounded in the four internationally recognized pillars of substance abuse and use policy: prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. It is not one or another, or one against another, but all of them.
The toxic drug supply is killing people. People do not know what they are consuming. People fear criminalization, which leads them to use alone and die alone. Stigmatizing language, like that the member used, and talking about closing essential health services will just increase the harms. Creating false narratives is not useful to anyone. Through the investments we have made, we will continue to improve access to evidence-based treatment and life-saving harm-reduction services and supports for people who use drugs.
Since 2017, we have funded close to 400 projects across Canada at the community level through Health Canada's substance use and addictions program to support and build the evidence with respect to innovative approaches to prevention, treatment, harm reduction and recovery. These investments are part of our comprehensive strategy to address problematic substance use, to which we have committed more than $1 billion since we formed government.
Our approach to saving lives and protecting the health and safety of Canadians is rooted in evidence. This crisis is evolving every day and our response must follow the same pace. We need to look at all innovative solutions to put an end to this tragedy. We cannot be working in silos or through an approach that is not integrated. Offering treatment alone is not enough. Providing a broad array of care options and wraparound supports allows people to access the right services at the right time to improve their overall health and well-being.
Supervised consumption sites are essential to keeping people who use drugs alive by providing them access to a range of support services in a safe and supervised environment staffed by trained professionals and peers. They have seen over 4.3 million visits and have responded to 50,000 overdoses. Importantly, SCSs are responsible for over 256,000 referrals to health and social services. Above and beyond the lives saved thanks to these sites, countless illnesses and infections have been avoided, prevented or attended to.
All levels of government must work together to ensure access to these life-saving services in a manner that also respects community safety. The Supreme Court of Canada, experts, service providers and people with lived experience agree that supervised consumption sites save lives and often are the first step along the path to a healthier life. We remain committed to a collaborative, comprehensive, compassionate and evidence-based approach to addressing the overdose crisis.
503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:46:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says that they are following the science and following the experts, but I have cited experts who specialize in addiction and substance-use medicine, and what they are telling the government is that what is happening is not working. They can accuse us of stigmatization or of false narratives, but the reality is that, if government members would leave their ivory tower to walk the streets of the communities that host these sites, experts would tell them that harm reduction without treatment is not working. Let us look at the trend of deaths. It is unfortunately only going up. Why would we continue to do what is not working?
I have cited a number of times an injection site in my riding. If the parliamentary secretary does not believe that, that is fine. There is one in Toronto—Danforth, and I spoke to a constituent Brooke who said that the injection site is not harm reduction, but harm facilitation. The government needs to listen to the experts and either abolish or reform safe supply.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:47:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member's approach because, at the end of the day, he does not recognize the reality of the consultation and work put into ensuring that the right decisions are made. It is not a silo. We work with different levels of government, first responders and victims, and I will call them victims. We work with community members.
It is not one individual who makes the decision. It is not one individual who says he or she thinks it is a bad idea and that person happens to have “Dr.” in front of the name. That is not what dictates it. There is much broader consultation that needs to take place, and the evidence has been very clear in terms of the success of programs such as these.
I would hope even the Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that we are saving lives and that people are put on a healthier path into the future.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I previously asked a question about Bill C-234 and the exemption to the carbon tax that it would provide. My question has changed a bit because, earlier tonight, the Senate passed an amendment to exclude barns and buildings on farms from the carbon tax exemption. I will read the part of Bill C-234 that the Senate is now going to scrub from the act, which is in paragraph 3(3.1)(f), “property that is used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure”.
The environment minister went to the Senate and basically exerted his influence on the senators to get them to strip this bill bare; that way, it would provide a limited exemption for farmers. Farmers grow the food and have done way more to protect and steward the environment than the government will ever have a hope of being able to accomplish. That is what the government has decided to do. It was aided by the deputy leader of the progressive Senate group, the hon. Pierre Dalphond, who was the mover of the amendment that has stripped that part of the bill to exempt buildings and barns from the carbon tax. This is absolutely ridiculous.
Let us go back to when the carbon tax was first put in place and do the calculations on it. There are many farmers, ranchers and cattle feeders who use over 100,000 litres of on-farm fuels in a given year. Given the rate of the carbon tax right now on those on-farm fuels, that would be about $25,000 a year. The Liberals will say that there is a huge exemption for farmers and ask what everyone is complaining about. There is an exemption that applies in some cases, but not in every case, and certainly not for farmers and ranchers who are trying to keep their barns warm in the winter. As we know, winter is already here; it will be -30°C very soon. In the summers, it gets up to +30°C. With the wide variance in temperatures all across Canada, various temperature controls are needed in barns and shops for farmers to do their jobs.
If we think about the Prairies, with the snowstorms and blizzards that they regularly get, especially in calving season in February and March, farmers quite often have to bring their cattle into the barn. That way, they can calve without the threat of the animals being buried in snowbanks or freezing to death, never mind the threat of predators going after them and using the weather conditions to their advantage. A very important part of agriculture is farmers having these barns and buildings, yet the Senate has decided to gut this important key in the bill. It did so under the pressure that was put on it by the Liberal government, which is absolutely shameful.
When we look at the approach the government is taking, it is almost as though it were trying to reduce agriculture's impact and footprint in such a way that it will chase people out of the industry, much like what is happening in the European Union and other parts of the world. They have literally forced farmers and ranchers to reduce their herd sizes and the amount of crop they are able to grow.
What the government is doing is ridiculous. It is being aided and abetted by certain members of the Senate, and it is absolutely disgusting.
588 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:53:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member seems to be of the opinion that it is the government that has some sort of link, and that we are meeting with the senators and so forth, when, in fact, they are independent senators. The only ones who are politically affiliated are the Conservative senators. The Conservative caucus actually meets tomorrow, both the members of Parliament and the Conservative senators of Canada. They are the ones who get together on a weekly basis when the House is in session, in order to develop a strategy.
The Conservative Party is using the farmers to try to highlight its bumper sticker that says, “Axe the tax.” It is a political manipulation of the farmers. That is what we are seeing. It is just like when the Conservatives make reference to other aspects of the price on pollution. I get it. The Conservative Party of Canada has flip-flopped, for the 10th time, it seems, and most recently, its members are saying that they oppose the price on pollution; that is what they are saying today. I suspect that there is a good chance they will stick with that, because I suspect they already have the bumper stickers printed.
The world is leaving the Conservative Party behind. Even though the world recognizes that climate change is, in fact, real, the Conservative Party continues to say nothing about an environmental plan. What is somewhat shameful is that the Conservatives are picking and choosing in order to try to cause division on a sound policy. The member made reference to some exemptions. Yes, for the rural communities there is the top-up in terms of the rebates, and gas and diesel are exempt. However, at the end of the day, we are finding that the Conservatives are trying to whittle away here and there, but their objective is to get rid of a price on pollution. I look at it from the point of view that the price on pollution is something on which the Conservative Party stands completely alone in the House. Whether it is the Bloc members, New Democrats, Liberals or Greens, we all understand the importance of a price on pollution.
What is nice about the price on pollution that we put into place is that there is a significant rebate component. When the Conservative Party goes coast to coast to coast, going into communities like Winnipeg North and saying, “Well, we're going to axe the tax”, they do not say that they are axing the rebates also. In Winnipeg North, 80% of the residents I represent get more money back; they get a net benefit, but the Conservatives do not talk about that. Instead, they continue on the far right, which does not give a darn about the environment, and they continue to deny climate change. I think it is reckless, and it is bad Conservative policy.
490 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:57:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, only this member would think that higher grocery bills are somehow a net benefit. Only this member would think that higher energy bills are a net benefit. I wonder how that goes over with the residents of Winnipeg North.
I was messaging a family friend earlier today, and they were telling me a story about their son, who has actually started out as a young producer; he is raising cattle. He has home heating oil in his house. We have heard so much about the government's vaunted home heating oil program, but guess what? Yes, we can get the heat pump, but heat pumps do not work in Saskatchewan because of how cold it gets in the winter, and the government knows that. This producer cannot afford to buy heating oil for his house, so he has to use electric heat. It is costing him over $400 a month just to use electric space heaters to heat his house, and it is not even that cold in Saskatchewan yet. However, the member opposite seems to think that this is just fine because there is a rebate out there that is going to exist and make everything all better and rosy, and that this young producer should just be happy for his rebate cheque. Who does the member think should actually pay for that? Is it this young producer?
231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:58:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member across the way, his leader and the Conservative Party of Canada would have a bit more credibility if they would share with Canadians what their policy is with regard to climate change and what, if anything, the Conservative Party of Canada would do. The best we can tell is that the climate deniers are prevailing.
The Conservatives do not care about climate change. They are in the only political entity in the House of Commons that feels it does not have to say anything to Canadians, as if Canadians have no right to know what the real intentions of the Conservative Party are when it comes to dealing with the climate issue.
The price on pollution is not unique to Canada. Maybe the U.S. as whole does not have it, but many American states have it. The Conservative Party needs to get with the times.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 7:59:36 p.m.
- Watch
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7:59 p.m.)
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
