44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 10, 2023 02:00PM
- May/10/23 6:15:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government again did not answer my question. I find it interesting that the Liberal platform was to tax hospitals in the form of a carbon tax to heat themselves. That is an outstanding type of platform. Maybe the member should run on it again and call this the actual carbon tax that it is, but I digress.
I guess Canadian hospitals, municipalities and universities will never know where the money went. Here is an idea. Instead of forcing hospitals and municipalities to pay a carbon tax, and instead of designing a complicated government program that makes it look like the money will be returned, let us just scrap the carbon tax altogether.
I will give the government one more chance: Why did the Liberal government mislead Canadians and not return any carbon tax revenue to hospitals, municipalities or universities through its own MUSH retrofit program?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:16:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives will have to justify to Canadians sometime in 2025, I suspect, when we will be going back to the polls, although we never know in a minority situation, why they misled Canadians in the last federal election and are now saying they will get rid of the price on pollution. A part of that explanation should also incorporate that they will be getting rid of the rebate. The benefit of the rebate is that 80% of people are receiving a larger rebate than they are paying into the program. In essence, they would be taking more money out of the pockets of 80% of Canadians.
In terms of hospitals and universities, this government has made significant investments, both capital and otherwise, in our health care and post-secondary facilities, and the numbers will—
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:16:25 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:17:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today in favour of an independent public inquiry into sports. The issue has become more important than ever and it is disappointing that the Minister of Sport thinks that this issue still requires nothing more than internal audits as cases come up.
We all saw the leniency in the audits since, in less than a year, funding for Hockey Canada and Gymnastics Canada was restored. In the case of Canada Soccer, it is total silence. It is incomprehensible that after more than 35 articles on separate cases involving several dozen victims tied to allegations of sexual assault and harassment in sport, there has not been more outrage in the House.
For more than a year, the Bloc Québécois has tirelessly and clearly called for an independent public inquiry into sports. Today, the NDP MPs, and I commend them, also took position in favour of an inquiry. The Conservatives and the Liberals remain, in my opinion, divided on this issue. I ask the question. If it was our own children, would we hesitate on whether or not to shed light on the allegations of abuse in the world of sports?
The silence of the Minister of Sport is as disconcerting as her absence thus far from the discussions taking place in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. She has been invited on more than one occasion. None of the testimony—all of which was very well researched and relevant—spurred her to act responsibly and transparently.
I want to talk about different aspects. There is the outsourcing of safe sport cases. It was the Liberal government that implemented the idea of contracting out complaints from athletes who have been abused or mistreated. This is a highly lucrative arrangement for these private sector firms, which the government calls “third party investigators”. Currently, these firms are paid by federations and there is no assurance that victims are treated fairly in the process. There are no quality standards in place, and Sport Canada does not conduct any verifications.
Many victims testified that they were mistreated by these investigators. These investigations should be conducted by people who have the well-being of the athletes at heart, and, above all, who have no conflict of interest. Even worse, the process results in non-disclosure agreements that silence the victims. This tacit endorsement by the government prevents victims from speaking out or they risk being prosecuted. We absolutely need to consider changing this paradigm so that victims can really have a say.
A non-disclosure agreement must be the prerogative of the victim because only they can make that decision. These non-disclosure agreements raise another concern. Coaches dismissed by these federations for allegations of abuse will be protected by these very agreements. A public and independent inquiry will shed light on these elements and lead to action.
The financial audits ordered by Sport Canada are a financial framework that requires the tabling of detailed financial statements in order to obtain funding. However, it seems that no one analyzes these results year over year or asks questions about the objectives of these sports organizations. It is as though it were just a box to be checked. That does not work. Some corporations in Canada are not in compliance with the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. We see these situations of abuse.
The study being done by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has found that sports organizations have benefited from government largesse without sufficient accountability and transparency. Less than 5% of these organizations are in good standing with the federal registry of corporations. They are violating the rules for federally chartered corporations. The government is clearly not taking action.
Everyone has an obligation to report abuse in sport. However, it seems quite clear that the priority for Sport Canada is not to act on this information.
In closing, I would say that establishing a public and independent inquiry in the field of sports is imperative in order to conduct spot checks, rather than the light—
682 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:21:34 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:21:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for bringing awareness to this issue. I also want to say that our government understands the situation very well. It recognizes that this is a very important challenge. I want to commend and thank everyone who has the strength to share their stories.
On the subject of an inquiry, I want to repeat for my friend that it is not a question of “if”. It is a question of what form and scope it will take. I want the member to know that.
Reports of maltreatment, including harassment, abuse and discrimination have come to light recently and there have been consistent calls for stronger governance and greater protections for athletes, accountability and better alignment within the sports system.
I am familiar with these calls. I have been making them myself for over 10 years. I was the vice-chair or chair of the Athletes’ Commission for a total of almost a decade. We have been fighting for a stronger and more accountable support system. The first letter that I wrote to Sport Canada was in 1999.
We take this issue very seriously, and we are committed to ensuring that all sport participants, including children and youth, experience a safe and inclusive sport environment.
While changes in the sport system involve many stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments, national sport organizations, national multi-sport service organizations, Canadian sport centres and the private sector, the Government of Canada has made significant and concerted efforts to promote safe sport, particularly in recent years.
We have worked to ensure safe, welcoming and inclusive environments for all athletes through investments in the 2018, 2019, 2022 and 2023 budgets.
The Government of Canada supported the achievement of a number of safe sport milestones in recent years. We can be proud of this collectively. For instance, the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport was developed by and for the sport community, with the support of Sport Canada in the last five years.
In July 2021, Sport Canada launched a call for proposals to find the most appropriate and most qualified organization to administer the code of conduct and establish an independent safe sport mechanism. A committee of sport community stakeholders and experts in ethics, youth protection and policy development selected the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada to do this work.
In June 2022, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada set up the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner. As of April 1, 2023, every national sport organization has signed an agreement to access the services of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner.
Though the Government of Canada has demonstrated leadership in this area, it is important to note that ensuring a safe and inclusive sport environment is a shared responsibility with provinces and territories as well, particularly when it comes to younger participants. In February 2019, federal and provincial territorial ministers responsible for sport, physical activity and recreation endorsed the Red Deer Declaration for the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport, and ministers at that time committed to developing a collaborative approach to address harassment, abuse and discrimination in sport—
539 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:25:41 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:26:45 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:31:57 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 6:36:00 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
