Mr. Speaker, today, my office released a documentary about the addiction crisis. People who are interested in this issue can go to eliteaddiction.ca to find out more about that documentary. In it, we talk specifically about the role of two companies, Purdue Pharma and McKinsey. This is a follow-up to a question I asked earlier about McKinsey.

Here is the story. Purdue Pharma developed a new opioid product, which they overpromoted with false information. This basically caused the opioid crisis. They told people that there was minimal risk of addiction and that, if they had any kind of issue with physical pain, they could take this drug without worrying about addictions. That, of course, was not true. Many people became addicted. They developed an escalating tolerance and physical demand for this drug. That led them to seek higher and higher doses of it and, eventually, to go to street drugs. This is the story of the opioid addiction crisis, in which many people were prescribed dangerous opioids that were overmarketed and overpromoted by Purdue Pharma. These people thought there would not be an addiction risk associated with it. They became addicted. They eventually switched to street drugs, and their lives were destroyed as a result.

Along the way, when Purdue Pharma started to face criticism about this, it went to a company called McKinsey, a global consulting firm. McKinsey provided advice to Purdue on how to supercharge sales of their opioids in the midst of these criticisms. Effectively, it was trying to supercharge the addiction crisis, which had already destroyed many lives and many families at that point. It would go on to continue to destroy many lives, families and communities.

This is a great blight on our society that I think must rightly be laid at the feet of these companies, Purdue Pharma and McKinsey. In the United States, these companies have been compelled to pay massive amounts of compensation, which has been redirected towards treatment and recovery. However, here in Canada, rather than holding companies such as Purdue and McKinsey to account, the Liberal government has continued to pay them and to pursue policies that have provided great financial advantage for them. In the case of Purdue Pharma, it has pursued a safe supply program; this leads to Purdue Pharma being paid to produce more dangerous drugs, which are then provided to those who are struggling with addiction at taxpayer expense. In the case of McKinsey, the government has hired McKinsey directly to provide advice.

Conservatives have said that we will sue those responsible for the opioid crisis for all the damages and redirect those funds to treatment and recovery. We would make the drug pushers pay, but the Liberals continue to pay the pushers. This is why we feel it is essential to challenge the government's close relationship with and massive spending on McKinsey. It is a choice to go to a company that is one of the actors responsible for the opioid crisis and ask it for advice on a whole range of issues to do with how to run the country. Why would we be paying McKinsey to provide advice instead of holding it to account for what it has done?

I specifically want to ask the government this: What is behind this close relationship with McKinsey? Will it stop paying the pushers and instead support our policy to make the pushers pay?

Garnett Genuis

$591,290.00