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.