Government Operations Committee on May 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much, Dr. Ellis.

Mrs. Goodridge, please go ahead.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's lovely to be back here at the glorious OGGO.

I am a regular member of the health committee, and so I have had an opportunity to sit through the multitude of meetings that we have had in looking at the opioid epidemic, but what we have here in the motion from my colleague, Garnett Genuis, is actually substantially different from what we've been studying at the health committee. This is about looking at the contracts and trying to get to the bottom of where the money came from. This is precisely why I believe that it is critical that we have it at OGGO rather than at the health committee.

I understand that a few hours ago the chair and everyone on this committee received a letter from Dr. Julian Somers, a distinguished professor who has been quite vocal when it comes to addiction and addiction medicine. In his letter he talks about the fact that he is a clinician and researcher in the field of addiction and has led a number of different federally funded initiatives specifically designed to reduce addictions and related harms.

When he saw that our motion was on record at the OGGO committee, he took it upon himself to write in and ask to present. Earlier this week, he did a podcast, and in the podcast he was talking at one point about some of the very concerning pieces that were coming out of British Columbia, specifically in relation to some of the top public health officers who were the ones who were making decisions as to whether they would go forward with so-called safe supply in British Columbia, which created companies that then stood to profit and are providing safe supply in British Columbia.

Effectively, the very same doctors who were making the policy decisions as to whether they should or shouldn't go forward with a particular policy, in turn, had companies involved to do this. I really do think it is critical for us to not only go forward with this study from my colleague but also to have Dr. Somers come to the committee to testify and give a little bit more breadth on the allegations he made in the podcast earlier this week.

I'm going to see if perhaps we could have some conversation about first having a vote on the notice of motion from MP Genuis to get to the bottom of it and look at the contracts. This truly is the best committee when it comes to looking at the specifics and the dollars and cents of it, because we do know that government money has gone towards these programs. We do know—and perhaps Liberal members can raise their eyebrows and everything else—that the program that was called “safer supply” is effectively governments that have decided to give prescription hydromorphone and Dilaudid.... Specifically, in many cases it is Dilaudid, the Purdue brand name of hydromorphone, a synthetic opiate that is stronger than heroin, that is being given to people who are struggling with addiction, and it is all paid for by taxpayers.

We need to know who's paying, how much is being paid, and who is getting rich off this. At the end of the day, if someone is in fact profiting from this, that is absolutely an issue. If it's not happening, there shouldn't be any fear from any member around this table about getting to the bottom of this.

With that, I would hope that we can get to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We go now to Mr. Genuis, please.

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

I've listened to some of the debate and I have a simple amendment to propose that will hopefully resolve some of the concerns.

I sent it to the clerk a few minutes ago. The one change in part (b) is to replace “order” with “respectfully ask”, because I think there had been some feedback on that around provincial governments. That's the one proposed change as part of the amendment.

Another change is to add a part (c) that says, “share the documents referred to in (a) and (b) with HESA in the event that HESA finds these documents useful.”

This is a document production request—it's not a study request—so I don't think there's a great need to have a lengthy back-and-forth about whether this should be at this committee or at that committee. This is simply a request for documents, so how about we get the documents? Then we have the documents and we also share them with HESA. That way, we have the documents and HESA has the documents.

I agree with my colleagues about the proper mandate of this committee being around contracts. At a minimum, based on that, we can agree that it's good for us to have them. Now, might members of the health committee find these documents interesting as well? Sure. Hopefully, we add that section in to request the documents. Let's not make the process needlessly bureaucratic by referring it to another committee to then request the documents, which they could then share back to us. Let's get it done here, and then we can share the documents with the other committee.

The amendment is to change “order” to “respectfully ask” in part (b), and to add a part (c) about sharing the documents referred to in (a) and (b) with HESA—

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I'm suggesting that one of my colleagues might want to move this amendment—

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes, that's what I meant to say, Mr. Chair. I meant to say that I was describing an idea for an amendment that someone else might move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Sousa, go ahead on your point of order—

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

If I understood correctly, he had an amendment that he's now asking for us—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Please let me finish, sir. I'm sorry.

We'll hear you on your point of order, then we're going to Mr. Bachrach on the speaking list.

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa, please.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I think the amendment to move this to HESA should be read.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's not a point of order, but I appreciate that.

Mr. Bachrach, go ahead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This speaks to a really difficult issue that's taken a lot of lives in the area I represent, and I think it's one that needs to be handled with the sensitivity that it deserves in recognition of the deep pain and anguish that has been caused for people right across the country.

Dr. Ellis referred to this as a difficult, multi-faceted topic, yet in much of the debate in the House or in many of the messages we've heard.... I don't think that what we've heard in the House has really measured up to that test of a difficult topic that's multi-faceted. This has become politicized in a way that I think does a great injustice to the families that have been affected by it.

I'm going to be very careful with my words in trying to deal with this motion before us. It seems that there are some suggestions that there's some sort of impropriety related to contracts. If that's the case, then that's absolutely something that OGGO should look into. If we're talking about federal contracts—the purview of this committee—and there's some kind of impropriety, as we've seen in other cases that we've dealt with, then I absolutely would support getting to the bottom of that. However, it's a little bit unclear what the scope of this line of inquiry is or what the purpose of the inquiry is.

Mrs. Goodridge said earlier that she wants to get to the bottom of where the money came from. My understanding is that the provinces purchase these products for use in the programs, and they purchase them themselves. Are there federal contracts that are going to show that the federal government is purchasing these opioids? There's been very little information.

If we restrict the scope of the inquiry to federal government contracts, memoranda and agreements, then that's something I can get on board with, and I think this is what my colleague Mr. Genuis was getting at.

Therefore, I would move an amendment that we simply delete all of the words after “any safe supply program” so that the motion would read, “That the committee, in relation to the opioid epidemic and toxic drug crisis in Canada, order the production of all contracts, agreements or memoranda of understanding to which the Government of Canada is a party, signed since January 1, 2016, concerning the purchase, acquisition or transfer of Dilaudid or any generic form of hydromorphone for use in any safer supply program.”

I would add the letter “r” to make it “safer supply”, because that's how they refer to it in British Columbia

The reason for this is that I do think that when we get into the amounts, dosage, and frequency of delivery, we're really talking about the health dimensions of this issue and not the contractual dimensions. Those really do belong more appropriately at HESA.

I will move that amendment that we delete all the words after “in any safe supply program”, and I'm happy to hear the contributions from my colleagues.

Thank you.

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

I'm sorry. I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I assume that the member intends to leave in the words “provided that these documents shall be deposited with the clerk of the committee, in an unredacted form and in both official languages, within three weeks of the adoption of this order”.

Can I assume that you just meant to remove the portion up to and including the words “hydromorphone to be used”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Would you mind clarifying for the clerk exactly what it is you're deleting, please?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I apologize, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

It is to delete the words after “in any safe supply program” and before “provided that these documents”, if that's clear enough. That was indeed my intent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay, thanks.

I'll start on the amendment. I have Mr. Kusmierczyk and then Mrs. Vignola.

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

I appreciate what my colleague said. I really appreciate his introductory remarks, because I think they really set the context of this conversation. It's a complex issue. Many different provinces and communities that are trying many different approaches are struggling to wrap their heads around this issue and get hold of this issue. I think that there's a complexity to this that we have to understand, so I really appreciate his just putting this into the broader context.

I do want to ask him whether he would consider, at the start of his amendment, including that this motion would be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, because, again, it's my strong feeling that the tremendous work that's already been done in that committee on this issue provides that context, provides that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to interrupt. That subamendment is out of order. We can't put in a motion to refer to someone else.

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

I'm just speaking to my colleague, and I'm just asking if that's something he would consider.

Something we can do subsequently is to return to the original motion—that's what I wanted to put out there—as we did with Medicago.

That committee has done all the spade work and the hard work of generating the witnesses and the testimony. They have the full picture of this, and it makes sense that they would look at the contracts with that expertise and make connections to the testimony they have already heard. They would have the sensitivity to be able to look at this issue and the new information and, as my colleague has stated, do it justice.

I'd be interested in seeing a motion put forward supporting what Mr. Bachrach has said, but amending the motion to remove the reference to the provinces, because that is the purview of the provinces, but at the same time to move this within the broader study of the opioid crisis in the HESA committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We'll go to Ms. Vignola.

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

Thank you.

I'm a visual person. I need to see the amendment and subamendment in writing so that I can fully understand each of the terms and what they mean, if that's possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There is no subamendment; it's just Mr. Bachrach's amendment. The clerk is just updating it, and we'll send it to you.

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

Thank you.