SoVote

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/22 9:24:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his speech and for the stories that he shared. I want to ask the member about accountability for some of the companies that have been responsible for in some ways causing and certainly fuelling the opioid crisis. There has been a lot of litigation in the United States targeting Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, as well as McKinsey, and they have been forced to pay significant amounts of money that have been able to be used towards compensation for victims as well as treatment. My sense is that in Canada we have been far behind in terms of the government trying to hold some of these corporate bad actors accountable for fuelling the opioid crisis and for pushing misinformation about the addiction risk associated with opioids. As one of the stories the member shared shows, most of the people who struggle with substance abuse disorders in the context of opioids started with prescription opioids, and for many people that was at a time when there was a great deal of misinformation that was aggressively and pointedly pushed by some of these companies about the risks. I would ask the member this: Why is the government not doing more, and should the government do more to hold these actors—Purdue, the Sackler family and McKinsey—accountable?

225 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 26 - Feb/8/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/22 10:07:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I want to probe one aspect of the member's speech. He talked about the issue of safe supply, and other members have talked about safe supply policies. The term safe supply can be used in different context. I would support, for instance, providing substances like suboxone that can be used in treatment. Suboxone can help treat opioid dependency and also has the benefit of being quite tamper-resistant. I would also support allowing doctors to have the discretion and flexibility to provide prescriptions to patients in the context of understanding their own situation or their own health needs. That could be considered a form of safe supply. What I would not support is a policy whereby a broad range of dangerous drugs were made more easily available outside the context of treatment and not under the supervision of a physician. I wonder if the member could clarify what kinds of safe supply policies he supports. Is he talking about physicians making substances like suboxone more available, or is he talking about just a general policy of government funding and increasing the availability of dangerous drugs?

188 words

Context: House Hansard - 26 - Feb/8/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/22 10:18:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I want to very strongly agree with the aspect of the member's speech where he talked about affirming the immutable human dignity of everyone in our society, recognizing that those who suffer from substance abuse disorders need to be greeted with love, care and empathy. Many members of the government, as did this member, spoke about advocating for the further liberalization of drug laws, such as decriminalization, and some members support full legalization. I think one of the problems with these arguments is that they do not take into consideration the fact that, in certain contexts in Canada, we already have, practically, very liberalized drug law realities at the local level. The reality, for instance, in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver is not formal legal decriminalization but effective legalization as well as the concentration of services. However, it just is not working. If we look at the regional context where there is a practical liberalization of drug laws, we continue to see very high levels of overdose deaths. I do not agree with the member, but I would ask him to explain further why he assumes that further liberalization is going to solve a problem that it has not solved up until now.

206 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 26 - Feb/8/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/22 10:34:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of important points, including access to naloxone. I would like to hear the Bloc Québécois's opinion on whether companies like Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family and McKinsey, whose products fuelled this crisis, should be held accountable. Does he agree with me that the government should pursue these companies for compensation and use those resources to provide more funding for treatment?

72 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 26 - Feb/8/22

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/22 10:41:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I want to follow up to clarify my earlier question, because maybe my French is not as good as I thought it was. The issue that I want to raise and get the member's perspective on is that we know that the opioid crisis was on some accounts started, and was certainly fuelled, by certain companies, such as Purdue Pharma and others that presented misinformation about the risks of addiction and really aggressively over-promoted opioids as being the solution, in many cases, when in fact there was not evidence to suggest it, and there was a lack of acknowledgement of the risks that they should have been, and in many cases were, aware of. Many of those companies have been required to pay compensation in the United States, and that compensation is being used to fund treatment. Purdue, the Sackler family directly, and McKinsey, which advised Purdue, have had to pay, and that has provided some increased resources for treatment. The Canadian government has been far behind in pursuing that kind of compensation and accountability. Does the member's party agree that the government should be doing more to pursue accountability for bad corporate actors, and that maybe this could provide some additional resources that we can use for treatment?

214 words

All Topics