Debates of May 10th, 2023

Inclusion of Students with Disabilities

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. It is an honour to speak in favour of the motion brought forward by my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. That member has long been an advocate for persons with disabilities and is well respected for his many different efforts on this.

The motion before us would allow this House to set a key reminder for government to remember those too often forgotten in our world: people with disabilities. Canada's work, whether here at home or abroad in developing countries, in aiding children's education is vitally important. While it is essential to help fund the books, pencils and computers needed for education, we would fail in our ambition for better education for every child if we did not consider the need to ensure the inclusion of all children, regardless of circumstances beyond their control.

A 2021 Statistics Canada study found that young Canadians with disabilities between the ages of 15 and 34 still encounter a wide range of difficulties in attending school, such as limitations on learning, social exclusion or a lack of accommodations. The study found that among the participants, 21.1% of women and 33.7% of men had yet to complete a high school level of education. Of those interviewed, 29% said they had discontinued their education because of their condition.

Though we recognize education as primarily provincial, there is a role the federal government can play.

As the Conservative shadow minister responsible for disability inclusion, I was involved in helping to advance the Canada disability benefit. We know for that piece of legislation that the government was working for years on it and finally tabled legislation in the last Parliament. The snap election of 2021 cancelled the legislation from moving forward, and it was reintroduced in this Parliament, though not as a priority piece of legislation for the government, as it was not one of the first bills to be introduced.

Surprisingly, it was the same legislation as this, and in fact it is well documented through testimony at committee that there is much uncertainty. What it would actually mean for people as to the parameters, to whom it would be applicable and what they would receive would all be done through regulation. I will continue to hold this government to account for this unacceptably slow pace of delivery. Still, by that bill's unanimous passing in the House, we know this chamber is committed to seeing all persons with disabilities reach their highest potential.

When it comes to our federal role in education, in situations such as indigenous education or social transfers, keeping in mind the specific needs of all children as they study is vital. Our goal must be nothing less than, as the text of this motion states, "maximum inclusion of people with disabilities, including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.” We should want no less for our children living with disabilities around the world, whom we seek to aid in our efforts to alleviate poverty in developing countries. Without access to education, poverty is not alleviated in the long term.

It is indisputable that a good education can help make people's lives better. What we see needing improvement in the developing world is a clear commitment to the consistent consideration of the millions of people worldwide who face unique physical, developmental and intellectual challenges in achieving their best lives.

Globally, children with disabilities face significant barriers that result in exclusion from education and schooling. According to UNESCO's “2020 Global Education Monitoring Report”, at least 50% of children with disabilities are excluded from education in low- and middle-income countries. In some contexts, the figure is closer to 90%.

The reasons for this are varied, whether they are a lack of transportation options to reach schools, inaccessible school or classroom buildings, the lack of proper teacher training to educate children with varying intellectual and developmental challenges, or poor curriculum design. The denial of primary education leaves many of these children with the poorest life outcomes imaginable, with poor adult literacy or social skills condemning them to hard labour, extreme poverty or worse. Socially, these children can often be deeply misunderstood, with their conditions treated as burdens or even death sentences.

In some areas of the world, prejudice surrounding what we in Canada would regard as basic conditions sadly leads to the lives of children being harmed and given up on. According to the same report I cited earlier, adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities are lacking in developing countries. Canada undoubtedly has inclusion challenges to overcome as well for those with disabilities. Still, we can take some fulfillment in the tireless efforts of our many education leaders, teachers and support workers who help to provide educational benefits for children who, had they been born in too many other places around the world, would have never received those efforts. I thank all of those who work in this field.

Similarly, we can take pride in Canadians seeking to address that gap in the developing world. Canada has a long history of commitment to helping developing countries. For example, one project looks to advance inclusive higher education for young adults with disabilities, develop new occupational therapy programs and foster research for inclusive education and community-based rehabilitation in the region.

Hearing of Canadian efforts to help with projects like this is no surprise. Canada has always prided itself on its capacity for humanitarian work. We are proudly home to tens of thousands of charities, not-for-profits, faith groups and individual miracle workers pursuing similar aims in regions around the world. The same consideration they give toward ensuring a good education for every child must be kept front of mind. The member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin is very purposeful in the wording of his motion calling on the government to take action. He does not want persons with disabilities to be forgotten. In fact, he wants them to be top of mind.

He is also drawing attention to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. When people think of persons with disabilities and their extra needs, they may have to help minimize or overcome challenges with their diverse abilities. Often, we may think of physical accessibility needs. For example, physical infrastructure, like building a ramp or having an accessible washroom, may come to mind, and people get a check mark for being inclusive when considering those with disabilities.

However, this motion also adds in purposeful wording to include people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This is important because the check mark may not be quite as easy. Those with intellectual and developmental disability needs need to be top of mind when considering educational funding in order for us to be truly inclusive and to make a difference through education for those who may not be considered now. This elevates the importance of not forgetting those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

I call on all members of this House to put aside partisanship and come together unanimously in passing this motion. Doing so will send a clear message of commitment to those in need of a better life through education who may currently be denied it.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for his guidance and leadership.

It is a very good example of where the real experience is lived in a diverse House of Commons. We are making the best policies and we are making progress.

That is an excellent example. On behalf of all the families in Milton living with a person with a disability, I thank the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

I would like to stand up today and talk about how this motion really leverages a lot of our collective work on our disability inclusion action plan. It is fantastic that we can work together and find ways to improve the lives of Canadians and work across party lines, as I have with this particular member for as long as I have been here. He definitely represents the best of this place and, again, I want to commend him for that effort.

The first pillar of our disability inclusion action plan is our employment strategy. The motion would definitely leverage this and ensure that it is as effective as possible. Last year, we launched a $200-million employment strategy for people with a disability. Ensuring that more of these funding programs are directed to persons living with a disability is so important.

The second pillar, which this motion would leverage, is the Canada disability benefit. The member and I have spoken one-on-one before, and I have spoken with many members of my community as well, about people who are now children or are young people who will age out of care, as well as people who have a disability of any form whose support network will leave them one day. We need to ensure that there is support for those individuals and groups when their support network leaves them, and they do not have support they had relied on for so many of their lived years.

The third pillar is all about eliminating barriers in physical spaces. I know that many programs in my community have applied to the enabling accessibility fund. This is for building physical structures that eliminate barriers, such as ramps, elevators and various other devices that support disability inclusion.

However, I also want to acknowledge that the things that we can add to our society to correct for curbs, stairs and other barriers resulting in inaccessible physical space include far more than just physical things. I want to mention one of my neighbours, Carly, who is currently engaged with the town of Milton in building a new kind of playground for kids with various sensory differences. She is also raising a flag for Disability Awareness Month. I want to commend everybody in Milton who is working on that particular project. It will mean kids can go to the park and experience the fun, the laughter, the enjoyment and physical activity that they deserve. They will not have to make those accommodations themselves within their families, because there will be a park built for them. That is really fantastic.

The fourth pillar, last but certainly not least, is a modernized government. A modernized government in the context of a disability inclusion action plan is all about easier access to benefits. This would ensure that we are not creating an environment where applying for these programs or new resources is going to cost a lot of money or where business owners have to hire somebody new or special in order to do that. A good example of that is automatic tax filing, which was in budget 2023.

Once again, I want to thank and commend my hon. colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for this extraordinary work. I am glad that we are finding, at the end of today, a great way to work together and collaborate across party lines.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you canvassed the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it midnight.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Carbon Pricing

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question to the Liberals is regarding their failed, ineffective and ever-increasing carbon tax. The Liberals have misled Canadians on their carbon tax, not once, not twice, but many times. Government members must be held accountable for their misleading carbon tax claims, and they must answer to the Canadians they are supposed to represent.

Let us take a walk down memory lane. First, the Liberals promised not to raise the carbon tax, and then they tripled it. Then the Liberals promised Canadians they would get more money back than they had paid, but the government’s own Parliamentary Budget Officer proved the government wrong. In fact, we now know the average family in 2023 will pay between $402 and $847 even after the rebates. Then the Liberals claimed the carbon tax would reduce emissions, but guess what, emissions went up.

Now we know the government misled Canadians once again on its failed carbon tax. Let me explain. In 2019, the Liberals announced a program called the MUSH retrofit stream. MUSH stood for municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals. It was a bureaucratic government program designed to return the carbon tax back to the public institutions it was charged to so they could afford energy-efficient retrofit upgrades.

One may be wondering why on earth the government is forcing a carbon tax on our hospitals and schools in the first place, or how this reduces emissions, and trust me, I wonder the same.

Despite this, and despite promising to return the money the Liberals took from our hospitals and public institutions, no money was returned to hospitals, no money was returned to municipalities and no money was returned to universities. Not one dime.

The Liberals took millions of dollars to Ottawa, created their own bureaucratic program, promised to return it and never did. Even the commissioner of the environment pointed this failure out in a recent report, and local governments across Canada were wondering where the millions of dollars they were promised went. We would never have known this if it were not for an Order Paper question I submitted because the Liberals took the money and secretly shut down the program without telling Canadians. I guess we will never know where the money went.

My question to the Liberal government is very simple. Why did the Liberal government mislead Canadians and not return any carbon tax revenue to hospitals, municipalities or universities through its own MUSH retrofit program?

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

Madam Speaker, I found it interesting that the member, my friend, started the discussion this evening by talking about the carbon tax, or a price on pollution, whatever one wants to call it. He started off by saying we were misleading Canadians.

On that particular point, I have to make mention of the fact that there were 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election who knocked on doors with an election platform. That election platform, under the stewardship of Erin O'Toole, who was the leader of the Conservative Party at the time—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my apologies. I withdraw the name.

The former leader of the Conservative Party campaigned on the policy that a price on pollution, or a carbon tax, is a good thing. The member stands up and says we are misleading Canadians, yet he campaigned on a platform that made it very clear to Canadians that, if the Conservatives were elected into government, they would put a price on pollution. I think the member needs to reflect on the issue of misleading Canadians, because there is no doubt about that. We could show him the platform position of the Conservative Party, the platform that he himself has raised.

The member also made reference to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He said the Parliamentary Budget Officer said there was a net loss. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also indicated that when we factor in the rebate portion, 80% of the population will receive more money than they are paying in the tax. One might argue we should factor in this and that, but I would suggest that if we factor in this and that, like floods, forest fires and all the other factors, they would also have to be calculated in. The bottom line is that the same Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it very clear that, dollar for dollar, there is a net gain for 80% of the population.

When we talk about other jurisdictions, we now have Atlantic Canadians seeing the benefits of having the rebate structure we have in place. Those provinces are now moving to the federal program, which is something they opted to do.

I would suggest that one of the best ways of dealing with emissions and being sensitive to our environment is to recognize what many governments around the world have done, including this government, which is to assign a price on pollution. Interestingly enough, members might be surprised to know that the first legislative government to ever do something of this nature was the Alberta Conservative Party many years ago.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government again did not answer my question. I find it interesting that the Liberal platform was to tax hospitals in the form of a carbon tax to heat themselves. That is an outstanding type of platform. Maybe the member should run on it again and call this the actual carbon tax that it is, but I digress.

I guess Canadian hospitals, municipalities and universities will never know where the money went. Here is an idea. Instead of forcing hospitals and municipalities to pay a carbon tax, and instead of designing a complicated government program that makes it look like the money will be returned, let us just scrap the carbon tax altogether.

I will give the government one more chance: Why did the Liberal government mislead Canadians and not return any carbon tax revenue to hospitals, municipalities or universities through its own MUSH retrofit program?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives will have to justify to Canadians sometime in 2025, I suspect, when we will be going back to the polls, although we never know in a minority situation, why they misled Canadians in the last federal election and are now saying they will get rid of the price on pollution. A part of that explanation should also incorporate that they will be getting rid of the rebate. The benefit of the rebate is that 80% of people are receiving a larger rebate than they are paying into the program. In essence, they would be taking more money out of the pockets of 80% of Canadians.

In terms of hospitals and universities, this government has made significant investments, both capital and otherwise, in our health care and post-secondary facilities, and the numbers will—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Sport

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in favour of an independent public inquiry into sports. The issue has become more important than ever and it is disappointing that the Minister of Sport thinks that this issue still requires nothing more than internal audits as cases come up.

We all saw the leniency in the audits since, in less than a year, funding for Hockey Canada and Gymnastics Canada was restored. In the case of Canada Soccer, it is total silence. It is incomprehensible that after more than 35 articles on separate cases involving several dozen victims tied to allegations of sexual assault and harassment in sport, there has not been more outrage in the House.

For more than a year, the Bloc Québécois has tirelessly and clearly called for an independent public inquiry into sports. Today, the NDP MPs, and I commend them, also took position in favour of an inquiry. The Conservatives and the Liberals remain, in my opinion, divided on this issue. I ask the question. If it was our own children, would we hesitate on whether or not to shed light on the allegations of abuse in the world of sports?

The silence of the Minister of Sport is as disconcerting as her absence thus far from the discussions taking place in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. She has been invited on more than one occasion. None of the testimony—all of which was very well researched and relevant—spurred her to act responsibly and transparently.

I want to talk about different aspects. There is the outsourcing of safe sport cases. It was the Liberal government that implemented the idea of contracting out complaints from athletes who have been abused or mistreated. This is a highly lucrative arrangement for these private sector firms, which the government calls “third party investigators”. Currently, these firms are paid by federations and there is no assurance that victims are treated fairly in the process. There are no quality standards in place, and Sport Canada does not conduct any verifications.

Many victims testified that they were mistreated by these investigators. These investigations should be conducted by people who have the well-being of the athletes at heart, and, above all, who have no conflict of interest. Even worse, the process results in non-disclosure agreements that silence the victims. This tacit endorsement by the government prevents victims from speaking out or they risk being prosecuted. We absolutely need to consider changing this paradigm so that victims can really have a say.

A non-disclosure agreement must be the prerogative of the victim because only they can make that decision. These non-disclosure agreements raise another concern. Coaches dismissed by these federations for allegations of abuse will be protected by these very agreements. A public and independent inquiry will shed light on these elements and lead to action.

The financial audits ordered by Sport Canada are a financial framework that requires the tabling of detailed financial statements in order to obtain funding. However, it seems that no one analyzes these results year over year or asks questions about the objectives of these sports organizations. It is as though it were just a box to be checked. That does not work. Some corporations in Canada are not in compliance with the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. We see these situations of abuse.

The study being done by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has found that sports organizations have benefited from government largesse without sufficient accountability and transparency. Less than 5% of these organizations are in good standing with the federal registry of corporations. They are violating the rules for federally chartered corporations. The government is clearly not taking action.

Everyone has an obligation to report abuse in sport. However, it seems quite clear that the priority for Sport Canada is not to act on this information.

In closing, I would say that establishing a public and independent inquiry in the field of sports is imperative in order to conduct spot checks, rather than the light—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for bringing awareness to this issue. I also want to say that our government understands the situation very well. It recognizes that this is a very important challenge. I want to commend and thank everyone who has the strength to share their stories.

On the subject of an inquiry, I want to repeat for my friend that it is not a question of “if”. It is a question of what form and scope it will take. I want the member to know that.

Reports of maltreatment, including harassment, abuse and discrimination have come to light recently and there have been consistent calls for stronger governance and greater protections for athletes, accountability and better alignment within the sports system.

I am familiar with these calls. I have been making them myself for over 10 years. I was the vice-chair or chair of the Athletes’ Commission for a total of almost a decade. We have been fighting for a stronger and more accountable support system. The first letter that I wrote to Sport Canada was in 1999.

We take this issue very seriously, and we are committed to ensuring that all sport participants, including children and youth, experience a safe and inclusive sport environment.

While changes in the sport system involve many stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments, national sport organizations, national multi-sport service organizations, Canadian sport centres and the private sector, the Government of Canada has made significant and concerted efforts to promote safe sport, particularly in recent years.

We have worked to ensure safe, welcoming and inclusive environments for all athletes through investments in the 2018, 2019, 2022 and 2023 budgets.

The Government of Canada supported the achievement of a number of safe sport milestones in recent years. We can be proud of this collectively. For instance, the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport was developed by and for the sport community, with the support of Sport Canada in the last five years.

In July 2021, Sport Canada launched a call for proposals to find the most appropriate and most qualified organization to administer the code of conduct and establish an independent safe sport mechanism. A committee of sport community stakeholders and experts in ethics, youth protection and policy development selected the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada to do this work.

In June 2022, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada set up the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner. As of April 1, 2023, every national sport organization has signed an agreement to access the services of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner.

Though the Government of Canada has demonstrated leadership in this area, it is important to note that ensuring a safe and inclusive sport environment is a shared responsibility with provinces and territories as well, particularly when it comes to younger participants. In February 2019, federal and provincial territorial ministers responsible for sport, physical activity and recreation endorsed the Red Deer Declaration for the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport, and ministers at that time committed to developing a collaborative approach to address harassment, abuse and discrimination in sport—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am crossing my fingers that my colleague from Milton's positive leadership will lead to action. Otherwise, perhaps we can battle it out on the soccer field later.

I am asking the parliamentary secretary to at least admit that, unfortunately, the government has failed in its duty to shed light on the management of abuse and sexual misconduct in sports. There is a lot of bureaucratic jargon being used. The government is failing to recognize the distress and frustration of amateur and national athletes, as well as those covered by the program subsidized by the federal government.

The government must get to the bottom of the management problem in sports organizations, because it has been going on for far too long. That is our athletes' right, and they have every right to demand it be respected. These days, many people are criticizing the minister for failing to take into account the victims' point of view. That is particularly true at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Everyone agrees on one thing. The minister is working on an announcement, but the work has been done behind closed doors—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are speaking very fast. I am going to try to get my ideas out in English because they take longer in French, although I am working on it.

This has been a work in progress for many, many years. I used to come to the Hill to advocate for a better sporting environment back in 2015 or 2016. The first time that I came here to do government relations on behalf of athletes was in 2009. I hear the calls to stronger action. The member did acknowledge concrete action over the last couple of years. It has been accelerating to a degree in the last couple of years, particularly under the leadership of the Minister of Sport.

We have come so far and there is no reason why the House needs to be divided on this issue. We are talking about safer sport environments for kids and better sport environments for all participants, and I think that is something that we can collectively continue to work on. The Minister of Sport has prioritized this issue as number one since she was appointed. We have made significant investments since then, and we will continue.

Public Services and Procurement

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising tonight to follow up on a question I earlier asked the Prime Minister with respect to the Liberal-McKinsey scandal. In particular, at the time I was asking about the role McKinsey played in the opioid crisis and what the government is doing in response to that, recognizing that the government gave over $100 million in contracts to McKinsey, recognizing by now that the Treasury Board has acknowledged that all rules were not followed in the awarding of those contracts, recognizing that at the time this was going on McKinsey had a relationship with a company called Purdue Pharma.

McKinsey was led by Dominic Barton up until midpoint in the government's mandate. During that time and previous to that, under the leadership of Dominic Barton, McKinsey was working for Purdue Pharma, giving Purdue Pharma advice on how to supercharge opioid sales, something that drove the opioid crisis. Incredibly, McKinsey's advice to Purdue Pharma included things like paying bonuses to pharmacists in instances where there were overdoses and developing a system for circumventing traditional pharmacies in order to circumvent the checks that were in place in order to prevent people who struggle with substance abuse challenges from being able to access those kinds of opioids. McKinsey was advising Purdue Pharma on how to sell more opioids, how to circumvent checks in the system and, incredibly, giving advice on how to give bonuses to pharmacists in instances where there were overdoses.

McKinsey and Purdue Pharma have been the subject of much criticism here in Canada, as well as the United States and elsewhere. McKinsey has had to pay over half a billion dollars in compensation in the United States. In the United States, there are Democrats and Republicans in various jurisdictions suing McKinsey and Purdue for their role in the opioid crisis and using the money from that to support treatment and recovery. This is precisely the policy that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, which is, as part of a suite of measures, to combat the horrific ongoing opioid crisis, to hold accountable those bad corporate actors that are responsible for it, to sue them directly federally as well as to join provincial class action lawsuits, to sue them for the full range of damages and to put those resources into treatment and recovery, recognizing that McKinsey was a critical player, and that is why it had to pay over half a billion dollars in compensation in the United States.

The contrast is quite stark because in the United States there are people across the political spectrum who have stood up to McKinsey and Purdue and others to try to hold them accountable. In Canada, the government gave McKinsey over $100 million in contracts. I find this striking.

More recently, it was revealed in a response to a petition I received that the government said it is actually going to now join British Columbia's litigation against McKinsey. I have asked various figures in the government if they are prepared to confirm that and I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is prepared to confirm that tonight or not. If this is the case, this is quite a stark shift. I think the government has to account for the fact that, on the one hand, it was giving massive levels of government procurement to McKinsey, not following the proper rules in the process, while McKinsey was fuelling the opioid crisis and, on the other hand, now it is effectively acknowledging McKinsey is complicit in the opioid by saying it is going to join B.C.'s class action lawsuit.

I want the government to clarify whether it is planning to sue McKinsey. Is it planning on following the policy recommendation that Conservatives have been putting forward for months? Will it try to hold McKinsey accountable for the full range of damages, not just joining this lawsuit but other damages as well? Why did it have such a close—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, the member across the way is trying to connect some very important issues. Talking about the opioid crisis, I am sure the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health could have expanded on the degree to which we, as a government, need to continue to work on that particular situation. A good part of that is recognizing that Canada, as a country, cannot do it alone. We need to work with provinces and municipalities, as well as first responders and others. There are many different stakeholders who are out there trying to deal with the opioid situation. That is an issue in itself.

The other issue the member is trying to raise and make a connection to is McKinsey. That is kind of tacked on. McKinsey has a contract, but the member is trying to build the case that there is a wonderful, special relationship between an individual at McKinsey and the Prime Minister.

Tying the three issues together is not very responsible, because there is no direct connection among them. The opioid crisis is there; it is real and tangible. The government is doing what it can and working with a multitude of different stakeholders.

In regard to the contracts, if we listen to the Conservative Party on this particular issue, we would think that if they were in power, they would change the process of procurements and contracts that are being let out through the public service. The Conservatives are doing that process a disservice.

The Liberal government, through transparency and accountability, has ensured that these contracts are done through the public service as much as possible. This should not be a surprise, because these types of contracts are done at all different levels of government here in Canada. Internationally, around the world, governments always look for those independent contracts.

The issue is how those contracts are awarded. I have no problem comparing Canada's procedures with those of any other country. Often, we get other countries looking to Canada for the way our public service lets contracts out for tender. We can all take comfort in and have confidence in our public service in getting out those important contracts.

Now, on the connection between McKinsey and the Prime Minister, this is one of those fishing trips by the Conservative Party. No matter what, they put on their tin hats and start asking questions like these: Where is it all connected? How could it be connected to the Prime Minister? They do this so they can dump all over the Prime Minister. That is the logic behind it.

The member is taking a couple of serious issues and trying to somehow make it look as though something corrupt has occurred; in fact, nothing corrupt has occurred. The Conservatives are trying to give that impression, and then they are trying to somehow link it to the Prime Minister. I can assure the member that there is nothing there. In turning these little pebbles, he is not going to find—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.