Hon. Mary Coyle: My question is for Senator Gold, a little bit more on evidence and science.

Last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, released a summary for policy-makers from the last eight years of climate science. It shows that although global temperatures have already risen by 1.5 degrees Celsius, with urgent action, it is still possible but increasingly difficult to keep it below the 1.5-degree target.

At the report’s launch, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres presented his “Acceleration Agenda,” a comprehensive plan based on the IPCC report which calls for developed countries to commit to reaching net zero by 2040.

As we know, Canada has committed to reaching net zero by 2050, the previous agreed-upon goal, and has targets and a plan to reach that goal.

My question, Senator Gold, is: Will Canada recalibrate our national emission reduction targets and plans in line with this new scientific evidence and accelerate our ambitions and actions in order to reach net zero by 2040?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, as we celebrate the early days of spring here in the traditional and unceded lands of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people, a time of renewal and hope, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-232, sponsored by our colleague Senator Gwen Boniface.

Bill S-232 is, in fact, a bill about renewal and hope — renewal in terms of how our society approaches illegal substances, the people who use them and the systems that surround them, and hope that we can look with clear eyes and open minds at the abundance of evidence that exists to guide us through this important moment of necessary change.

Senator Boniface reminded us in her speech that this bill does two things. Firstly:

It mandates conversations between the federal government, the provinces and the territories and other stakeholders so that the federal government can report to Parliament with a national strategy as to how best tackle the epidemic of substance use. The second thing it does is remove the criminal sanctions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for simple possession, also known as decriminalization.

The bill’s short title, the “Health-Centred Approach to Substance Use Act,” signals the shift in approach. Our colleagues Senators Pate, Campbell, White, Busson, Dean and Ravalia have weighed in with important perspectives from their front-line experiences in support of this bill and Senator Boniface’s previous one, Bill S-229.

My intention today is to add to the debate by speaking first to the broader issues of substance use and substance use health, then touch on the limitations and adverse effects of criminalization — otherwise known as prohibition — highlighting recommendations from studies from over the past 50 years, bringing forward voices from last week’s United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs held in Vienna and end by encouraging us to get this important and long-overdue bill to committee for the in-depth study that it deserves.

Honourable colleagues, Dr. Marc-Antoine Crocq in his article “Historical and cultural aspects of man’s relationship with addictive drugs” indicates:

Our taste for addictive psychoactive substances is attested to in the earliest human records. Historically, psychoactive substances have been used by (i) priests in religious ceremonies . . . (ii) healers for medicinal purposes . . . or (iii) the general population in a socially approved way . . . . Pathological use was described as early as classical Antiquity.

He points out that in Shakespeare’s play Othello, we get two different takes on substance use with Cassio declaring:

Oh thou invisible spirit of wine, if thou hast no name to be known by, let us call thee devil.

And then Iago’s, “Come, come, good wine is a good familiar creature, if it be well used . . . .”

Colleagues, the Community Addictions Peer Support Association, or CAPSA, in its document called Understanding Substance Use Health: A Matter of Equity, points out that the term “substance use” is often incorrectly used as a synonym for addiction or substance use disorder. They indicate that similar to physical and mental health, substance use health occurs across a continuum.

CAPSA and Ottawa Public Health have a visual illustration of this, which includes five points along a spectrum. Picture the spectrum. At the one end, we have no use of substances, then beneficial use of substances with positive health or social effects. In the middle, lower risk with occasional use of substances that has negligible health or social effects. Towards the other end, we see problems occurring with substance use that has negative consequences for individuals, families or communities. Finally, we have substance use disorder, a diagnosable, chronic medical condition based on 11 criteria listed in the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition — the DSM-5.

In that same CAPSA document earlier, the association makes the point that all kinds of people in Canada use all kinds of substances. For instance, in 2017, 78% of us — I say “us” — 23.3 million people in Canada aged 15 and over reported alcohol use. In Canada, in 2020, 6,000 people died due to opioids, 14,800 people died from alcohol-related illnesses and 37,000 people died of smoking-related causes.

Colleagues, most of the substances Canadians use are legal and regulated, including alcohol, tobacco and now cannabis. CAPSA promotes a strength-based, health promotion approach to substance use with a spectrum of services along the spectrum of substance uses — legal and illegal — which includes everyone, not just those with disorders. This is absolutely critical to reducing stigma.

The bill we are currently debating at second reading, known as the health-centred approach to substance use act, is focused on illegal substances and, in particular, the opioid crisis my colleagues have so vividly described. Colleagues, criminalization — prohibition of substance use — is not achieving the objectives of improved health and safety in our communities.

According to Mark Thornton of Auburn University, alcohol prohibition in the U.S. was a failure. I will quote him:

National prohibition of alcohol (1920–33) — the “noble experiment” — was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene . . . .

At the beginning of Prohibition, the Reverend Billy Sunday stirred audiences with this optimistic prediction:

“The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and . . . corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.”

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume . . .

— it was adulterated —

. . . crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point . . . . No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism.

Prohibition, which failed to improve health and virtue in America, can afford some invaluable lessons . . . provide some perspective on the current crisis in drug prohibition — a 75-year effort that is increasingly viewed as a failure.

Colleagues, in 1973, the Le Dain Commission issued its final report on the Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in Canada, recommending, among others, that medical treatment for individuals addicted to opioids be offered instead of criminal punishment.

A recently retired colleague, the Honourable Larry Campbell, reminded us that his predecessor, B.C. Chief Coroner John Vincent Cain, recommended in a 1994 report on illicit narcotic overdose deaths that the B.C. Ministry of Attorney General:

Enter into discussions with the federal Ministers of Justice and Health on the propriety and feasibility of decriminalizing the possession and use of specified substances by people shown to be addicted to those . . . substances.

And today, almost 30 years later, we finally have a pilot exemption in B.C., and the City of Toronto just last week has renewed its request for the same exemption.

The 2011 report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy stated:

The global war on drugs has failed . . . .

Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption.

They recommended to:

End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.

Colleagues, the sixty-sixth session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs was held in Vienna earlier this month. In his introductory remarks, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, said:

Non medical use of drugs leads to at least 600,000 deaths worldwide each year largely due to viral hepatitis, HIV and overdose. People who use drugs often suffer criminalization, stigma, and discrimination and are denied access to health services further compounding the harms of drug use.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk added at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs:

The so-called war on drugs paradigm is detrimental to public health. Fear of arrest and widespread stigma around drug use prevents people who use drugs from accessing health care, harm reduction services and voluntary treatment services. Drug crime is one of the key reasons that well over 2 million people are in prison worldwide.

If drugs destroy life the same can also be true of drug policies.

Representing Canada at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Jennifer Saxe, Director General of Health Canada’s Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, spoke about Canada’s response to the drug toxicity overdose crisis, where she indicated, “Canada continues to advance drug policy that respects human rights . . . .” She stated that “more needs to be done” but she did not mention decriminalization.

Finally, and very importantly, in their brief to Canada’s Minister of Health leading up to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Canadian Civil Society Working Group on UN Drug Policy said — and I will quote at length from them:

The criminalization of drug possession has been ineffective in reducing drug use and has only perpetuated widespread human rights violations and discrimination towards marginalized groups such as Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, women, people of diverse gender identities and those with mental health conditions.

One of the main drivers behind stigma and discrimination, criminalization hinders people from seeking harm reduction and treatment services. Drug-related deaths continue to rise.

Criminalization of drug possession also means resources are directed towards the criminal justice system instead of toward health and social services.

In Canada, the push for decriminalization has been advocated for by civil society groups and professional organizations for many years. In 2021, the Federal Task Force on Substance Use recommended the same. That same year 112 human rights and public health organizations released a platform advocating for the decriminalization of all drugs for personal use, and the removal of sanctions for related activities such as sharing or selling drugs to support personal drug use costs or provide a safer supply. Provincial, municipal and law enforcement authorities have supported those calls.

For effective decriminalization, a range of policies and practices that are evidence-based and tailored to the situation are needed. It is critical that administrative penalties such as fines, mandatory treatment referrals, or drug confiscation are not substituted for criminal sanctions, otherwise, this will allow law enforcement to continue monitoring and policing people who use drugs, and will likely still disproportionately affect Indigenous, Black and other marginalized communities.

Colleagues, as I move toward concluding my remarks, I want to emphasize three important points:

First, criminalization of people who use drugs does not work. I repeat what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said, “. . . if drugs destroy lives, the same can also be true of drug policies.” Colleagues, I know that we all want our policies to make life better, and certainly not cause more harm.

Second, health is the common bond that Canadians can get behind. Viewing substance use health as part of our overall physical and mental health, and ensuring that health — with both upstream and downstream considerations — is the focus will be the key to breaking free of this whole convoluted, stigmatizing, ineffective, expensive and dangerous paradigm that we are currently caught up in.

Third, in order to develop a successful national strategy — based on a new health-focused paradigm — it is essential to have people with living and lived experience with drug use at the centre of that process, including Indigenous people and Canadians of African descent.

Honourable colleagues, we are at an important societal crossroads — one where we have an opportunity to save lives while building a healthier and safer Canada for all.

Honourable senators, let’s demonstrate the leadership of this chamber, and move Bill S-232 — Senator Boniface’s important paradigm-shifting bill — to committee. Thank you. Wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Woo, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]