Debates of May 9th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Legalization of Hard Drugs

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are clouding the issue. What we are saying is that we have to be realistic. There is a societal problem when it comes to drugs. We have to take the necessary measures to protect the big cities, Toronto and Montreal, and there is a major test case in British Columbia. This test case has taught us a few things. Yes, doctors have many opinions, but they are specialists and scientists. I think we should leave it to them. Beyond that, we need to protect our big cities, and that is simply what I am calling for today.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciate the responses the member gave regarding the need to listen to experts.

I understand that Canadian chiefs of police support the use of safe supply, as do medical practitioners, because we all know the toll this toxic drug crisis takes.

I wonder if the member agrees that we do need to listen to experts like the Canadian chiefs of police, as well as the medical practitioners who are calling for the continued use of safe supply.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, we need to trust the experts, but that is prevention. They took a position based on the information they had. Now, if we step back and take the necessary steps to protect our big cities, society will be better off. We need to work toward that. Yes, rehabilitation is important. Yes, we need to work with the experts, but let us open up possibilities and explore our options to make our society a better place.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

I am using my time this evening to focus on the men in this country who have disproportionately been affected by an inadequate drug policy. They deserve better than what Conservatives have tabled in the House.

New Democrats care about getting people the help they need and supporting families and communities that have been hurt by the toxic drug crisis. We know the devastating effects of opioid addiction, and we know it is disproportionately affecting men, men in trades who build our housing and infrastructure, who maintain and fix critical assets for cities, provinces and our federal government, and who drive the economic prosperity of Canada for private resource extraction right across the country.

In my home province of B.C., where the economy has been booming for years because of construction, we can see the effects this is having through the life expectancy rate of men. As life expectancy in B.C. is on the rise for women, it is on the decline for men. This is the first time in recent history. It is shocking, as it is the result of increased deaths among younger men related to the illegal toxic drug supply. The men in this country deserve better. They deserve an immediate and national public health response, not a criminal one.

Men who work in trades are dying alone. Managing pain and addiction alone is a reality in this country. The construction boom, although necessary and good for the economy, continues to put more stress on these workers, often making them work excessive hours, go long periods without breaks and work remotely, away from family and other supports. This can mean these workers become isolated and exhausted. They can suffer from chronic injury pain for which they cannot take time off to heal and turn to drugs to get relief. We need to do better for these men who are giving their lives to and for the economy.

When we think of the men who work in the trades, we often have images of hard-working, stoic, strong men. This is a well-earned reputation, but behind this strength, many of these men are fighting a silent battle against addiction with nowhere to turn for help. Half of all workers dying of drug overdoses work in the trades. The lack of destigmatizing education on these drugs and the lack of supports offered to these men is heartbreaking, but worse, it is killing them. Conservatives do not acknowledge this. They call these workers criminals. They did it today.

I recently heard a tragic story about a young plumber who died of an overdose alone in the basement of his parents' home. His family chose not to have a celebration of life because of the stigma that comes with addiction. This is not an isolated story. New Democrats know that we must treat the toxic drug crisis as a public health emergency rather than a crime, and all of us here in the House have the responsibility to reduce the stigma so that we can end this tragedy. I cannot imagine a family who cannot mourn their son in public because of the stigma.

I would say this directly to the Conservatives: This is why New Democrats support expert-led advice to include a safer supply of substances of known potency and quality to keep people alive until they are ready to seek or have access to treatment.

In Alberta, the situation is even worse. Three out of four people dying in Alberta of drug overdoses are men, and the majority of them are in the trades. These men are isolated in camps and work the oil fields in northern Alberta, such as in the town of Wood Buffalo, where 2023 was a record year for opioid deaths and the deadliest year on record for Alberta, with 1,666 deaths attributed to non-pharmaceutical opioids like fentanyl. The tough-on-crime approach of Conservatives has further pushed these men into isolation and hopelessness.

In Alberta, to make matters worse, when found out that they are using drugs, these men lose their jobs. Those companies that are making billions of dollars are firing these men and not offering help. They are even at risk of being arrested so that the UCP can show that it is tough on crime.

Of course, the Conservatives do not want to talk about the failures of the Conservative premiers across the country, as they jail people who need help and help rich CEOs force more workers into addiction. Families and communities continue to suffer because of the toxic drug crisis. The Conservatives are here to make it worse.

I want to say that there is hope. There is great work being done. In B.C., there are programs like “Tailgate Toolkit”, which aim to educate tradespeople working in construction by ensuring that they have access to harm reduction services and support, the same services the Conservatives want to cut, leaving these workers without any help. We now learn that the Leader of the Opposition wants to put these men in jail with no rights after denying them access to help.

The Conservatives in the House are more than happy to give a free pass to premiers like Danielle Smith when she lets overdoses kill hundreds of tradespeople working in the oil fields in Alberta.

The NDP, as can be seen in B.C., are working hard to find solutions. It wants solutions.

I close by saying that there are a many great people working toward solutions all over the country. In my riding, Chloe Goodison has been doing incredible work through the non-profit she founded in 2021, called NaloxHome. She is a first-year student at SFU and her non-profit has picked up widespread notoriety now. She is based in Port Moody and delivers free destigmatizing drug education, an education that would benefit these Conservatives, I think.

Harm reduction saves lives, and I raise my hands to Chloe and the great work that she and her team do.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech. I was disappointed at one point, when she was talking about skilled workers dying in the oil patch from addiction, and there was laughter from the Conservative Party, from one particular member.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It was the same member who is heckling right now, the same member who is continuing to heckle me—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members to please be respectful to each other within the House. If they do not have the floor, then they should be waiting until that opportunity comes. I also want to ask the hon. member to please just pose his question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering, having listened to the debate from the Conservatives today, if the hon. member saw what we are seeing here today as repackaged war-on-drugs rhetoric, and if she could explain what the consequences of that were back then and what they will be today.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was just talking to one of my colleagues earlier today about how history is repeating itself in many areas. We were out on the Hill today, taking a stand against those who want to take away the rights of women, anti-choice groups, out on the Hill. We seem to be seeing a “back to the future” return and this is just a reoccurring theme with the Conservatives. They want to take us back in time. We need to focus on lives, saving lives.

I would just say to the member from the Liberals that the Liberals, too, must address this crisis at the scale it requires and move faster to make sure that we can save more lives.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member from Coquitlam failed to mention, in her speech, that what brought us here today was the 180° from the Premier of British Columbia, who realized that he was going to lose the next election because of the crime, chaos and complete anger in British Columbia over what has happened to our downtown cores and people who are, indeed, suffering from drug addiction.

Will the member agree that the B.C. New Democrats are taking this position because they are afraid of losing the election and that they did not actually follow the four principles, which include enforcement, that have been talked about today?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the story I shared earlier in my speech about the young man who passed away in his basement and was not able to have a funeral was shared with me by someone in the trades who asked the member who just asked me the question to come visit them at their facility in the Lower Mainland. The member has not taken the time yet to make the trip to go speak with them. Maybe if he did, he could hear the stories and bring some humanity to his party today.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of the pillars of the strategy is harm reduction. This includes, among other measures, supervised consumption sites and safe supply.

Often what we hear from the critics of harm reduction are the negative impacts of these programs.

Could my colleague tell us about the positive effects of these programs?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to take the opportunity to talk about all of the not-for-profits, and I am sure there are many in his riding as well, that do this work around harm reduction, especially with youth.

In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, we have an organization called Access Youth. Every single Friday and Saturday night, every weekend for years and years, it is out offering harm reduction to youth. It is educating and offering harm reduction to youth, things like naloxone kits. This is important work. We are talking about young lives, sometimes as young as 12 and 13 years old, who need safe supply and need to be protected from harm.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise with a great deal of empathy and sadness about the issue under debate here, because what we are talking about is an issue that brings and reflects great pain in every family in every corner of the country.

The thing about addiction is that no family is untouched. It does not respect income. It does not respect culture. It does not respect class. It does not respect geography. It hits every family. I do not believe there is a family in this country that is untouched by addiction. Everybody has a mother, father, brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle, child, friend or neighbour who has suffered from substance abuse disorder. Therefore I think this is one of those policies that is particularly unfortunate when it is politicized, when people seek to make partisan gain and when we do not seek to find common ground by getting established facts before us so we can make the best policy for this country moving forward.

I have heard a lot of words from the Conservatives, because the motion today is theirs, and they have used the word “extreme” a lot. I will tell them what I think is an extreme policy: the war on drugs. The funny thing about it, though, is that we have a century of evidence, a hundred years of the war on drugs, the criminalized approach to addiction. If it has proven anything, it has proven that we cannot jail our way out of addiction. It has proven that it does not work.

If the war on drugs did work, North America would be relatively addiction-free today. We have wasted billions of dollars in North America over the last hundred years, and we have hurt millions of addicts and their families. The result is that addiction is as big a part of our society today as it ever was.

It is said in recovery circles that the definition of “insanity” is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. What do the Conservatives bring to the debate today, a day when 20 families will lose a family member, and they will lose a family member tomorrow and the day after? The Conservatives think the answer here is “Let us recriminalize addiction.”

If we get right to the bottom of it, the problem is actually relatively easy to state. People are dying from illicit substances. They are dying from the use of drugs, primarily fentanyl and sometimes carfentanil, and the reason they are dying is that there is a toxic, poisoned street supply that is provided by organized criminals in Canada and abroad who do not care one bit about the quality, the dosage or the purity of their product or about who buys it.

Also, because the drugs happen to be supplied largely by organized crime, the price is astronomically increased, meaning that a person who is dependent on these drugs and who is suffering from late-stage addiction has to engage in break and enters, or in some cases in selling their bodies, in order to get the amount of money they need every day to satisfy their habit. The answer to this is obviously that we need to make sure that people who have a chronic compulsion to use these drugs because of their health issue and addiction have access to a regulated supply of the substances they need that is in known dosage, known titration and known purity.

There are 35 problems with addiction. Making sure that people have access to a safe, regulated supply will solve only two of them. The other 33 problems will still be there. The first problem that will be solved is that a person would not have to buy their drugs from a street criminal in an alley in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver at two in the morning and not know what they are getting.

A story that happens every day in Vancouver is that a person uses a substance that has been contaminated because it has been made in an illegal pill mill by people who have no concern about whether half of the pill had half of the fentanyl in it. If someone splits the pill in half and accidentally takes the half that has two-thirds of the fentanyl in it, they will overdose.

Thus, the first problem that would be solved is that people would no longer have to go to organized crime to get their drugs. In my view, they should be able to go to a pharmacy, which is a place in our society where dangerous regulated drugs are sold. They should be able to go to a professional dispenser, which is a pharmacist, and they should be able at least to access the drugs that they need with their own money through the pharmacy, if they are going to get them at all. In my view, that is a more sensible way to dispense a dangerous drug than to leave it to organized crime.

The second problem that safe supply solves is that if it were sold at a reasonable price, the person probably would not have to break into garages or cars, sell their body or shoplift in order to make the $200 a day that the average person in Vancouver often needs in order to get drugs in the illicit market.

Every other problem would still exist, the plurality of health problems. I agree with the Conservatives in part. I think we all agree, and I believe strongly in investing in treatment. However, this brings me to a very important point that I think marks a cleavage in the House between us and the Conservatives. We believe that substance use disorder is a health issue, not a criminal issue. It is not an issue of morality. It is not an issue of character. It does not mean that a person who uses drugs is a bad person; it means they have a complex biopsychosocial condition that requires treatment.

One thing I will agree with the Conservatives about is that we have not created the health architecture in this country that actually mirrors that belief. I believe that there should be treatment on demand for anybody who is ready to get treatment through our public health care system.

I challenge my Conservative colleagues: If and when they are in government at some point, I want them to invest billions of dollars into our public health care system so when a person seeks treatment, they can walk into a facility and get it right then. We know that if someone does not access treatment right away, they probably will not do it at all.

I want to just say quickly a few words about Moms Stop the Harm because I was actually horrified to hear some of the Conservatives disparage Moms Stop the Harm. It is a group of mothers who lost children to drug overdose. There was an aspersion cast, suggesting that it was somehow falsely created as a Liberal-NDP front group. Not only is that 100%, demonstrably, completely, categorically false, but what a disgusting insult it is to parents in this country who have mobilized because they lost a child to drug addiction. The Conservatives owe an apology to Moms Stop the Harm and to every parent in this country who has lost a child to drug addiction.

I have never said this before in the House. I lost my father in 1983 on December 6. I was 20 years old when my 15-year-old sister found him dead in the bathroom from a methadone overdose. I lost a parent, and my family has been wracked with addiction and substance use issues.

We should never play politics with any parent or other family member who is advocating policy they think is better and who has suffered the death of a loved one.

I would like to move “That the motion be amended by replacing the words ‘the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister took office’ with ‘2015’, and replacing all the words after ‘call on the Prime Minister to:’ with the following: (a) declare the toxic drug crisis a national public health emergency; (b) take steps to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for their role in contributing to Canada's toxic drug crisis; (c) provide additional funding to help provinces provide supports for treatment and recovery programs, targeting provinces where drug toxicity deaths are increases fastest, such as Saskatchewan and Alberta; and (d) work with cities including Toronto and Montreal to ensure that they have all the tools they need to tackle this crisis and to protect public safety.”

Let us put politics aside and try to create drug policy in this country that would save lives.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must inform the hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion can only be proposed with the consent of the mover. In the event that he is not present, the House leader, deputy House leader, whip or deputy whip of the mover's party may give or refuse consent in the mover's place.

Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I am asking the acting opposition whip whether he consents to the amendment's being moved.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think we are pursuing the same objective as my colleague, but we are going about it differently. We are not playing politics with such a sensitive and important subject. We reject the proposal.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, with whom I had the privilege of sitting on the health committee for a number of years. I just want to tell him that I am very sorry to hear about his dad. I have lost both of my parents, not to overdose, but I understand the profound pain that comes from losing one's parents. I also understand the profound pain that comes from having family members with addiction.

Addiction is something that is incredibly challenging for each and every one of us. A mom wrote to me, and I shared this today in the health committee. She said, “Hi. Sorry it's been so long. I've been in survival mode, fighting to save my daughter. Her 13-year-old friend just died yesterday, here in rural British Columbia, from an overdose after the local hospital released her from an overdose on Friday. Please help us here. I can't bear going to another child's funeral. These kids deserve so much more than this ignorant system. Doctors should have held her, under the Mental Health Act, until they could have gone to detox. Another family ruined, many who loved her, traumatized, and more deaths to follow if something does not change.”

Does the member agree that there should be an expansion of detox in his home province of British Columbia?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I do.

My hon. colleague's words were kind. It was a privilege for me as well to serve with her on the health committee.

I do not ever agree that anybody should be held until treatment is available, but I think what we share is that nobody should have to be held until treatment. The short answer to her question is, absolutely, every community in this country should have detoxification facilities so that when a person is ready and willing to seek help, they could go immediately and access the help they need.

Then there should be myriad treatment options available to them, because no one system works for everybody. Sometimes it is a 12-step program. Sometimes is an abstinence-based program, and sometimes it is not. There should be programs for women and for indigenous people, and programs depending on the substance, whether it is opioids, cannabis or alcohol. All of those options should be available, and right now in this country they are not, unless someone has money. There is a two-tiered system in this country for access to treatment. It is wrong and we should change it.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry for the member's loss.

The member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake said that funding for Moms Stop the Harm was to create a lobby group. The funding is actually to create a grief support group. Why would someone oppose grief support? Could the member comment on how distasteful this allegation was and on how dangerous spreading misinformation is?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for raising that issue because I was quite shocked when I heard those words in the House. I cannot be any stronger than I was in my initial remarks when I said that it is categorically untrue. The aspersion and the insinuation that Moms Stop The Harm is anything but a grassroots independent group of people who have come together, united in their sharing of the horrible experience of losing a child to addiction, is frankly, disgraceful. It is not worthy of anybody in the House to say that.

Any money that is given to that group simply helps it to spread its message, and its message is that they know that their children often used alone after accessing street-level toxic drugs and that is why they died. That is why Moms Stop The Harm is advocating for sensible, evidence-based drug policy in this country, which means that people, as one of the pillars, must be able get access to a safe, regulated supply.

I would ask this question of my Conservative friends: What is the alternative to safe supply? A dangerous supply—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow time for another question.

The hon. member for Montcalm for a brief question.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his thoughtful speech, which also proposed a solution to today's debate. Unfortunately, it was rejected and I am very disappointed.

My colleague was talking about the fact that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the hon. member because there is no interpretation.

The interpretation is working now.

The hon. member for Montcalm can ask his brief question again. There is not a lot of time left.