44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2024 10:00AM
- May/9/24 11:19:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech that the City of Montreal had voted in favour of decriminalizing drugs. If that is true, why does point (b) of the Conservative motion use the phrase “make...legal” instead? That is my first question.
My second question is as follows: Can the Leader of the Opposition explain to us, using neutral and objective language, the difference between legalization, decriminalization and diversion?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:19:56 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is no real difference. It is just semantics for these extremists because they do not want to defend their record. Every time they introduce a measure that fails, they change its name. First they called it “safe supply”, and now they have changed it to “regulated supply”. They use the words “legalization” and “decriminalization” to make distinctions that do not exist in the real world. That is the reality.
In British Columbia, people were allowed to use methamphetamine, crack, heroin and other hard drugs in hospitals, public transit and children's parks. It was 100% legal. This is legalization, pure and simple, no matter what it is called.
The Bloc Québécois supports it because the Bloc and other lefties support all the radically ideological programs introduced by the government and the New Democrats.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:36:00 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a bit earlier the leader of the Conservative Party refused to explain the difference between legalization and decriminalization. The latter does not allow people to consume drugs wherever they want. Rather, it ensures that people with a drug problem are not systematically dealt with by the prison system and can get the care they need. This all stems from the fact that drug dependency or addiction is a public health issue.
I would simply like to know—
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:36:53 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party leader refused to answer the question by one of my colleagues, who asked him to give us the definition for legalization as opposed to decriminalization. This is important in the debate we are currently having.
Decriminalization does not allow people to systematically consume drugs everywhere. It allows us to ensure, in cases substance abuse, that the person will not necessarily go to prison, but can receive adequate care. We consider drug addiction to be a public health issue.
My question for the member is simple: Does he consider drug addiction to be a public health issue?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:49:34 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Conservative leader's response to one of my colleagues who was asking him to make the distinction between legalization, decriminalization and diversion. He said it was just semantics, that there was no real difference, that people just made up those distinctions depending on the context.
What does the minister think of the Conservative leader's ignorance?
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 11:50:13 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the point. The Leader of the Opposition and the party opposite create narratives that simply are not in the reality of what we need to be addressing right now. Decriminalization is about ensuring that someone who uses substances is not subject to prosecution. It does not legalize the many drugs that he listed. It means that we are opening a door for someone who is struggling to access health care, rather than stigmatizing them.
Why would we want to criminalize our loved ones? Why would we not want to get them into health care?
This is exactly why we have every tool available to us and we are working with jurisdictions to address this, because we need to meet people where they are and meet the moment to save lives.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 1:30:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this morning, I asked the leader of the official opposition if he could explain the difference between legalization, decriminalization and diversion. He answered, “There really is no difference. It is just semantics”.
I know that my colleague had an illustrious career in law. She is a trained lawyer. She even served as the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister.
Can she look into the camera and tell all of her bar association colleagues and others that she agrees with what the Leader of the Opposition said about how these three legal concepts all mean the same thing and how there is no real difference between them?
If not, can she explain to her leader what the difference is? That might come in handy for someone who wants to be prime minister.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 1:32:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as a Toronto member of Parliament, I feel obligated to say that I will be voting in support of the motion. That is because my community is home to or immediately adjacent to every single one of Toronto's nine injection sites. I am also the MP for parents who have had to learn what to do when their child is pierced by a needle. That is not normal. That is not something that any parent should have to go through.
I was relieved when the B.C. government decided to do a 180, but I am concerned because the Medical Officer of Health for Toronto has doubled down, and the NDP mayor of Toronto continues to power through to decriminalization. I am curious to know what my colleague thinks about why it is that they continue to do this in spite of all of the evidence about how dangerous it has become.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 1:45:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member should be happy; this is of substance.
This has been tried before. Portland, Oregon, did safe supply decriminalization. B.C. tried it. Their overdoses skyrocketed. This is not a new phenomenon.
I know the NDP members are very upset because the NDP policies are failing Canadians, and people are dying—
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 3:53:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I stand by our leader when we talk about banning hard drugs.
We are talking about deviation. When pharmaceutical companies are giving a prescribed opioid to a consumer, deviation means that that drug is finding its way into the market. That is happening. When we talk about decriminalization, that is exactly what has happened in Vancouver and what the Toronto mayor wants to do, which is to allow hard drugs on the streets.
We are against all of that. We want drugs off the street. We want treatment and recovery for Canadians. Semantics matter. The fact is that we are the only party that I am hearing in the House today saying that we want to ban hard drugs, and then focus all of that money on detox and recovery. We are the only party saying it. That is semantics.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 4:40:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am taken aback; the member for London—Fanshawe spoke in a very angry fashion, and I do not know why. I do not feel angry about this topic. Substance use disorder and opioid use disorder are very serious topics. They require significant resources and, in her terminology, wraparound services. I do not have an argument with any of that.
What I do have a problem with is how they want to go about it. They have an experiment, decriminalization, that has failed. It is over, it needs to be over, and it cannot be expanded.
I also have a significant problem with the member for London—Fanshawe supporting the Liberal government, which also committed to a $4.5-billion Canada mental health transfer. This would have been an excellent way to provide many of those services she discussed. However, to this day, not one penny has been allocated. It is a shame.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 4:53:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague is urging us to vote in favour of the Conservative motion. The problem is that the motion muddies the waters. Legalization is not decriminalization. Only Vancouver tried decriminalization. Toronto and Montreal have not done it, nor have they decided to do it. They are trying to set up diversion measures instead.
Here is the problem. My colleague may not be an expert, but he should at least be able to define these three concepts, these three tools, so that everyone understands what is happening and what measures are being implemented. I see why my colleague cannot do that: Even his own leader cannot do it. They member's colleague may well be a doctor, but that does not give the member the authority to say that his colleague's comments were accurate when they were not. That is my comment.
Is my colleague saying that Montreal wants to legalize hard drugs? Is that what he is saying?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
