SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 194 - May/10/23

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/23 6:25:41 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

9 words

May/10/23 6:25:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am crossing my fingers that my colleague from Milton's positive leadership will lead to action. Otherwise, perhaps we can battle it out on the soccer field later. I am asking the parliamentary secretary to at least admit that, unfortunately, the government has failed in its duty to shed light on the management of abuse and sexual misconduct in sports. There is a lot of bureaucratic jargon being used. The government is failing to recognize the distress and frustration of amateur and national athletes, as well as those covered by the program subsidized by the federal government. The government must get to the bottom of the management problem in sports organizations, because it has been going on for far too long. That is our athletes' right, and they have every right to demand it be respected. These days, many people are criticizing the minister for failing to take into account the victims' point of view. That is particularly true at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Everyone agrees on one thing. The minister is working on an announcement, but the work has been done behind closed doors—

191 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/23 6:26:45 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

May/10/23 6:26:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are speaking very fast. I am going to try to get my ideas out in English because they take longer in French, although I am working on it. This has been a work in progress for many, many years. I used to come to the Hill to advocate for a better sporting environment back in 2015 or 2016. The first time that I came here to do government relations on behalf of athletes was in 2009. I hear the calls to stronger action. The member did acknowledge concrete action over the last couple of years. It has been accelerating to a degree in the last couple of years, particularly under the leadership of the Minister of Sport. We have come so far and there is no reason why the House needs to be divided on this issue. We are talking about safer sport environments for kids and better sport environments for all participants, and I think that is something that we can collectively continue to work on. The Minister of Sport has prioritized this issue as number one since she was appointed. We have made significant investments since then, and we will continue.

196 words

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

May/10/23 6:27:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising tonight to follow up on a question I earlier asked the Prime Minister with respect to the Liberal-McKinsey scandal. In particular, at the time I was asking about the role McKinsey played in the opioid crisis and what the government is doing in response to that, recognizing that the government gave over $100 million in contracts to McKinsey, recognizing by now that the Treasury Board has acknowledged that all rules were not followed in the awarding of those contracts, recognizing that at the time this was going on McKinsey had a relationship with a company called Purdue Pharma. McKinsey was led by Dominic Barton up until midpoint in the government's mandate. During that time and previous to that, under the leadership of Dominic Barton, McKinsey was working for Purdue Pharma, giving Purdue Pharma advice on how to supercharge opioid sales, something that drove the opioid crisis. Incredibly, McKinsey's advice to Purdue Pharma included things like paying bonuses to pharmacists in instances where there were overdoses and developing a system for circumventing traditional pharmacies in order to circumvent the checks that were in place in order to prevent people who struggle with substance abuse challenges from being able to access those kinds of opioids. McKinsey was advising Purdue Pharma on how to sell more opioids, how to circumvent checks in the system and, incredibly, giving advice on how to give bonuses to pharmacists in instances where there were overdoses. McKinsey and Purdue Pharma have been the subject of much criticism here in Canada, as well as the United States and elsewhere. McKinsey has had to pay over half a billion dollars in compensation in the United States. In the United States, there are Democrats and Republicans in various jurisdictions suing McKinsey and Purdue for their role in the opioid crisis and using the money from that to support treatment and recovery. This is precisely the policy that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, which is, as part of a suite of measures, to combat the horrific ongoing opioid crisis, to hold accountable those bad corporate actors that are responsible for it, to sue them directly federally as well as to join provincial class action lawsuits, to sue them for the full range of damages and to put those resources into treatment and recovery, recognizing that McKinsey was a critical player, and that is why it had to pay over half a billion dollars in compensation in the United States. The contrast is quite stark because in the United States there are people across the political spectrum who have stood up to McKinsey and Purdue and others to try to hold them accountable. In Canada, the government gave McKinsey over $100 million in contracts. I find this striking. More recently, it was revealed in a response to a petition I received that the government said it is actually going to now join British Columbia's litigation against McKinsey. I have asked various figures in the government if they are prepared to confirm that and I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is prepared to confirm that tonight or not. If this is the case, this is quite a stark shift. I think the government has to account for the fact that, on the one hand, it was giving massive levels of government procurement to McKinsey, not following the proper rules in the process, while McKinsey was fuelling the opioid crisis and, on the other hand, now it is effectively acknowledging McKinsey is complicit in the opioid by saying it is going to join B.C.'s class action lawsuit. I want the government to clarify whether it is planning to sue McKinsey. Is it planning on following the policy recommendation that Conservatives have been putting forward for months? Will it try to hold McKinsey accountable for the full range of damages, not just joining this lawsuit but other damages as well? Why did it have such a close—

668 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/23 6:31:57 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/10/23 6:31:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member across the way is trying to connect some very important issues. Talking about the opioid crisis, I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health could have expanded on the degree to which we, as a government, need to continue to work on that particular situation. A good part of that is recognizing that Canada, as a country, cannot do it alone. We need to work with provinces and municipalities, as well as first responders and others. There are many different stakeholders who are out there trying to deal with the opioid situation. That is an issue in itself. The other issue the member is trying to raise and make a connection to is McKinsey. That is kind of tacked on. McKinsey has a contract, but the member is trying to build the case that there is a wonderful, special relationship between an individual at McKinsey and the Prime Minister. Tying the three issues together is not very responsible, because there is no direct connection among them. The opioid crisis is there; it is real and tangible. The government is doing what it can and working with a multitude of different stakeholders. In regard to the contracts, if we listen to the Conservative Party on this particular issue, we would think that if they were in power, they would change the process of procurements and contracts that are being let out through the public service. The Conservatives are doing that process a disservice. The Liberal government, through transparency and accountability, has ensured that these contracts are done through the public service as much as possible. This should not be a surprise, because these types of contracts are done at all different levels of government here in Canada. Internationally, around the world, governments always look for those independent contracts. The issue is how those contracts are awarded. I have no problem comparing Canada's procedures with those of any other country. Often, we get other countries looking to Canada for the way our public service lets contracts out for tender. We can all take comfort in and have confidence in our public service in getting out those important contracts. Now, on the connection between McKinsey and the Prime Minister, this is one of those fishing trips by the Conservative Party. No matter what, they put on their tin hats and start asking questions like these: Where is it all connected? How could it be connected to the Prime Minister? They do this so they can dump all over the Prime Minister. That is the logic behind it. The member is taking a couple of serious issues and trying to somehow make it look as though something corrupt has occurred; in fact, nothing corrupt has occurred. The Conservatives are trying to give that impression, and then they are trying to somehow link it to the Prime Minister. I can assure the member that there is nothing there. In turning these little pebbles, he is not going to find—

503 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/23 6:36:00 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

9 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/10/23 6:36:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, respectfully, that was quite a rambling answer to a direct question. The question is about McKinsey's involvement in fuelling the opioid crisis. This is not a conspiracy. McKinsey did not pay $600 million in compensation to victims of the opioid crisis because somebody was saying things about it on Reddit. McKinsey paid that massive amount of compensation because the facts were clear and its complicity was clear. Moreover, there have been multiple stories in The New York Times detailing the way in which McKinsey fuelled the opioid crisis. While these stories were being written, Dominic Barton, who was managing partner of McKinsey, claimed he was unaware. He said that he only found out about what happened with McKinsey and Purdue after the fact. That just does not hold water. A direct question I have for the parliamentary secretary is this: Can the government confirm, as was said to me in a written response to a petition, that it is suing McKinsey for its role in the opioid crisis? What is its response in terms of the relationship that is there?

183 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/10/23 6:37:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have confidence that our law enforcement agencies, the RCMP and our Department of Justice, along with the professional civil servants who are there, will provide the services needed. I suspect that if the grounds and evidence are there, we will see action taken by the government. We have witnessed, over the last number of years as a government, that we have protocols and procedures. We have the checks in place to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability in the government and the private sector to ensure that Canadians' best interests are being served. As the member knows full well, on the issues that Canadians are very much concerned about, the government will ensure that Canadians are well served.

124 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/10/23 6:38:09 p.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 6:38 p.m.)

39 words