- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- May/29/24 10:33:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I will start by talking, and then I will have some questions for the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I will let you know at the outset that I do not expect you to limit the time for responses to the time of my questions, if you would allow that.
I talked, in my first intervention this evening, about the common-sense revolution of Mike Harris and what that did for health care. This time I want to talk about the war on drugs in the 1980s and how successful that was. The reason I want to do that is that it is very clear the Conservative approach to drug policy is very similar to the 1980s approach to the war on drugs.
I was probably between the ages of eight and let us say 12 during Nancy Reagan's big push for “Just Say No.” It was Nancy Reagan, the First Lady of the United States, President Reagan's wife, who was leading the charge on the new-found approach to dealing with drugs, which was to just say no. How hard is it? All one has to do is just say no, and it is done. One does not have to worry about any of the problems that are associated with drugs.
That was, on the surface, what the issue was about, and that is, on the surface, how the Conservatives want to approach the current epidemics and issues with drug usage. However, under the surface of the war on drugs, something else was going on, which was a war against particular individuals in society who were being cast as problematic individuals who could not abide by the law. They were cast as people who were utilizing drugs based on just their own desire to do so, even though, according to the war on drugs, they could have stopped at any time they wanted. We all know that is not true.
What it did was that it took a policy approach of criminalizing to the maximum degree possible. In the United States, three strikes of simple possession of marijuana in some states would land someone in prison. There were situations where vast numbers of people were rounded up and incarcerated as a result of drug usage, quite often because it was something they could not control. For an individual who has an addiction, it is not as simple as to just say, “No, I do not want that.”
I speak as somebody who has experience of having lived with somebody with an addiction, somebody who is no longer with us. She passed away. When I was a city councillor in the city of Kingston, my partner at the time, whom I lived with, was addicted to alcohol. Ultimately she ended up dying as a result of her addiction.
One might ask why she did not just stop drinking. It is that simple, is it not? I remember having numerous conversations with her about it. I remember her going into the hospital, Kingston General Hospital, which would hold someone for 72 hours before letting them out. I remember her trying repeatedly on her own, and going to special places where people would try to help her with her addiction. It did not matter. She kept going back to the place of using in order to support her addiction because it provided a certain level of comfort and because it was helping her deal with other problems she had previously had in her life. It was mental health.
At the core of the issue is how one treats an addiction. Does one treat an addiction for the mental health crisis that it is, or does one treat it as a criminal offence and treat it how Conservatives want to treat mental health and addictions, which is by telling people that all they have to do is just say no, and if they do not, that they are going to go to prison? That is the approach of the Conservatives. It is a failed approach and an approach we know does not work.
My friend Kate, my partner at the time, is no longer with us. She eventually ended up getting to a point where she passed away, and she had been deceased for over a week before anybody discovered her. Because of the addictions that she had, she had pushed everybody out of her life.
We can approach this by just asking why Kate did not just say no and stop drinking. We can ask why these drug users will not just stop using; it is that easy. Otherwise, we can treat it as the real problem it is. We can treat addictions as the real issues and the real mental health challenges that they are.
I know first-hand that trying to cut people off is never the solution, and it never works. That is why I am very proud to sit on a side of the House that treats mental health and addictions as the real health challenges that they are.
I am very concerned when I hear Conservatives harking back to the days of Nancy Reagan as though that approach could work today when it did not work before. It is really important that we do things from an evidence-based approach, which is why I am glad to see our government and the minister, in particular, doing that.
I have some questions for the minister that I would like to turn to now.
Conservatives talk about investing in treatment, but they cut two-thirds of drug treatment funds when they were last in government.
Let us talk about what saves lives, such as safe consumption sites. There is a safe consumption site in Kingston. We have not had an overdose crisis similar to the one that my neighbouring community in Belleville witnessed recently. I like to think it is because there was a safe consumption site in Kingston. We also have other health care services, such as prevention, treatment and harm reduction.
Can the minister please tell us about how we are supporting life-saving actions instead of slogans?
1030 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise today to speak to a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-64. I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.
This is important legislation because, for decades, we have been talking about the need to bring in pharmacare. I look at this as the first step in bringing in pharmacare, which could cover a whole host of drugs and medicines that are very important for people. I would agree with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who was speaking earlier, that this is about preventative health care. This is about helping people before they get to the point when they would need to go to an emergency room. This is about getting people their very important medication.
When we have an issue like this that further builds on our health care system, which is a health care system that has developed over generations through, at times, very difficult partnerships and relationships with provinces, I am disheartened to see that, in the very first speech on this issue, when Conservatives stood, they brought in a motion to amend the bill. The amendment would basically substitute everything after the word “That” with “The House decline to give second reading”. That is all the Conservatives did.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, now they are clapping. Conservatives are clapping as a result of this non-motion. They could have just voted against the bill to say they were not interested. Instead, they introduced a second vote. It will take 10 minutes to vote down their amendment before we vote in favour and pass this very important piece of legislation. I imagine that, much like there was with the piece of legislation on sustainable jobs, which we finally voted on yesterday, there will be obstruction after obstruction with Conservatives playing with the bill at committee and through the various stages of the House.
I ask myself why Conservatives would be so dead set against legislation like this. In my opinion, this is about helping people, particularly the people who really need help. The vast majority of Conservative donors, and the people they look to for fundraising, are individuals who, quite frankly, could probably afford to have private insurance or work in a job that provides insurance. The individuals I see who would really benefit from this legislation are those vulnerable individuals in our society who are not covered by health care or pharmacare plans or who do not have insurance in one way or another.
One of the criticisms we hear from Conservatives is that this is about provincial jurisdiction. The Conservatives have said that this is provincial jurisdiction and ask why we are getting in the way of it. I will then ask them why they voted in favour of the national child care plan. They got up to talk down the plan for hours on end, but ultimately, they ended up voting in favour of it. That was something we needed to work together with the provinces on to make it a reality. The Conservatives saw a benefit in voting in favour of that, so they did. However, they cannot seem to see the same way forward with this particular issue.
This bill would introduce pharmacare by first setting up the system to provide for two drugs: insulin, for individuals with diabetes, and contraceptives. This is extremely important. There are nine million women and gender-diverse Canadians all across the country who would get access to the contraception and reproductive autonomy they deserve. This is really important in the context we are in, and I will explain why.
Right now, when we look south of the border, we are literally watching state legislatures and the Supreme Court of the United States make rulings that are further confining the ability of a woman's right to choose. We are seeing legislation being adopted that is something that we thought would have been dreamt up, that we would have assumed the United States had moved away from decades ago. Canada will stand up to a very aggressive position to say that we will not go down the same road as the United States. Despite the fact that many Conservatives, I am sure, would love to do that, we will not. We will ensure that a woman would have not only the right to choose, but also free access to the necessary medication specifically for contraceptive purposes.
I will certainly be voting in favour of this. I look forward to this bill coming to the House so we can have that vote, if the Conservatives ever let us get there.
793 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
