Debates of Feb. 7th, 2023

Public Services and Procurement

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

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight about the opioid crisis and the organizations responsible for causing the opioid crisis.

It is now a matter of public record that Purdue Pharma, a pharmaceutical company, developed oxycontin, mislabelled it, misbranded it and actively promoted it in such a way that fuelled and, I think, in many respects, caused the opioid crisis that has killed so many people and devastated so many families here in Canada and around the world. In response to these actions by Purdue Pharma there have been various lawsuits, especially in the United States, that have sought to hold Purdue accountable.

Notably, in the timeline of Purdue's actions and subsequent measures to hold it accountable, Purdue was found guilty of criminal misbranding their product in a way that downplayed risks and contributed to the opioid crisis. It was found guilty in 2007.

The company, McKinsey & Company, that we have been speaking about in this House, did work for Purdue Pharma for a period of about 15 years and that spanned from 2004 until about 2019. In other words, most of the work done by McKinsey & Company for Purdue Pharma happened after Purdue had already been found guilty of criminal misbranding.

When McKinsey was brought on, part of its mandate was to figure out how to address, in the face of escalating criticism over Purdue's actions, concerns about the tapering off of opioid sales. McKinsey approached this is in a totally amoral way, coming back with recommendations that showed no regard for those suffering from addiction, no regard for the impact on communities and families, but instead looked exclusively at how to increase, or in their words, turbocharge, the sale of opioids.

Some of the recommendations that McKinsey brought to Purdue Pharma on how to do that are truly horrifying in their disregard for human life and well-being. McKinsey had proposed, for example, that bonuses could be paid out to pharmacists in instances where there were overdoses. McKinsey also proposed that, in order to get around checks that were being put in place in traditional pharmacies to try to control over-prescription and address addiction issues, Purdue could try to circumvent those controls by having a mail-in system whereby people could access opioids through the mail. Those were the kinds of proposals that McKinsey was bringing to Purdue Pharma.

For about two-thirds of that 15-year period that McKinsey was working for Purdue Pharma, Dominic Barton was the managing director. He claimed at committee to have absolutely no knowledge of what was going on during this time. The fact of the matter is that he was the managing director of this company that for 15 years was doing work for Purdue Pharma, advising them on how to turbocharge opioid sales, showing no concern, no regard whatsoever for the impact that this was having on human life and on families and communities throughout North America and around the world.

As a result of the advice provided by McKinsey, McKinsey had to pay a settlement in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the United States. Meanwhile, the government has a clear, close relationship with McKinsey and Dominic Barton.

I asked the government this question that I would like to ask again tonight. Did the Prime Minister or members of his cabinet ever discuss opioid policy with Dominic Barton or the senior leadership of McKinsey?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member full credit: He is like a dog with a bone on this particular issue. However, he is very selective in what he tells us. He tries to give a false impression that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have a wonderful cozy relationship with Dominic Barton or McKinsey & Company.

Yesterday, the member decided to have a three-hour debate inside the chamber on this issue, and what we found out is that there was a cozy and comfortable relationship between Dominic Barton and Jim Flaherty. I will remind the member opposite that Jim Flaherty is not a Liberal. He is a Conservative. In fact, he was the minister of finance for the Conservative Party. That is where the cozy and comfy relationship was.

The member talks about McKinsey & Company. I should remind him that not only has the government had contracts with McKinsey & Company, but so did the Stephen Harper government. The member has the tenacity to try to say that the opioid crisis we are facing today, which is a very serious issue that provinces, municipalities and Ottawa are trying to deal with, is somehow directly tied to McKinsey & Company, as if to say maybe it would not have happened if the company did not get contracts, or as if to blame Ottawa for this so-called special relationship. How ridiculous is that?

It is sad and somewhat shameless that the Conservative Party would try indirectly, using contracts that have been issued by a professional civil service, the very same civil service that worked on and issued contracts under Stephen Harper, to blame civil servants for not doing their homework before awarding contracts to McKinsey & Company. That is Conservative politics. It is truly amazing.

We need to recognize that circumstances in all situations should be looked at. If the member was concerned and had these concerns years ago, and I suspect he did not, maybe instead of trying to grandstand yesterday and prevent the government from being able to debate legislation that talked about foreign investments in Canada, he could have focused his attention on the standing committee that deals with procurement. He could have raised the concerns he is raising today, but maybe not the conspiracies. I would suggest that the member take off the tinfoil hat, sit down with the standing committee and talk about ways to improve upon the system, as opposed to attacking the civil service and as opposed to character assassination of the Government of Canada.

If we really want to look into the mischievous mind that the Conservatives on the other side have, we should look at Jim Flaherty, as I pointed out at the beginning. I would be interested in hearing the member's comments on Jim Flaherty and maybe how Jim Flaherty might have had some influence with someone like Dominic Barton. Maybe he should be brought into the conspiracy. Maybe Stephen Harper should be brought into the conspiracy too, because his government also issued contracts. The member should apply his tinfoil hat to those two thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to speak more about the over $100 million in contracts that the government gave to McKinsey & Company. However, my question tonight is specifically on behalf of the families that have been devastated as a result of the opioid crisis and is about the role McKinsey played.

The member wants us to believe that it is a tinfoil hat conspiracy to suggest that McKinsey played a role in fuelling the opioid crisis. McKinsey had to pay a settlement of over half a billion dollars because of its role in supercharging the opioid crisis. The member surely cannot be so fundamentally ignorant about the history of that crisis or about the massive settlement the company has had to pay in the United States to spread that nonsense here in the House of Commons.

The reality is that McKinsey provided detailed advice to Purdue Pharma on how to supercharge the opioid crisis. It did so at the same time that Dominic Barton, who was leading McKinsey, was advising the Prime Minister's growth council.

This is a very simple question that the Liberals have refused to answer, so I will ask it again. Were there conversations about opioid policy between the Government of Canada through the Prime Minister and those working at McKinsey, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about how the member and the Conservative Party of Canada are taking advantage of the opioid crisis, which is killing people from coast to coast to coast. It is a sad circumstance that has been devastating to the families and friends of people who have endured overdoses, and they are turning it into a political issue. They are not necessarily blaming McKinsey & Company, but rather, they are trying to make a connection between the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to that company and Dominic Barton. That is what the Conservatives are trying to do with the situation of the opioid crisis. I say that is shameful.

If the member and the Conservative Party are genuine and really want to contribute to the debate on these type of contracts, they would be better off to raise the issue in the standing committee to see if we could change the regulations so that future contracts put out by the civil service —

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Climate Change

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually in the House tonight to pursue a question I initially asked in question period. I asked it on November 14, 2022, just as COP27, the 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, was under way in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt.

The Secretary General of the United Nations opened that conference saying that the world is “on a highway to climate hell, foot still on the accelerator.” That is the situation we are in today, and the question I put to the minister was whether the Prime Minister had chosen to stay away from Sharm el-Sheikh and COP27 knowing that we are one of those countries with the foot on the accelerator.

I want to concentrate more, in the time I have this evening, on the response I received from the hon. parliamentary secretary. His response was that we are doing wonderful things in Canada, that our foot is not on the accelerator, and that we can ignore what we are doing in expanding fossil fuel infrastructure with the shameful decision to buy the Kinder Morgan pipeline, spending public money on a project that violates indigenous rights, threatens the ecosystems of the 800 crossings of watercourses between Alberta and Burnaby, and threatens the ecosystems of the Salish Sea with a spill that would not be of crude oil but, even more impossible to clean up, diluted bitumen. We can set that all aside and ignore it because of all the wonderful things the government is doing.

The hon. parliamentary secretary pointed to $100 billion in climate spending and a $9-billion emissions reduction plan. Let us be honest about this. Let us stop pretending that spending billions of dollars will protect our children and grandchildren from an unlivable world. When the UN Secretary General spoke of climate hell, he was not being hyperbolic. It is the reality of the science we are looking at, and it is deeply distressing. In fact, looking at it soberly, it is terrifying.

One of the things we know is that the IPCC report from last spring, April 4, 2022, spoke of the opportunity we have to hold to the Paris commitments of a 1.5°C global average temperature increase, and as far below 2°C as possible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it clear that both of those goals, both of those avoidances of the worst, will not be possible unless global emissions of greenhouse gases hit their peak and then drop rapidly before 2025. We are at 2023, and we have less than 24 months to ensure that global emissions hit their highest-ever level and drop rapidly from there.

The Government of Canada continues to pretend that by spending money on electric cars and consumer heat pumps, which is a good thing to do, it can distract the Canadian public with the fact that it is spending $8 billion on more subsidies through something called carbon capture and storage, which, all around the world, has already been shown to be highly expensive and highly ineffective. We are also spending hundreds of millions of dollars on nuclear technology, which is not a solution to the climate crisis.

We are putting money, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, into what we now own, a pipeline that we are all shareholders in, the Trans Mountain pipeline, for a horrible total of $21 billion. In other words, the government is spending more on putting the foot on the accelerator on the highway to climate hell than we are in avoiding that disaster.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, building on the outcomes of COP26, Canada's engagement in the lead-up to and at COP27 was an opportunity to highlight our government's ambitious domestic climate actions, including by sharing best practices and lessons learned, as well as advocate for ambitious and concrete action by all, particularly major emitters.

Our government was pleased to set up Canada's first national pavilion at COP27, providing an opportunity to showcase Canadian climate action, amplify global efforts, support the developing countries and support the Egyptian presidency priorities. Canada continues to work with all parties to make the UNFCCC process as effective as possible with a focus on implementation.

It is undeniable that the impacts of a changing climate pose a serious and significant threat not only to our health but also to the Canadian economy. I agree with the hon. member that Canada and, indeed, all of the world's nations need to step up efforts to decarbonize our economies in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

That is why, since coming to power, our government has taken bold and decisive action by introducing strong environmental legislation and by putting in place regulations that will cap emissions and set Canada on a path to becoming net-zero by 2050.

My hon. colleague knows that our government has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by the year 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050. We introduced the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to help us deliver on these commitments.

Most recently, we released the 2030 emissions reduction plan. This plan includes $9.1 billion in new investments and provides a framework for meeting our 2030 emissions reduction target. During the last federal election, we pledged to step up our efforts to reduce Canada's reliance on more carbon-intensive sources of energy by accelerating our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuels, from 2025 to 2023. We have also invested over $120 billion in climate action and environmental protection that will bring forward results throughout the Canadian economy.

The environmental measures we have brought forward are intended to provide a cleaner and healthier environment for our children and grandchildren while promoting a strong economy that works for Canadians and their families.

From a consumer point of view, I will quickly add that we talk about things such as the banning of single-use plastic items, the planting of literally hundreds of millions of trees, and the types of things that Canadians can actually step up and also contribute to. There are the bigger, macro issues that the government is dealing with, and there are also those issues where Canadians have demonstrated a wonderful willingness to participate in making our planet a greener and better place to be.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary and so many Liberals before him use words like “bold and decisive” to describe the Liberal climate action, they probably believe it, but just for honesty's sake, let us take out “bold and decisive” and put in what it is, “incremental”. These are incremental things, like Christmas baubles on the Christmas tree, but they do nothing to ensure that our kids will have a livable world.

I do not envy my friends, such as the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change or the Prime Minister, but they have run out of time for wiggle room and run out of time for procrastination. I have been working on this issue since 1986, and governments before them have used up all that time.

We are now in a crisis, and the contest is between what is politically feasible and what is scientifically necessary. We are still playing with our children's future by betting on doing too little and leaving it until too late.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the impacts of climate change continue to intensify, as witnessed most recently through the destructive force of hurricane Fiona, which devastated a number of areas throughout Atlantic Canada. It is evident that we must adapt, and adapt quickly, to our ever-changing environment. That is why our government is working on finalizing Canada's first national adaptation strategy with its partners. Our government recognizes that we need to do more to help prevent and protect our citizens against climate change.

I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands to achieve our mutual objectives. I think that, at the end of the day, we are moving very much in a progressive fashion forward on our environment, and I do appreciate the many contributions that the leader of the Green Party has put forward.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal government's watch, thousands of innocent refugees and migrants are being locked up in prisons, treated like criminals, simply for seeking safety and a better life in Canada.

On November 14, 2022, I asked the government whether it would stop incarcerating migrants and asylum seekers in provincial jails, as has been called for by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. In response to my question, the parliamentary secretary said that, “immigration detention is a measure of last resort.” That is the same message the Minister of Public Safety's office told CBC, indicating that, “the government continues to seek alternatives”.

The government's record tells the true story. Every year between 2016 and 2020, under the Liberals, the number of immigration detainees increased, and 8,825 people were detained between April 2019 and March 2020 alone. The minister's stock answers are no comfort to the thousands of people who come to Canada seeking safety, yet end up being locked away, including 136 children who were housed in detention during the same period.

Canada is also among the only countries in the global north without a legal limit on the length of time people can be in immigration detention. In other words, Canada locks them up and throws away the key. This is wrong. Since 2016, 300 people were detained for more than a year. One man was detained for 11 years, and 17 people have died in immigration detention since 2000, most of them in provincial jails.

Alberta recently became the last province to announce that it is severing its agreement with the CBSA to end the practice of detaining immigrants in provincial jails. The province joined Manitoba and Nova Scotia, led by British Columbia, which are all cancelling their contracts, but the federal government seems to be missing in action and needs to take leadership by ending immigration detention, full stop.

A 2021 report by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documents serious human rights violations experienced by immigration detainees in Canada, particularly those with psychosocial disabilities. Immigration detainees are often subjected to solitary confinement, shackled and held with violent offenders, fearing for their safety. Researchers also found that Black detainees appear to be incarcerated longer and are more likely to be detained in provincial jails, while people with mental health conditions disproportionately receive coercive treatment. In fact, CBSA officials told researchers that people with mental health conditions may be detained in provincial jails to manage them in light of their behaviour.

The negative effects of incarceration can be severe and may impact former immigration detainees for years after they are released. Recent media reports have revealed the horrific conditions experienced in immigration detention. Abdirahman Warssama came to Canada from Somalia and was locked up in a maximum security prison for five years and seven months, even though he was not considered dangerous. During his time in prison, he was beaten and experienced 199 lockdowns during a single year. During these lockdowns, detainees are locked in their cells, sometimes for several days, without access to showers, a phone or the ability to go outside. Another man who escaped war in his home country was locked up in an immigration holding centre in Laval for months, despite having no criminal history.

This is wrong. This needs to stop.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Vancouver East for her ongoing advocacy on this issue.

Canada has a robust and fair refugee system. Immigration detention is a measure of last resort, and I am committed to working with the minister, CBSA, stakeholders across the country and the hon. member to expand alternatives to detention.

Over the past year, I had numerous discussions with the hon. Lloyd Axworthy and the hon. Allan Rock and Hanna Gros from Human Rights Watch. Their advocacy and advice on immigration detention has been invaluable, and I know this is an issue the minister is seized with.

We made significant progress in implementing alternatives to detention and in reducing our use of detention, but we know there is more work to do. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, individuals can only be detained when grounds for detention exist and after all alternatives to detention have been considered.

While detention always defaults to an immigration holding centre, in regions where there is no centre the CBSA relies on the use of provincial correctional facilities to house high-risk detainees. I visited the immigration detention in Milton several years ago and spoke to several of those who were being held there. It is one of the reasons I am committed to working with those who want to see change in the system. I also met with Matthew House staff. They offer an outstanding program to support those facing deportation and house them in community.

Detention in provincial correctional facilities is only used sparingly. As of November 17, 2022, 138 immigration detainees were housed in a provincial correctional facility, 189 were housed in an immigration holding centre and 11,233 were enrolled in an alternative to detention.

The government is committed to further decreasing the use of provincial correctional facilities. That is why we invested in new and upgraded immigration holding centres, including one in Surrey in 2020 and one in Montreal in 2022. With these investments, we have been able to reduce our reliance on provincial correctional facilities and provide better services to those being detained.

The government is committed to treating all detainees in a dignified and humane way.

One important condition in all our agreements with provinces is that they authorize the Canadian Red Cross to visit correctional facilities. This is to monitor and report on the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees to ensure they are treated fairly according to domestic legislation and international obligations. As the member opposite is aware, the Red Cross' findings and the CBSA action plans are available on the CBSA website.

The CBSA continues to work to create a better and fairer immigration detention system, one that treats all persons with compassion and dignity while upholding public safety and the integrity of our immigration system.

The government is committed to protecting the safety of Canadians while upholding the rights of detainees.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong to have immigration detention for people who pose no security risk to Canadians or have no serious criminality issues. There is no reason for that.

In the case I mentioned earlier, CBSA's own document, which was obtained by the CBC, said that he posed no risk. He posed zero risk to Canadians. As a result of the detention, he lost his job, he lost his apartment and he lost his belongings.

In other countries like the European Union, detention has had a maximum length of six months since 2008. Argentina does not use immigration detention at all. Other countries have recognized that people have not committed a crime and should not be locked up indefinitely, yet Canada continues to do this. CBSA continues to incarcerate migrants and destroy people's lives. It remains the only major law enforcement agency without independent civilian oversight.

This is so wrong. Enough of this gross human rights violation, enough of saying that we are doing something and then not doing enough. Let us end immigration detentions for those who do not have serious criminality issues or are not a threat to public safety.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to listening to the voices of stakeholders calling for reform.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, individuals can only be detained when grounds for detention exist and after all alternatives to detention have been considered.

I commit to the member opposite I will continue to advocate within government and in this place to call for an expansion of the eligibility for alternatives to detention and to invest in programs that support the mental health of all migrants and refugee claimants.

While we have made improvements, we also recognize there is more work to do. Our government remains committed to ensuring all detainees are treated in a consistent, dignified and humane way that is in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:33 p.m.)