SoVote

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

Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.)

May/10/23 3:01:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the ongoing opioid epidemic is taking far too many lives across the country, whether it is families, whether it is workers or whether it is communities from coast to coast to coast. We need to stay grounded in the science and evidence in how we are going to respond to it. Now, the Conservatives' ideologically driven solutions are good for bumper stickers, but they are not effective in supporting people in moving forward on a health-based approach to opioids and making sure we are supporting people and getting them through this. We will continue with harm reduction—

101 words

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

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

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

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