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.