Government Operations Committee on May 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 120 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, the only committee that matters.

Before we start, I want to thank Cipher and Fox, who sent me this fantastic sticker of the mighty OGGO that now adorns my computer. We actually have fans of the committee out there, so thanks very much for the stickers.

I have a reminder for everyone about the headphones to prevent disruptive and potentially harmful feedback that can cause injuries. Just as a reminder, keep your earphones away from the microphones at all times. When you're not using the earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for that purpose, which you will find on your desk.

We are resuming the debate that Mr. Genuis introduced. He does have the floor. Just so everyone knows, if we get through this, we will go in camera to discuss a couple of items as well as start on the Canada Life study.

On the speaking list after Mr. Genuis, I have Ms. Vignola, Mr. Kusmierczyk, Mr. Jowhari and then Ms. Goodrich.

Mr. Genuis, please, the floor is yours.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I will just summarize quickly what this motion is about for those who are just tuning in. I know some members are different from those who were here last time.

Conservatives have a deep, fundamental concern with many aspects of the way the government has approached the opioid crisis. However, regardless of your views on that, I think it's legitimate to ask for critical information about the contracts associated with that program and that it's something we can all agree on.

What we know about the history of the opioid crisis is that Purdue Pharma developed an opioid product, which they overpromoted with lies and misinformation. That caused the opioid crisis in the first place.

Now Purdue Pharma, and other companies, are offering dangerous drugs that the government is buying and giving away, supposedly as a solution to this problem. Conservatives are saying that we need to get to the bottom of the relationships that exist between corporations and government and the kinds of contracts that exist. How are Purdue Pharma and other companies that are making these products profiting? What is the structure of these agreements? Is there indemnification protecting these companies from legal liability? These are all questions that I think are in the public interest for us to know.

Out of this concern, Conservatives have put forward this important motion to get the contracts. I know there's been some informal discussion in between; and if there are reasonable amendments, of course we'd be happy to see those, because the principle here is that we need to see the contracts that the Government of Canada has signed with these companies. It's important for accountability and for protecting the public.

We know the kinds of practices that these companies have engaged in in the past, and we need to get to the bottom of what kinds of practices and relationships exist in the present.

Just before I conclude, Chair, I wanted to note that we have the letter that came in from Dr. Somers with some additional information on that, and I was hoping we might be able to invite Dr. Somers to share a bit based on his experience.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I realize it came out late. Did everyone see the letter? Maybe everyone should just take a look. It came out early in the afternoon. It's someone who wants to appear and talk about some of the issues—oh, a professor from SFU. Take a look, and maybe we can bring him here on these issues.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. Are we able to invite him?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are we fine with that?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm sorry, but I'm just not understanding under what context, for which study?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's just on this issue.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Which study is it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

On the motion that's before us right now.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I imagine the proper order of business is for us to discuss the motion and vote on it, and if there is a study, maybe talk about the witnesses afterward. I think we're putting the proverbial horse before the cart.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Maybe have a look at the letter in the meantime. Dr. Somers has some information that I think would be of interest to all members about lobbying and the relationships associated with—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks. Let me just interrupt you.

Maybe just take a look at the letter. It came out about three hours ago. I can ask the clerk to resend it, but take a look at it over in the next bit. We can maybe look at that.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I will wrap up my comments, and we can come back to these points.

As I said, as a matter of accountability—accounting to Canadians what has happened and what's happening in the present in the relationship between the government and these pharmaceutical companies that are profiting through the sale to the government of these dangerous drugs—I think the public has a right to see these contracts.

Hopefully, we will be able to get to a resolution on that.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Next I have Mrs. Vignola. Go ahead.

Before you do, I just want to comment on what a wonderful, moving S.O. 31 you made in the House today. I think we'd all be happy if you reiterated a tiny bit of what you said in the House today.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To answer your question, tomorrow is the Leucan shaved head challenge in Limoilou, in support of Jean‑François Girard. He's the executive director of Limoilou en vrac, the hub of Limoilou's cultural and artistic scene. Jean‑François is battling an aggressive form of lymphatic cancer.

Since I couldn't make it in time for the challenge tomorrow, I decided to do it today. I made the statement to show my support not only for Jean‑François, but also for the many people who are battling cancer or who have recently passed away from it.

That's why my head is shaved.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I'm not trying to imitate Sinéad O'Connor. You're lucky not to hear me sing.

I have two concerns about the motion before us. My first concern pertains to the word “contracts”. By definition, this would fall within the purview of our committee. However, this also involves a public health issue already being studied by the Standing Committee on Health.

My second concern—and the one that I'm particularly worried about—lies in the fact that we're ordering the Canadian provinces to provide documents when we have no business asking them for anything. This runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution. This intrusion should be neither encouraged nor supported. These are my two main reasons for opposing the motion as it currently stands.

I understand that opioids are a major source of concern. The product should be used—at least, it should have been used—to relieve pain that other products couldn't alleviate. They have become a public health social issue that leads to many other challenges.

There isn't just one solution. Some solutions have been proposed by a few provinces, while other solutions are being considered. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should instead look at the big picture and analyze the current situation in terms of results. Should we start all over again, or should we just monitor certain aspects more closely to ensure public peace and health, in order to address this crisis and ultimately make it go away?

That said, I'll get back to my two concerns. First, this issue is already being studied by the Standing Committee on Health. I don't want to duplicate the work. It's a waste of public money, even though our committee members may be extremely interested in the topic. However, I find it very difficult to deal with duplicate work.

Furthermore, giving orders to the provinces amounts to interference and intrusion. I can't support the motion as it stands.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kusmierczyk is next.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to again applaud the courage and the solidarity that my colleague across the table has demonstrated in the House. That's just tremendous leadership. She is very eloquent when she speaks and very eloquent even when she does not speak.

I just wanted to say thank you once again, Madame Vignola.

I agree with what Madame Vignola has said. The opioid study belongs in the health committee, HESA. This committee, my colleagues across the way and the Conservative Party will be happy to find out or happy to learn, is already studying this issue of the opioid epidemic. It's actually entitled, “Opioid Epidemic and Toxic Drug Crisis in Canada”.

This is the study that HESA is already doing. They have already had 33 witnesses called on this issue. They have had eight meetings. Their ninth meeting on this issue, as I understand it, will be tomorrow. They've had 33 witnesses. They've had 18 briefs on this very issue. They are the committee that has the expertise and the resources to study this issue.

I would say that this issue belongs in the HESA committee, in the health committee, where it's currently being studied. This would only duplicate those efforts. I truly believe that our colleagues across the way should reach out to their colleagues in the HESA committee and work through them, because they are already studying this issue.

At the same time I would say that for me, my priority is to fix this issue and to see this issue fixed. The opioid crisis should not be treated and used for fundraising. This committee should not be used as a platform for fundraising and for cheap clips. This is too important an issue, too serious an issue. People are dying. They are losing their lives because of it.

I strongly believe that this study, again, is already being undertaken at the health committee. That's where it belongs. That's where they have the expertise. It's where they have already done the serious work to deal with this issue. They've brought in witnesses with various viewpoints on this issue. I do truly believe that's where this study belongs.

The other thing I would add is that we're seeing provinces grappling with this issue. We're seeing provinces of various different stripes grappling with this issue. It's important that we work with our provincial partners and understand this issue fully and not jump to conclusions.

Obviously, British Columbia has one model that had elements of decriminalization as part of their pilot project. Alberta went the completely opposite way and is also seeing tremendous increases in opioid deaths. In Alberta a historic number of people are losing their lives to this scourge, to this epidemic.

I think it's important that we draw the lessons and not focus on just one viewpoint or one jurisdiction. We should really work with our provincial counterparts who are on the front lines of this battle, work with our municipalities, and work to fix this issue. That's what I would say.

Again, the motion that is before us has a very tenuous link to the mandate of this committee. If we really want to study and get a handle on the opioid epidemic and the toxic drug crisis in Canada, then, again, the HESA committee has already done the spade work on this issue. They're already far ahead into their study. I do believe that's where this study belongs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Mr. Jowhari, you're next.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to echo my colleague's recognition of Julie's leadership.

Julie, you are a leader in the House, outside of the House, in the committee, and out there in the community, so thank you.

Among the permanent members of OGGO, probably I'm in a unique position in that I also am a member of the HESA committee. As so many of my colleagues have already said, we are studying the opioid crisis in the HESA committee. You got a quick stat from my colleague, MP Kusmierczyk. The next session, which is tomorrow morning, is on the opioid crisis. It's a very collegial committee. We've always recognized the need—

[A voice]

And we're not?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

No, we're not.

When we needed extra time to be able to do a study, we very openly talked about it. We've also agreed in that committee that we'll extend the women's health study. One of our colleagues who was here from that committee, Madam Goodridge, suggested an excellent two-day study, a two-session study, on women's breast cancer, and then we are going to the research. I don't think there would be any issues, once this motion has been referred to the HESA committee, in extending the existing committee work on opioids by a few sessions to be able to go through the contracts and have that deep dive that we need to do.

Also, there is precedence in that committee for us to look at contracts. We looked at Medicago and we looked at other contracts related to COVID. Just the fact that it's related to contracts doesn't mean that it has to come to OGGO only; it can go to HESA.

I'll be brief, rather than repeat myself. There is an ongoing study, as my colleague said. We've never had an issue when a worthy study and a worthy motion has come to HESA to be looked at. I'll be supporting this motion when it goes to HESA to be looked at. Just because it has to do with a contract.... HESA's never had an issue with looking at that aspect of a study, so I strongly suggest that we forward this motion to HESA. I'm sure that with Dr. Ellis's support and Madam Goodridge's support, we will be in a position to be able to extend the study and do a deep dive on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Ellis, welcome to OGGO.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be back.

I have already spoken with my Bloc Québécois colleague. I would like to thank her again for her new haircut.

That said, in my mind and as Mr. Jowhari knows very well, HESA is not the place for contracts. They don't belong there. They belong at OGGO.

I'll start my remarks by reminding folks here of the mandate of OGGO, which is that:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), the Committee’s mandate includes primarily the study of:

the effectiveness of government operations;

the expenditure budgets of central departments and agencies;

the format and content of all estimates documents;

cross-departmental mandates, including programs delivered by more than one department or agency;

new information and communication technologies adopted by the government; and

statutory programs, tax expenditures, loan guarantees, contingency funds and private foundations deriving the majority of their funding from the Government of Canada.

The Committee is specifically mandated to examine and conduct studies related to the following organizations.

It goes on to list a bunch of organizations.

That said, it would be a significant departure from what we have ever done at the health committee in the past. Certainly, having looked through a multitude of documents over many years, I would suggest it's not something that happens at the health committee.

That being said, Mr. Chair, I can't better underscore the necessity for this study to be undertaken than by going back and looking at the history of OxyContin and Purdue Pharma.

In my past life, I was part of an interdisciplinary team that treated chronic pain. I believe we started that in the early 2000s. We were intimately aware on that team of the ravages of the use of opioids in attempting to treat chronic or persistent pain.

In examining the story of Purdue and OxyContin, there are lots of interesting movies out there that may or may not be true. That being said, we do know that the parent company, Purdue Pharma, and the Sackler family, were successfully sued for $6 billion to pay for the ravages of opioid misuse.

We know that there was significant junk science done to allow the continued prescribing of opioids in an inappropriate manner, even after the good science made us well aware of the fact that it wasn't going to work. We also know that documents were difficult to find. I wouldn't say they were hidden, but there was much misinformation and disinformation, and that became a significant cause for concern.

There was a point in time in this country when, in the treatment of chronic or persistent pain, part of the mantra was that more and more opioids should be given until the pain was gone. Anybody around the table with any common sense would be able to understand that this was unlikely to happen.

That being said, as we move forward through this and begin to understand that the treatment of opioid use disorder is incredibly difficult and multi-faceted, given the sordid history of what happened with the prescription of OxyContin in the past—and oddly enough, that Dilaudid, or hydromorphone, is also made by Purdue Pharma—people here need to bear that in mind as well.

Mr. Chair, we have heard testimony at the health committee, and my colleagues have described some of it. I think one physician who testified there put it very eloquently when he said that opioid use disorder is not a lack of opioids. It's not like iron deficiency; with iron deficiency, if you get more iron, you will be fine. I suggest that this is much more complicated, and it is our mandate at the health committee to study it.

I suggest that the mandate here is to begin to uncover those contracts to see whether there is any nefarious intent or suspicious benefit, or whether any actors—a state or potentially a drug company—benefited from the policies that were put forward, including decriminalization, which would most significantly be affected. We saw, in the experiment in British Columbia, a reversal of that particular program.

We also know that with its cousin program—I will use that terminology—the so-called “safe supply”, there's been significant diversion of hydromorphone in particular, or Dilaudid, as it's also known, which is once again made by Purdue Pharma. We know that this type of medication has been diverted. We also know and have concern about the potential nefarious intent of not calling for a ban on the precursor chemicals for making fentanyl in this country.

I hope that allows committee members here at OGGO to understand what our mandate at the health committee is, what we have been studying and uncovered thus far, and also to realize that this is a departure from what would have historically been studied at the health committee. It is certainly well within the mandate of government operations to adopt this well-thought-out motion that is in front of the committee and to bring witnesses to study that.

With that, Chair, thank you.