Debates of May 9th, 2024

Alleged Unjustified Naming of a Member

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I'm sorry, but the hon. member knows she is not to point to articles or hold them up because it then becomes a prop. I would ask the hon. member to just keep on with her point, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, multiple articles, including one on the front page of the National Post, as I just showed the House, were published using an official statement provided by the Speaker's official spokesperson, which means it required his sign-off. This is particularly concerning to me and to Canadians when the matter is before the Speaker for a decision to be made.

When the Speaker was asked to provide comment to CTV News on May 1 concerning why he kicked out the leader of the official opposition, he rightly governed himself in that moment and he said, “It would be unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House”.

However, that same day, the Speaker's official spokesperson released a statement concerning my question of privilege. It is curious to me, then, that the Speaker would deem it appropriate to comment on one matter before the House but not another. In many ways, mine is more severe, because mine is an official question of privilege requiring adjudication, while the matter the Speaker refrained from speaking to actually did not require a ruling at all.

On the front page of the National Post of May 2, the day after I moved my question of privilege, the following statement was issued by the Speaker's office, again signed off by the Speaker. It says, “The blues are unofficial and it is not unusual for changes to be made during the editing and revision process. Sometimes comments are left out when there is a lot of noise, and it is not clear what was said”. This is from the Speaker's office spokesperson, Mathieu Gravel.

In the Speaker's own words, and I will repeat them, he said it is “unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House,” yet his office released an official statement.

The question I leave with the Speaker for consideration today is this: Why was an official statement concerning my question of privilege issued to the media?

I look forward to receiving an answer when the Speaker makes his official ruling concerning my question of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the additional information that the hon. member for Lethbridge has brought forward. We will certainly take that into consideration as we continue to deliberate on that.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was really disappointed with the use of the word “addicts” to describe people who are struggling with substance use. In her question to the House, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha used this pejorative term again, as her leader has many times, to undermine the value and worth of people who use substances. I would ask that she withdraw it and apologize to the House.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. minister has had an opportunity to raise her point. I would just ask that she wait. Unfortunately, at this point, I cannot ask the hon. member to withdraw, but certainly we can do that at the next sitting.

Give me one second here.

The point of order that was brought up was to ask the hon. member to withdraw. After further consideration and discussions with the Table, at this point I would rather wait to look at the blues to see what was said and whether there is a need to ask the member to withdraw. We will come back to the House if need be.

The hon. official opposition House leader.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise to add a couple of points to the comments made by my colleague for Lethbridge.

In trying to get to the bottom of who altered the transcript of the Hansard on the day that the member for Lethbridge was kicked out by the Speaker, certain questions were posed to the aspect of the House administration that is responsible for the transcripts for Hansard. Those questions included who gave the order to alter the official record, what guidelines were in place at the time that decision was made and other related points. I will not go into all the questions that were posed, but the answer came back from the Hansard department saying that, since this was raised as a question of privilege in the House, they would refrain from answering those questions from my colleague and instead leave it to the Speaker.

Therefore, I just want to ensure that, when the Speaker does come back on that ruling, those questions that were put to the House administration are addressed by the Speaker.

The material change of the official record is a serious matter. The deletion of the two words “I withdraw” are substantial because the Speaker, on that day, kicked out the member for Lethbridge and deprived her of the ability to exercise her parliamentary duties and rights for the rest of that day. To keep a member of Parliament from participating in debate and being able to vote in potential votes and other types of related parliamentary functions is no small matter. Even though these are just two small words, the matter itself is very serious.

Therefore, I would like to signal to the Chair that we are expecting that the questions that were put directly to the House of Commons administration are addressed in that Speaker's ruling.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the additional information. We will certainly take that into consideration as well as we continue to deliberate on that question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Legalization of Hard Drugs

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Bay of Quinte.

After nine years, the Prime Minister and his NDP coalition are not worth the drugs, disorder, death and destruction. There is crime and chaos on the streets, and dangerous, extreme drug policies pushed forward by the NDP-Liberal government have made things so much worse.

Since the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister took office, opiate overdoses across Canada have increased by 166%. In British Columbia, drug deaths were up 380% between 2015 and 2023, from 529 to 2,546. Those are people: loved ones, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, cousins, friends, family and neighbours. Every single life lost is tragic. However, it is important to note that the 380% increase since the Prime Minister started implementing his dangerous and extreme drug policies in B.C. absolutely must be called out.

In British Columbia, more people are dying as taxpayer-funded drugs flood the streets. We see playgrounds littered with crack pipes, dirty needles and drug paraphernalia that abound. All the while, the Liberals have handcuffed law enforcement, making it nearly impossible for the police to just do their job and keep communities safe. We have clearly heard that the Liberals' failed legalization in British Columbia removed tools from police officers, making our streets more dangerous.

Nurses have to deal with plumes of smoke from meth in the hospitals they work in. In fact, one nurse was forced to make a tough choice to end breastfeeding her twins earlier than she wanted to, as a direct result of being exposed to dangerous and deadly drugs in the workplace and her concern about this potentially harming her precious little babies.

In the year after the Prime Minister made it legal to possess crack, heroin, meth, fentanyl and other hard drugs, a record 2,500 British Columbians lost their lives to overdose. Last year, the former Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, Carolyn Bennett, assured Canadians that the Liberals would end their experiment if public health and public safety indicators were not met. Fifteen months in, it is clear that we are failing at both, and B.C.'s NDP premier had to plead with the federal government to grant its request and rescue them from the failed policy. It took 11 days before the NDP-Liberal government acted on the pleading request from the B.C. NDP, effectively gutting its extreme policy and admitting that it was a failure.

Now, common-sense Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to listen to our common-sense letter and fully reject Toronto's request to legalize hard drugs, and to prevent another tragedy like we have so clearly seen in British Columbia. The Prime Minister must show leadership, completely reject the failed policy and state clearly on the record that he will not allow the dangerous policy to legalize hard drugs in any community across the country. He absolutely needs to not export the failed policy to communities such as Montreal, Toronto or others.

It is so concerning, as many communities across the country have passed resolutions calling for legalization. It is worth noting that this happened after the extremist NDP-Liberal government funded an organization called Moms Stop the Harm, which then quickly launched a national campaign lobbying municipalities and indigenous communities to call on the federal government to develop a plan that includes “legal regulation of illicit drugs to ensure safe supply of pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs, and decriminalization for personal use.”

Effectively, the federal government funded an advocacy organization to do its dirty work for it, giving it cover to further the dangerous policy. To make matters worse, we have heard many leading addiction physicians, right across the country, state that the Liberal-NDP so-called safe supply continues to fuel new addictions. Courageous physicians from across the country have come forward and demanded an immediate end to programs that were flooding the street with taxpayer-funded high-potency narcotics.

However, what confuses me is that when we start looking into the so-called safe supply and we get to the bottom of it, it is clear that someone must be making money from it. Where is all the money coming from? Where are the activists getting the money to push forward with this? It turns out that there probably is a lot of money being made.

I am going to describe a few people. The first is Dr. Perry Kendall. He was British Columbia's public health officer from 1999 to 2018. In 2017, while still in his role as the public health officer, Dr. Kendall appears to have leveraged his influence to shape Health Canada's regulations to approve diacetylmorphine, that is, heroin, for treatment of opiate use disorder. In 2020, after retiring as public health officer, Dr. Kendall then co-founded a company called Fair Price Pharma to provide diacetylmorphine, that is, heroin, to those at risk of overdose.

In 2021, Fair Price Pharma then imported 15 kilograms of diacetylmorphine that it bought from a licensed European supplier. Fair Price Pharma then contracted a federally licensed dealer's permit to import the heroin. From the time that Dr. Kendall was in office, Fair Price Pharma got upset because there were not enough people using the drug. A headline from one article reads, “BC's first provincial health officer fighting for safe supply of heroin”.

Then there is Dr. Martin Schechter. Dr. Schechter played a leading role in two Canadian studies that were completed in Vancouver, the NAOMI and SALOME studies, which were the basis for the arguments made to bring forward the so-called safe supply. Ironically, Dr. Schechter is the other co-founder of none other than Fair Price Pharma.

To recap, Martin Schechter and Dr. Kendall co-founded a company that led to profit from so-called safe supply. Dr. Tyndall is also involved. He is a former executive medical director of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control and former deputy provincial health minister under Dr. Kendall. Dr. Tyndall then started MySafe Society, which provides so-called safe supply hydromorphone from vending machines.

In July 2023, MySafe received $1.3 million in Health Canada's SUAP funding, in addition to $3.5 million it had previously received. At this point, another article came out in British Columbia, with the headline, “BC doctors upset their ‘safe supply’ of heroin going unprescribed during overdose crisis”. It is exceptionally troubling that there are doctors pushing for safe supply and then potentially profiting from it after having created companies to solve the problem.

It is important to share that Conservatives will listen to the experts and shut down the government-supplied drug programs. We will bring hope and a common-sense plan for treatment and recovery. Conservatives believe recovery is possible and that it should be the goal. We believe that every Canadian with an addiction deserves the opportunity to pursue recovery. If the Prime Minister allows Toronto, Montreal or any other community to legalize hard drugs as he did in British Columbia, the only outcome will be leading more vulnerable Canadians to a life of misery and despair.

We need to restore hope to all Canadians. Common-sense Conservatives will stop funding the dangerous taxpayer-funded, so-called safe supply drugs. We will ban hard drugs. We will invest in detox, treatment and recovery services. We will bring our loved ones home drug-free.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hardly know where to start in this debate. It is so distressing to hear the Conservatives deliberately distorting and falsifying the information about what is happening in British Columbia and about the role of groups like Moms Stop The Harm.

Overdose deaths have actually dropped in British Columbia over the last three months. They are now 11% lower than they were last year. We are seeing the positive impacts of the programs introduced in British Columbia. Yes, the B.C. government asked for an adjustment on public use of drugs. It did not say this was a failed program. It is not abandoning the program. It did not beg for it to stop.

In fact, groups like Moms Stop The Harm and other people who have lost loved ones want to know what the Conservatives are proposing in provinces like Alberta, which now actually has a higher death rate from overdoses than British Columbia does.

What are the Conservatives proposing to keep people safe in Alberta?

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that more people have died of overdose in British Columbia in the first three months of 2024 than in all of 2015. More than six people die in British Columbia every day due to an overdose. It is absolutely incumbent on each and every one of us legislators to adopt a recovery-oriented system of care, providing hope for people who are struggling with addiction, and offer them off-ramps so they can pursue recovery.

British Columbia did not just tweak the program; it effectively gutted it, admitting it was an abject failure and demanding the federal government rescue the province from this failure. Unfortunately, I am not going to take any lessons from the Government of B.C. on how to handle the addiction crisis.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, I have to agree with my colleague from the NDP. There is a lot to unpack in that speech, for which, frankly, we do not have nearly enough time. The member talked about, essentially, a conspiracy theory about officials benefiting financially from the horrible crisis.

Would the member speak to her leader about the fundraising that the Conservatives are doing right now on the issue and whether that is appropriate?

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

Madam Speaker, the tragic overdose crisis that is gripping our country, and the addiction crisis, are very serious issues. There are some very stark differences with the approaches on how to handle this serious, tragic issue.

Conservatives believe that people have the capacity to recover from addiction. We believe we need to support people in pursuing recovery through detox, treatment and a recovery-oriented system of care. It is very obvious that the NDP-Liberal coalition does not believe in supporting people in those endeavours. Unfortunately, people's lives are lost as a direct result.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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?

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

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague pointed out something that is really inconvenient for the Bloc Québécois, a party that seems to support the legalization of hard drugs in Canada.

The Conservative Party is very clear. We do not support the legalization of hard drugs, such as crack, heroin and morphine. We will continue to be clear about that.

I hope the Bloc Québécois will support our motion.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, after nine years of the Liberal government, we are seeing chaos, crime and destruction across this country, and we have a series of crises in this country. Housing is a crisis. For the first time in many generations, housing, which should be a fundamental right in Canada, is unattainable for so many. We talk about poverty levels and the ability to have nutritious food. Many Canadians right now talk about the inability to go to the grocery store to buy the food they need. They are buying less food right now.

There is a drug problem across Canada. It is very stark in B.C., and there has been mention of Alberta. I come from Belleville, Ontario, which is a rural town about two hours east of Toronto and two and a half hours west of Montreal. It has been hit hard by the drug problem that is affecting all of Canada.

Right now, the Belleville Sens AHL team, the farm team of the Ottawa Senators, have done what Toronto could not do this year, and certainly what Ottawa could not do even to get to the playoffs. They are in their second round of the playoffs in the AHL and are doing well. They are playing the Cleveland Monsters. Procter & Gamble is in Belleville, as well as Kellogg. For everyone who is a Cheezies fan, Hawkins Cheezies is in my riding. There are some in my office and they do not last very long. They go well with pinball.

I was born in Belleville, and so were Avril Lavigne and Bobby Hull. We are very proud of the city and all its accomplishments. One of the prime ministers, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, “the accidental prime minister”, was from Belleville, Ontario.

Belleville was rocked by overdoses in February. There were 13 overdoses in only two hours, 23 overdoses in just over 24 hours, 90 overdoses in one week and 240 overdoses in 11 weeks, or 3.5 overdoses a day. The mayor of Belleville, the former Liberal member for Bay of Quinte, declared an emergency. There is drug addiction, mental health and homelessness. As much as Belleville has good health care and a great hospital, there are zero treatment beds. There are zero detox beds. When it comes to mental health and addiction, there is a waiting list that is over 500 people long. The emergency crisis was called because rural Ontario and rural cities across Canada, much like Belleville, are finding it too hard to deal with this crisis, which is becoming far too common in all of Canada.

When we look at the resources that are needed in this country, I give full credit to what the community does in my region. When we look at homelessness and poverty and how they affect mental health and drug use, they are all related. When we do not take care of the top layers, they affect the bottom layers. We do not have detox beds or facilities. The only ones we have are an hour east, in Kingston, for men or women, and another one an hour west. Hospital beds are full. With the overdose and mental health crises, all available beds in all hospitals are filling up. A councillor in my region could not even go to Belleville. He had to go Picton, almost 40 minutes away, because hospitals are filled to the brim.

Paramedics feel helpless when, in one week, they responded to 90 overdose deaths. They suffer from burnout when the resources are depleted. Police are the first responders. There is a great mental health program called Impact. It consists of medical health first responders, and they feel depleted and helpless. They pick up people who need help and bring them to the hospital. There is nowhere to put them, so they are back on the street and the cycle begins again.

Most importantly, when we look at what we need to fix this crisis, aside from detox facilities and beds, it comes down to the fact that drug dealers are allowed to roam free and put illicit drugs on the street. The Belleville police chief has been very vocal about this. Mike Callaghan just retired and Chris Barry is in the role now.

I make it a habit every year to go on a ride-along with local police. On that ride-along, I talk to the officers, the first responders, those heroes who are dealing with the crisis, the mental health professionals, and this is what they tell me. They know who the drug dealers are. They know where the drugs are coming in from. There are four sources in the town that bring them in from Toronto, down the 401. They pick up these drug dealers, and they are out on bail the very same day. The next morning, they will pick up another drug dealer and, again, it is the same process. Police call themselves “recyclers” because, in effect, they pick up people who are then back on the street, and around and around we go.

This affects a very small community, but it also affects Canada. When we look at this and what is happening across all of our nation, it is not just something happening in B.C. or in Alberta. It is happening in small communities and rural communities like Belleville and Monkton. It is happening in Peterborough, and it is happening in Kenora. It is happening in Thunder Bay. It is happening in Kingston. At the end of the day, we have failed, and the government has failed, to take care of this drug problem. It is affecting not only every family in this country; it is affecting all of our communities and all of this country that we call home and that we love.

It is squarely put onto the government and how it is handling this: the fact that we are not taking care of these crises, the homelessness and the housing crisis, ensuring that we look at mental health and addiction, our health care crisis as a whole, and, of course, the fact that we cannot even get drug dealers off the streets.

When we look at this and how it affects the small town of Belleville, Ontario, and when we look at the ideology of how we are approaching this problem and how we are going to solve it, it comes down to one thing: Drugs are bad. I remember growing up as a teenager in the 1980s, and we would see commercials on TV. One commercial said, “This is your brain, and this is your brain on drugs.” What are the commercials that we see right now? “Do drugs with a friend.”

I went on a tour with our critic, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. We went to a maximum-security prison last weekend: Millhaven, by Kingston, where some of the most ruthless monsters that we have in society are put away and are serving their time behind bars. When we were there touring the facility, three of the criminals were high on drugs, in maximum security, in their cells. I went with the officer because I could not believe it. We walked into the cell block, and we were having a conversation face to face with a criminal whose eyes were like this, and who was locked on drugs. They are getting these drugs because drones are flying in and dropping them in the yard. They are finding ways to get in.

Drug use is far too easy in this country. We are not treating it how we should, as something that is lethal to Canadians and to our children, something that should be outlawed in terms of dealing it and getting access to it, and then treating the ones who are addicted to it with compassion and humanity and making sure that we are getting them treatment and detox.

This motion tackles two things. It ensures that common-sense Conservatives will ban hard drugs, stop taxpayer-funded drugs and put the money into detox and recovery.

For all the arguments we have heard today that this is not compassionate and this is not care, this is exactly what these people need. They need to be treated. The fact is that everything they have in terms of an addiction or mental health is treatable. The fact is that the municipalities, the paramedics, the police and the community groups that are looking after these individuals have no resources. They are at a loss. The fact is that the people who fall into disarray do not have housing. They do not have the pharmaceutical care and they are being treated like consumers by the pharmaceutical companies that are putting these drugs on the street.

This motion does two things only. It would ensure that we look at drugs as bad, that we treat those drugs as substances that should be banned and taken off the streets. We would ensure that we put the drug dealers, those putting the drugs on the street, behind bars. We would ensure that those people who are addicted and need mental health support get the support they need, in terms of detox, recovery and, most importantly, affordable housing that gets them off the street. Then, of course, looking to the fact that we help people, we would bring our loved ones home, drug-free, and help Canadians for once.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

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?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

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.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech, and he has taken a very complex problem and narrowed it down to very simple slogans, as I would have expected.

I have a simple question. I would like to know this: How many people with addictions, in this opioid crisis, has the member spoken to, and what has he learned from their experience?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the member listened to my speech, I have spoken to those individuals. I have talked to hundreds of them, but also, most importantly, the people on the front lines: the police, the mental health responders, and those who are running the community groups. We have a group from the Bridge Street United Church that is actually in the middle of this opioid epidemic and the overdose situation. They watched seven people in line collapse from drug use.

The bigger thing that is happening, when we look at what is happening with drugs, is that when we give criminals an inch, they take a mile, and now they are lacing drugs with horse tranquilizer. When I am talking to the individuals on the front lines, they are saying the drugs are getting worse.

All we are saying is, let us give a mile to the people suffering from it and to the frontline responders, and let us give only an inch to the criminals. That is not a slogan; it is just common sense.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, when I read the motion, I do not read it the same way that the member just read it. What I am seeing from this motion is that the Conservatives are asking the Prime Minister not to listen to the City of Toronto. They are asking the Prime Minister not to listen to the City of Montreal. They are asking provinces, territories and municipalities, who are asking for help, not to be heard.

I find this quite distressing and contradictory to what the member has just been sharing. I wonder if he read his own motion from his party, to see that actually they are not encouraging municipalities, provinces and territories to work together to make sure that the people who need care get the care they deserve.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, this started from asking the government to listen to the Province of B.C.

We have been adamant in our ask, which is to ban hard drugs. We are just reacting, and this motion is reacting to statements made by the City of Toronto's mayor and the City of Montreal, who are asking to make hard drugs legal.

What we are asking for is to listen to the provinces. The Province of Ontario has asked to ensure that those hard drugs are illegal. I have not heard from Quebec or anyone else.

At the end of the day, we are listening to Canadians who are on the front line and those who are suffering in small towns across this whole country.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very hon. member for Don Valley West.

It is a real honour, as always, for me to be speaking on behalf of the amazing residents of my riding of Davenport. I am speaking to today's Conservative opposition day motion on the opioid crisis we have in this country.

We have an opioid crisis. There are far too many deaths, and we have completely different approaches to handling this opioid crisis. The Liberal government has a very science-based approach. We also have an approach of treating this opioid crisis as a health issue and not a criminal issue.

I will start off by highlighting some comments from an article that I found very helpful to put things into perspective on the different approaches of our two governments. I will then go into a prepared speech, which will focus on the over $200 million in research dollars that have been invested by our Liberal government related to substance abuse and the various attempts to try to wrestle this opioid crisis, which is killing far too many Canadians here in this country.

As described in a Globe and Mail article from late 2022, the Conservative leader had released a video, and a “former public safety and justice adviser to the [former] Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper...condemned [the Leader of the Opposition's]...video on Vancouver's toxic drug crisis.” He described the opposition leader's comments on safe supply as “unsubstantiated”.

Here is what that adviser said: “I was really disgusted by it. I honestly was so disturbed to see [the leader of the Conservatives] using people's really desperate situation here in the city I live in as a backdrop for a political propaganda ad.” This is from former public safety and justice adviser Benjamin Perrin. He is currently a law professor at the University of British Columbia. He also said, “It was a five-minute long diatribe that's not informed by any research, evidence or expertise. It's just [the leader of the Conservatives] rehashing Conservative, war-on-drug tropes that have been long since discredited and have been found to be not only ineffective but costly and deadly.”

As described in the article, Mr. Perrin also took issue with the leader of the Conservatives “posting the footage without meeting the media to talk about his policy.” He said, “Politicians should be courageous enough to answer questions when they are going to propose that they have got solutions to a problem as complex and diverse as the opioid crisis instead of just posting a video on their social-media channels and just walking away without being responsible for what they said.”

In a further response to this video, which outlined the federal Conservative views on the Vancouver toxic crisis issue, the B.C. mental health and addictions minister said that the leader of the Conservatives was “spreading a 'dangerous' message with his video.”

The article describes how, in the statement, the B.C. minister of mental health and addictions “cited the finding from the...BC Coroner's Service that the vast majority of toxic drug deaths in the province are due to people using illicit substances alone.” She said, “One of the most important ways to save lives from toxic drugs is to separate people from toxic drugs - that's why B.C. prescribes safer supply and is the first province in Canada to do this. It is toxic, illicit drugs that are killing people - not the province's prescribed safer supply program.”

I will go back to Mr. Perrin, who then further “criticized [the leader of the federal Conservatives'] suggestion that the crisis is caused by taxpayer-supported drugs as false, attributing the problem instead to street drugs contaminated with the potent opioid fentanyl and carfentanyl.” Mr. Perrin said:

There is no indication that prescribed safe supply is contributing to illicit drug deaths....

Safer supply has been tested and found to be beneficial for people who have been unable to have treatment for whatever reason, and are long-term substance-abuse users.

We're talking about essentially substituting a contaminated street drug with a drug that has known contents and potency to help people stay alive, first of all, and also to be able to stabilize.

This is before they can get treatment and find a way off of an opioid.

I will now talk about some of the big investments we have made on substance use research.

Last fall, we introduced a renewed Canadian drugs and substances strategy, which has guided our approach to substance use policy since 2017. This is Canada's model. It is a comprehensive framework guiding our efforts to address the toxic drug and overdose crisis, centred on promoting public health and protecting public safety. The strategy supports a comprehensive, compassionate and evidence-based approach informed by the four pillars of prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement.

A strong evidence base is foundational to our federal approach to addressing the overdose crisis in Canada, and our government recognizes the crucial role of research in tackling this crisis. We have invested more than $200 million in research related to substance use. These scientific endeavours are increasing our understanding of substance use and mobilizing knowledge to improve health outcomes and ultimately save lives.

Let us talk about how investing in research is helping inform policies and programs that would effectively address the toxic drug crisis in our country. Through the Canadian research initiative in substance matters, or CRISM, we are connecting more than 1,000 researchers, service providers, decision-makers and people with lived experience of substance use. Its objective is to translate evidence-based interventions for substance use into clinical practice, community-based prevention, harm prevention, and advice to deciders and health care.

Since its creation almost a decade ago, CRISM has become a national asset with critical infrastructure and expertise for conducting clinical trials, producing national guidelines, developing and scaling evidence-based intervention, and guiding decision makers and health care providers as they respond to the overdose crisis. CRISM researchers have also recently published an important guidance document regarding take-home naloxone, which is a key emergency measure and targeted tool to reverse opioid overdose and prevent mortality.

This document offers evidence-based policy guidance for federal, provincial and territorial programs distributing take-home naloxone kits. The guidance was developed in collaboration with people with lived and living experience; frontline overdose, response and harm reduction workers; public health professionals; and clinicians, among others. This work is being widely disseminated to ensure broad uptake and was recently published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

In 2022, the government announced the renewal of CRISM with an investment of $17 million to build and expand on the successes of its first phase. This expansion would enhance CRISM's geographic coverage to a total of five regional nodes.

We have also launched a new funding opportunity that commits up to $8 million over four years for a new Canada-wide study on controlled substances starting in summer 2024. That is this summer. The study would generate much-needed baseline data, including estimates of the use of controlled substances across Canada. It would support decision-making and the evaluation of interventions, clinical guidelines and policies.

Together with this program, CRISM would further expand through the creation of an indigenous engagement platform to expand the reach and impact of CRISM's engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis people, including urban indigenous communities. We have a number of programs in place to continue to fund research and find scientific, evidence-based solutions to the opioid crisis, which is killing far too many Canadians every day.

It is an honour and a pleasure to speak on behalf of the residents of Davenport. I look forward to the questions members of the House will have.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, and she knows very well that the drugs coming into Canada are part of a hybrid warfare being conducted by the communists who control China.

How are the member and her government going to genuinely care for these casualties of war and stop the weapons, which are the drugs, from coming in, let alone their providing more to the people who are already casualties?