Government Operations Committee on May 8th, 2024

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

Mr. Chair, I don't believe that is a point of order. I do believe that what we're talking about here is critical.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate your oversight here, and I appreciate the fact that in many cases, we've had these discussions, and activities have ensued. I think this one here is even more important. It's more important because the members around this committee who are not part of OGGO have come here now proposing to do HESA's business at this committee, and that's not right.

I just want to say that what is right is a newly launched substance use prevention program. It's “one example of the efforts to build protective factors that promote overall health and well-being, and prevent substance use that harms” young people. Those measures are important, as “Canada's model further invests in law enforcement and seeks to expand access to quality treatment, after-care, and recovery services across the country.”

A lot is being done. A lot is being done in conjunction with other jurisdictions with Canada's leadership. Now, some members who are here may not appreciate it or agree with that scenario, but in other parts of the world, other jurisdictions have.

What have we found in many parts of Europe and other places that have engaged in decriminalization and enablement to support those most affected is that they've lowered overall crime in a big way. They've provided greater assistance to help them through their addiction crisis. They've lowered overall admission into hospitals. They've provided greater care and supports within their respective communities. We need to lead the way to enable that to be so. Harm reduction—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mrs. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to join my colleagues in calling relevance to this member's intervention.

At the beginning of Mr. Bachrach's amendment, he prefaced very clearly that he was making that amendment in the understanding that we were looking at gaining a better understanding of what contracts were in place and the federal government's involvement in those contracts, as is the purview of the OGGO committee. He was not interested in a policy discussion about safer supply, because that was, rightly, placed at health.

I would ask, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Sousa speak to the amendment, which is about the contracting and about understanding the government's role—the federal government's role. We've already agreed that we don't want to wander into provincial and territorial governments' jurisdiction. This is what we need to stick to in our comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mrs. Block.

Mr. Sousa, you really do need to pull back to the amendment. There are other people on the waiting list. If you're not able to at this moment, I'm sure you'd be happy to pass this on to your colleagues. We do always give very wide latitude, and I respect that, and we've seen it in this committee, but you really do need to get back to the amendment that we are debating.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do want to continue debating the very amendment that we're talking about, which includes a number of issues. There are a number of subsets to this that I don't think are coming into the fold. I'm bringing them to light.

Again, I find that there's a committee already in place dealing with this matter. Nothing stops them from requesting the documents that are being proposed, and yet here we are discussing it. What I want to discuss and reaffirm and make clear is why.

Part of this is all about harm reduction. This is what this is about. It's also about the approach being taken, which includes measures of support for people who are currently using drugs to ensure that they don't turn to the deadly illegal drug supply and to help them connect with health and social services—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This motion is very clearly about a production of contracts, agreements and memoranda of understanding that have already happened between the Government of Canada from 2016 onwards. This is not about everything else. Everything else is being discussed at the health committee. This is simply about a production of contracts, agreements and memoranda of understanding.

It has become very obvious that Mr. Sousa would rather filibuster this committee and prevent us from having a vote on this because he is afraid that he is going to lose the vote. That is not okay. It is not appropriate. I would ask him to stay relevant to the motion at hand and give up his time so that we can have a vote on this and move on to the rest of the committee business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mrs. Goodridge.

We're back to the relevance, Mr. Sousa. Please speak to the amendment at hand. There are other people.

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

On that point of order, if I could add my perspective, we're talking about the amendment. You're essentially encouraging or suggesting that it's not relevant to the specific amendment. After we vote on the amendment, we have to vote on the motion as amended, at which time it would be in order to speak about the larger issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's generally correct, Mr. Bachrach.

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

I'm just suggesting that there's a way around this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I've suggested that Mr. Sousa, if he's not ready, be—

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

Huge latitude is given for people who want to filibuster. That's all I'm saying. It's been abused many times by two different parties.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think everyone has participated in filibustering.

As I said, Mr. Sousa, perhaps you can get to the amendment. If you're not willing to or able to get to the amendment as such, a couple of your colleagues are chomping at the bit to get to it.

Mr. Bachrach is right. We're not even on the original motion. Could we could stick to discussing the amendment, please?

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

I appreciate the intervention. I recognize the concerns that some members have with the topic, because it's being dealt with. Why we're having to deliberate over this at this point here I think requires clarification. The amendment that I'm dealing with, that we're dealing with, is what I am talking about. There is relevance.

There was a response. In October of last year, we responded to a supervised consumption site across Canada. The whole point of those sites, which is part of the relevance of the contracts, is to save lives. They protect the community by reducing public drug use, the spread of infectious diseases and the strain on emergency medical services. Additionally, more than 424,000 referrals were made to connect people with health and social services, including primary medical care, counselling and housing and employment supports.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, what's the relevance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Sousa, please get to the amendment.

I understand what you're doing. I understand that filibustering is fair game, and we always give very wide latitude, but generally we discuss the topic at hand. In this case, that's the production of the documents and the item referring to “safe” or “safer”.

Please go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, it's not a filibuster as much as it is about clarity and providing those who are watching the reasons we're promoting and providing....

I'm going to sum up very quickly, if I may. The overdose crisis is bigger than any one government, organization or political affiliation, or partisan politics. This is a much bigger issue, and the members opposite are playing politics with this very serious issue. It will take the collective efforts of everyone working together—provinces and territories, indigenous leaders, professional and regulatory bodies, health care providers and law enforcement alike—to help stop the needless harms and deaths of Canadians.

I want to reaffirm that the need for us to listen to the experts and to Canadians about what is working, what can be improved and how we can ultimately save lives belongs with the committee of health, not with OGGO.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by just saying thank you to my colleague for providing a thorough explanation and context to the serious discussion we're having here this evening.

I want to emphasize a point that was made earlier today, which is, again, that the health committee is already studying this issue and has been studying this issue, as I understand it, for the last five or six months. They've had, I think, eight meetings, at least that I'm aware of. I know that there's another meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue. They've had 33 witnesses to talk about the opioid crisis and the toxic death crisis, and they've had 18 briefs over eight meetings.

It's interesting to note.... You know, we've had this debate, this discussion of where this issue of contracts belongs. What I would highlight is the fact that the health committee has already studied contracts in the past. The contract with Medicago was raised. To sort of prove the point that HESA, the health committee, has the capacity, ability and expertise to deal with contracts, I want to quote from the health committee when they were discussing the Medicago vaccine procurement that took place, which was a sizable contract. I think it was over $150 million to procure vaccines.

Dr. Ellis—who was here at this committee testifying on why we need to take this motion out of HESA and saying that OGGO is the only place that you can deal with contracts and study contracts—asked the health minister, Mark Holland, “What was the plan to protect Canadian taxpayers in this contract with Medicago?” Here you have Dr. Ellis coming to the OGGO committee, saying that we have the expertise to deal with contracts, whether the contracts are valid and—as was raised earlier today—what the cost is, who's paying, who's profiting, what the protections are, and all of this stuff. It shows that the health committee has the capacity, the wherewithal and the expertise to talk about contracts and the appropriateness of contracts. They've already done it in the context of the Medicago vaccine procurement.

Again, at the same committee on a different day, Ms. Andrea Andrachuk, a director general of PSPC, came before the health committee and testified on the purchase of vaccines and contracts. She said:

Public Services and Procurement Canada, on behalf of the Public Health Agency of Canada, established seven advance purchase agreements with promising vaccine manufacturers, including Medicago, a Canadian supplier. The advance purchase agreement with Medicago was signed in November 2020 and included a firm commitment of 20 million doses, to be delivered before the end of December 2021, with options for up to an additional 56 million doses.

She also said:

As Medicago had received authorization from Health Canada for its [COVID] vaccine in February 2022, the contract was amended to allow the delivery of doses before the end of December 2022.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. Excuse me, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.