SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 234

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 18, 2023 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 234 - Oct/18/23
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)
  • Oct/18/23 7:29:42 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to address the House on the critical issue of the opioid crisis. So many of our communities and families have been devastated by this metastasizing crisis, in terms of the use of dangerous opioids in our communities. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it is very clear that the approach to this issue is not working. We have heard many people say that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, but that is particularly the case in terms of the human cost, not just the financial cost. We hear members of other parties speak about the science, allegedly, and about their approach, which they posit is better than alternatives. However, it is clearly not working. We can see, in all of our communities, the real substantial human cost associated with the government's failed response to the opioid crisis. Conservatives are proposing an alternative, a common-sense approach that opposes giving free drugs to those who are struggling. Instead, it seeks to bring home our loved ones drug-free. I would say that is a common-sense response. The Liberal-NDP response, after eight years of providing more taxpayer-funded drugs to people, is not common sense, is not working and has an incredible human cost. My question was about aspects of the background of the opioid crisis. Here is the background on this: A company called Purdue Pharma developed a new opioid product, OxyContin, which it intentionally marketed to as many people as possible. The company called it the drug to start with and to stay with. They ran a very effective marketing campaign. The goal of that campaign was very similar in its premises to the arguments for safe supply made today: This corporate seller of drugs, Purdue Pharma, pushed the idea that all one had to do was remove the stigma and make drugs available, and then everything would be fine. Of course there was no stigma around this product when it was initially released, because it was a new product. The company sought to market OxyContin as being less risky, when in fact, it was more risky than opium and certain other available opioids. There was clear dishonesty and manipulation in the marketing of this product. There was no stigma at the time, but clearly the effect of making this dangerous drug available to more and more people was that many people became addicted. Because of the tolerance-inducing nature of opioids, people moved on to harder and more dangerous drugs, eventually moving on to things such as fentanyl in many cases. As a result of the lies that were told at the time by Purdue Pharma and the fact that McKinsey, the consulting company that is so close to the government, was involved in supporting Purdue Pharma and that marketing campaign, these companies have been required to pay massive compensation in the United States. However, when I put an amendment before this House, calling on the government to sue for all damages associated with the opioid crisis, it voted no. The government said it would eventually join provincial class action lawsuits to sue for some of the damages. The federal government is not even contemplating suing for many of the different damages associated with these drugs. I believe that this is why it opposed my amendment. Why is the government still siding with big pharma, which is trying to sell drugs to people, instead of siding with the victims and helping us to bring them home?
589 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 234 - Oct/18/23
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • Oct/18/23 7:37:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, there were aspects of that response that were, frankly, bizarre. First of all, let us be clear. This NDP-Liberal approach is just not working. The member said that one is not entitled to one's own facts, even if one can have one's own opinion. That is true, of course, but all one has to do is look at the impact, the drug abuse, the disorder and the crime we are seeing in the streets, to see the impact of this failed NDP-Liberal approach over the last eight years. He mentioned stigma. In fact, he accused me of trying to raise stigma. Let me be very clear. I do not think we should stigmatize individuals. I think individuals need help. We need to work on providing individuals with treatment and recovery. That is what our approach emphasizes, the common sense approach of treatment and recovery. I do think we need to have an appropriate fear associated with dangerous substances. These are extremely dangerous substances that the government has decriminalized in B.C. and is giving away, with taxpayers' dollars, to people who are struggling. That is what is wrong.
194 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border