Health Committee on June 17th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's debate.

Dr. Hanley, go ahead.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

My point was just that I wanted to preserve my five minutes of question-and-answer time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think where we left off, the minister was in the middle of answering a question from Dr. Hanley.

Dr. Hanley, you are one minute and 50 seconds into your five-minute turn, so you still have three minutes and 10 seconds.

The minister has the floor.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I'll try to be succinct and accurate in answering Dr. Hanley.

To be frank, there's a false debate brewing regarding harm reduction versus treatment. It's a distraction, because we're focused on saving lives. We are focused on those who use substances and have the disease of addiction and on getting them to health care services. We know this is where we need to stay, within the evidence and the science.

Professor Benjamin Perrin has also raised the issue of disinformation, calling out the Leader of the Opposition on his claims about hard drugs—crack, heroine and cocaine—being decriminalized and resulting in a 380% increase, which was false. Dr. Perrin, who is a former Conservative staffer, outlined this and called the Leader of the Opposition out on what he said were the lies he was spreading.

I would encourage all of us to focus on what's most important: We can't treat someone if they are dead. That is why harm reduction is health care. It is a door to the system. That is why we need to use every tool available to us to save lives, to get those we love into the treatment and health care services they deserve.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Minister.

I hope I have a little time left. I just want to focus quite specifically on SUAP. I really welcome the refunding of SUAP. I've also heard from some organizations that they have been waiting a long time, particularly to renew successful projects, whereas the focus on SUAP has always been on new, innovative projects. Of course we want to support innovation, but we also want to support ongoing success.

Could you comment on that aspect?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Chair, we know how much there is a need for the SUAP stream. This last round of $144 million in funding saw over 700 applications, with asks of over $2 billion in cumulative totals. That being said, we have to find a balance between making sure we are reaching as many communities as possible around the country, including rural and remote communities, and ensuring that there are low-access and barrier-free options for those who are seeking health care services. We continue to innovate, and we continue to try out new tools, but we also want to see what is scalable among those that are successful. We do try to find the balance between them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

You have 30 seconds, Dr. Hanley.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

That's great.

Perhaps I'll jump quickly to the emergency treatment fund. Again it's welcome news that this will be occurring. I know this is scheduled for implementation in the fall.

You've already had consultations. Can you give me a couple of concrete examples of what this could look like for a rural northern community, such as one in my riding?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Be brief, please.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

It will include looking at what the immediate needs are on the ground, whether those are drug-checking services, additional training in naloxone or hiring of nursing staff and other health care staff on an as-needed basis if there is a crisis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you.

We have nine minutes to vote. Is it the will of the committee to continue?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Are you okay to stay and vote here, Minister? Okay.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, in another component, you had the opportunity to talk about harm reduction by answering some of the committee members' questions.

The experts who appeared before the committee told us that harm reduction was the first step in treatment. Incidentally, the Maison Benoît Labre is a supportive housing facility with two injection rooms. When we travelled across Canada, people told us their stories. We discovered that supportive housing played a role in helping people successfully get off drugs. It's a harm reduction measure.

Could you talk about harm reduction? Do you agree with the experts who appeared before the committee and who said that harm reduction was the first step in treatment? Do you agree that there aren't just two paths, contrary to what Alberta's Minister of Mental Health and Addiction said? There aren't just two paths, which are misery and harm reduction or mandatory treatment.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for the question and for outlining the importance of harm reduction in offering a full continuum of care to those who use substances and struggle with the disease of addiction.

I know that Dr. Rob Tanguay also subscribes to the importance of supervised consumption services as being an entry point into treatment. He has stated that it is probably one of the very best entry points we could possibly have for individuals who are most vulnerable. We need to have more.

There isn't a one-size-fits-all when it comes to substance use and addiction. In order to meet people where they're at in community, we have to be able to open the door to show them that there is help available to them. Harm reduction is one of those entry points that is probably most critical for the most vulnerable, because they have been ignored, shunned, stigmatized and, in many cases, criminalized rather than getting the health care they deserve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Johns, you have two and a half minutes, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

As the process to develop a road map for the development of national mental health and substance use health standards wraps up, how does the federal government intend to address the persisting and serious gaps in the collection of quality, comprehensive and coherent data across jurisdictions?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, I'll say that we are always guided by evidence and data. Through CRISM and CIHR we have a robust system of collecting data and evidence, including through our SUAP projects themselves, as a lever of assessment. Without that data, we can't know what communities need. That data is guiding us to understand the best tools we can offer Canadians when they struggle with substance use.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Minister, an analysis of the bilateral agreements shows that less is being spent through those agreements than through the promised Canada mental health transfer. In the wake of the closure of Wellness Together Canada and gaps in consistent reporting to the Canadian Institute for Health Information on mental health and substance use health indicators, what is the federal government doing to hold provinces and territories accountable to ensure consistent reporting on indicators and transparency in regular reporting on spending against priorities identified in the action plans?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

The Wellness Together portal was a once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-century investment whereby the federal government partnered in the unique situation and the demands and needs of Canadians for their mental health during the pandemic. It was never meant or intended to be an ongoing program.

That doesn't mean the need is not there, which is why, in the bilateral agreements, we ensured that mental health services were a key pillar in the provision of those agreements. Health care belongs in the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that is why we worked very carefully with them before shutting down the Wellness Together portal.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I have one question in my very last bit of time.

We had Dr. Sharon Koivu testify here at committee. She said that she would table documents within a couple of weeks. They've come to the committee. I want to make sure that those documents are available to the public.

Can I seek unanimous consent from the committee to allow those documents to be released publicly to be examined by experts?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

No, we don't have unanimous consent, Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, can I get an explanation on the rules for when this committee asks for documents from an expert witness? When should that information be public? It wasn't an in camera meeting, and the request was not made in camera.

Can I get some clarification?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm going to invite the clerk to step in here, because the rules around the production of documents are a bit complicated, depending on the wording. There are three ways a committee can compel documents.

I'm going to ask the clerk to help us with that.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Aimée Belmore]

I will be very quick, given the time before the vote.

The document, to my knowledge, was not requested through an order for the production of documents. It was requested for further information or as a question taken as notice. Documents tendered to the committee are the possession of the committee. The committee can do with them as it wishes during the sitting. At the end of the sitting, all of the documents, unless they have been deemed by the committee to be confidential, are made public, and they are available to be searched.

If the committee wishes to discretionally not release the document at this point but have it be public only at the end of the sitting, that is certainly within its rights. If the committee wants to render it public at any point, it can. It can choose to publish it on the website, or it can choose to designate it as confidential.

All of these are options for the committee to consider.