Evidence of meeting #8 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
What time would that be, Chair, just to be clear on the time?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
On my computer right now, I have 3:46 p.m., so 20 minutes from now would be 4:06 p.m.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I have just a quick point of order, Chair.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Yes, Mr. Barrett, go ahead on your point of order.
By the way, Mr. Barrett, your Internet is cutting in and out.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I hope that it has resolved itself, Chair.
I don't want to interrupt Mr. Fergus once he starts speaking again. We have been at this for 30 hours. I gave a number earlier. We're up to about 30 hours now. I know that you identified 5:30 p.m. as the end of resources that are available. I would just ask you to inquire—I don't need an immediate answer—as to what the limitation is.
The committee ought to be the arbiter of when the meetings are adjourned, not anyone else. While I appreciate that there are certain practical limitations that may exist, those practical limitations should be detailed so that members know what else is impeding this process. We've identified one issue—I won't relitigate that—but with respect to the technical limitations once we enter hour 31, I'm just wondering what it is that is bringing our meeting to a halt and, I would say, necessitating further meetings during this constituency week.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Barrett, it's pretty much all technical. My understanding is that there are a host of things. We'll get you a specific list, but it was translation, as well as the realities of COVID, too, with sanitation, etc., and all those different things. I'll be glad to try to get some more specifics for you.
Mr. Fergus, please continue.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Since Mr. Barrett raised this excellent question, I would like to explain to Canadians who are listening that it isn't just members of Parliament who are working very hard to move the debate forward. Dozens of people are also involved. For example, I'm thinking of the interpreters, who are doing an outstanding job.
As Ms. Gaudreau has pointed out several times, it's very important to take our time and speak very calmly so that the interpreters can do their job. Mr. Chair, you know as well as I do that these people are working in conditions that we wouldn't have thought possible in 2019. They are always listening, and they have a great capacity for concentration. They translate the words of members of Parliament, not only for members of Parliament who don't speak the other official language, but for everyone. This allows all members of Parliament to participate in the debate. Their work is exceptional, and I would like to tip my hat to the interpreters for the work they are doing under very difficult conditions during the pandemic.
From our committee clerk, to the analysts, to the support teams, everyone is working very hard to support us and give us all the resources we need to do our job. I'm very grateful to them for that.
I'm not saying this because they are mainly citizens of Hull—Aylmer, but because their work is very much appreciated. On behalf of everyone around the table, I thank them for that.
Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to give this short testimonial.
I'll now come back to the subject at hand. I would like to make a few comments. I'll focus on what's before us.
Mr. Barrett pointed out that we have been arguing for several hours about the direction of the committee's work.
I would like to reiterate that a few days ago, we were about to move forward with the committee's work and set aside our partisan interests to find a consensus. There is this beautiful saying in English:
It is that we seized defeat out of the jaws of victory.
We were on the verge of finding a consensus or a compromise that satisfied everyone, but we missed it. That's unfortunate, Mr. Chair. That possibility is still there. We can seize the victory instead of remaining at this impasse.
As my colleagues and I have said, let's seize the victory. Let's seize the compromise being presented. This is a golden opportunity to demonstrate that we can put aside our partisan interests to do the job Canadians expect of us.
This is extremely important. It could be resolved in two minutes. I invite Ms. Gaudreau, who is so hard-working, to do so. She's right; she herself is present at these meetings 98% of the time. She has no replacement. She is always there, and she listens attentively, which is rare. I know I shouldn't refer to her, but it's all to Ms. Gaudreau's credit. It's rare that her camera isn't on. I see her all the time, and I know that she listens to me. I tip my hat to her. I'm keen to work with her at the part where there is a great understanding between the two of us. I hope we'll seize this opportunity.
I salute the work of all members of Parliament. For many reasons, people have things to do. They need to take care of their constituents, their families or themselves to maintain a certain mental and physical health. We all have things to do. I don't want to waste people's time or my own. Like everyone else around this table, I invited my constituents to a meeting and had to postpone it to a more convenient time.
I don't know if we'll continue to sit through this week, but I'm prepared to do so with the goal of reaching a compromise. There are some hard-core people who believe that compromise is almost sacrilege. That's far from being the case. When you buy a house, the buyer doesn't always stick to the price without deviating from it. There's a negotiation and a compromise is reached. The seller and the buyer find common ground. It's the same thing we're doing here. Some members of the committee insist on point A, others insist on point C, but there is a point B that we can agree on.
I'm offering you not one hand, but both. Please accept this opportunity to reach a good compromise that will allow us to address the important issues in the motion put forward by the NDP member. Let's take this opportunity, because we could resolve this in two minutes.
I'm willing to work and so are the members of my party.
What I'm asking is that we meet in between, that we find common ground. This will allow both sides to present things that are important not only to ourselves—it's not interesting—but to Canadians, to citizens. That's what I'm asking for, and I hope we can get there. Situations where you can have it all don't exist. You have to put a little water in your wine. That's what I'm asking for, and I will do the same. That way we can find common ground.
Some excellent motions have been presented. They contain sections or paragraphs on which there is consensus. Other proposals were added after they were rejected once by the committee and a second time by the chair because they were not in order. If this is removed, there will be consensus. We'll talk about three items: the Canada student service grant program, Baylis Medical and Palantir Canada. That way, we can take immediate action.
If anyone thinks we're going to use this as an opportunity to undertake a study that's going to drag on and on, I encourage them to suggest that the committee look at this for a couple of meetings before moving on to something else. So we can limit all of that. Make me an offer.
This is what we're waiting for. There's a way to find common ground. I'm ready, I'm walking towards you, and I'm asking you to show the same openness. By doing so, we can come to a good understanding.
Mr. Chair, on many occasions you've shown great patience and wisdom. Your decisions are never clouded by your opinions. I know you'll welcome the opportunity to take action. So I encourage you to convince my colleagues to come to an agreement. I know, that's not your role. I don't know if this can be resolved by a meeting of the subcommittee. Maybe it's time to call a separate meeting in order to come to an agreement. It's very important to take action. In the meantime, I assure you of my co-operation and my desire to find a compromise. I think all the elements are there. It was there and is still there. So we can take action.
If, however, we insist on winning at any cost, we are no longer negotiating. We are not giving others a chance. Politics is the art of the possible. We all know what is impossible and, for the most part, I believe, what is fundamentally unacceptable. We also know that it is possible for all of us to come to an agreement, and that's the most important thing.
I will end my comments there.
I have already overstayed my welcome.
The one message I'd like to send my colleagues opposite is that we need to seize this opportunity to compromise for the benefit of all Canadians. Then we can take action.
With that, I give you the floor.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Fergus.
The speakers list, as I have it now, is Madame Shanahan, Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Dong, Mr. Angus, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Sorbara.
Madame Shanahan, go ahead.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Chair, can I clarify? I believe Madame Lattanzio was on the speakers list. I could be wrong.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I don't recollect that. I don't have that on my screen, either. If you'd like to cede the floor to her....
I'm sorry; I do have Madame Lattanzio on the list now. After Mr. Sorbara, it will be Madame Lattanzio.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Can you repeat the speaking list? I did not hear any interpretation.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
The speakers list is Madame Shanahan, Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Dong, Mr. Angus, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Sorbara and Ms. Lattanzio.
Please proceed, Madame Shanahan.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you very much, Chair.
I thank my honourable colleague Mr. Fergus. I have had occasion during other meetings to yield to him, so I thank him for the return favour. He has yielded the floor to me. We benefit greatly from his wisdom. As I ponder the words he said just before me, I think they are well worth repeating and coming back to in due course.
In the meantime, when I spoke earlier today I indicated that at that time I was speaking directly to the last amendment that was appended to the motion we had before us, the famous clause (c), I believe, which involved Speakers' Spotlight. I spoke at length about my opposition to that last amendment; indeed, in brief, it's for the reasons that others have mentioned today, in that it has been dealt with already at least twice in this committee and firmly rejected.
When I then look back upon the motion, Mr. Angus's motion as amended by Mr. Fergus, I am looking at clause (a). I understand the reasons. I agree with my colleague Mr. Fergus about compromise and about getting to that place where we can look at a motion. It may not be everything we want, but when we look at the different elements, we can say that this is something we can move forward with.
I would like to put some important elements on the record at this time concerning the origins of clause (a), why it has come up and why I gather that it is part of the motion we are discussing today.
I would like to say, Chair, that I was never one of those people who knew exactly what they wanted to do when they grew up. I've had a number of different roles in my life. In one of them—after being, if you can imagine, a community worker—I was actually hired by a major schedule I bank to be a commercial account manager, where, for the first time in my life, I was working with business people. I come from a family of educators, and I thought, “My goodness, what am I going to do?”
I'm talking about the eighties, Chair. If you remember, it was the yuppie era. Greed was good. We had The Wolf of Wall Street and all that sort of thing. I really didn't know if this would be an area that I would find interesting. What I did learn about, Chair, from the business people I had the pleasure to meet, the entrepreneurs—again, we're talking about the eighties and even the early nineties, when it was a challenging time for businesses, certainly in Quebec—was the creativity. It was the ability to see a problem and to come up with a solution, and to do that while taking risks with one's own financial well-being.
For someone like me, who comes from a family of educators with reasonable salaried compensation and more or less the security that comes with that, it was a real eye-opener to meet some of these entrepreneurs. In a different context, I would tell you the stories, but even then there's confidentiality in some of those stories. Let's just say they are household names today. I literally knew them when some of these business owners were operating out of holes in the wall, so to speak, but they are household names today.
Just as one little aside, I remember one rough, gruff old guy. You had to know how to handle these guys. He came to me and asked for an accommodation, a bond guarantee for a six-figure amount, to be able to sponsor his foreman, who came from, I believe, Nigeria, an African country.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thanks.
My hair's grey, so I do remember the 1980s. I have not regaled anyone on this committee with the time I spent travelling on the road with my band and all the neat people I met and all the great things that happened, because it's simply irrelevant.
We're 31 hours into this. We have been stalled and interfered with. We are speaking to a motion. Would Madame Shanahan speak to the motion and leave out all the past interesting people she met 40 years ago, please?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
Yes, as I've cautioned many so far, we should try to be as specific as we can to the motion.
Please go ahead, Madame Shanahan.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
Perhaps another time Mr. Angus can regale us with those stories on the road.
I was talking about this because of the humanity and the willingness of this gentleman, the risk he took, to bring somebody into this country who undoubtedly was a valuable employee to him and give that person that opportunity.
I want to refer to and put on the record an article. Mr. Angus had the occasion earlier today to share some of his media reading with us. This article is dated October 17, 2020, by Ryan Tumilty. It is headlined “Manufacturers start to deliver 40,000 ventilators, but with lower demand Canada may not need them”. The subhead reads, “The 40,000 ventilators the government ordered came with a $1.1B price tag, but experts believe, even in a worst-case, these machines may never be used.”
The article reads as follows:
When the first ventilators rolled off a hastily put together assembly line, Rick Jamieson wanted to deliver them himself.
Jamieson, president of ABS Friction an Ontario brake pad manufacturer, climbed into the cab of a truck and went along for a 400-kilometre drive in late July.
“I, with the truck driver, drove it to Ottawa. That's how proud of it we were.”
Jamieson’s first 12 ventilators were part of an order of 10,000 that a consortium he helped put together is delivering. In total, the government ordered 40,000 from a variety of companies, including several small firms that overcame technical challenges, supply issues and other problems to get the machines built.
The artificial breathing machines can be essential for COVID patients, but even as the second wave hits there isn’t a high demand and experts believe, even in a worst-case, these machines may never be used.
Back in March, Jamieson saw the news and decided he wanted to do something to help. The virus was ravaging New York City and northern Italy, overwhelming hospitals and leading to many deaths. People with existing respiratory conditions seemed particularly vulnerable.
“My brother David died of an asthma attack. I'm asthmatic and I said I am going to see what I can do on this to help out.”
The 40,000 ventilators the government ordered came with a $1.1-billion price tag. Few ventilators were made in Canada before the pandemic and most of the companies awarded contracts had to start from scratch. To date, the government has received just 3,210, but they also haven’t been needed.
In an email, procurement department spokesperson Michèle LaRose said they ordered ventilators from five Canadian companies and eight international ones, but the Canadian firms are doing the bulk of the work. They said they expect the rest by early next year.
“All deliveries are expected by March 2021. Public Services and Procurement Canada continues to work with manufacturers to monitor delivery progress,” she said.
Through the summer, ICU beds were mostly free of COVID patients and some provinces are now instituting lockdowns and restrictions precisely to avoid swamping intensive care units and forcing all these new ventilators into service.
Dr. Zain Chagla, an infectious disease specialist and professor at McMaster University, said in the early days there was a real fear ventilators could be needed on a mass scale.
“There was so much unknown about this disease, no one knew whether or not there were super spreaders in the community, whether or not there was a lot under the surface.”
This is the subtitle: “Some of them may unfortunately be stockpiled, which is not the end of the world”. It continues:
According to Canadian Institutes of Health Information, there are approximately 75,000 hospital beds in Canada, but having a bed is just half of the problem. Chagla said even if all 40,000 ventilators the government ordered were put into service, you would still need the doctors, respiratory technologists and critical care nurses to operate them.
“Some of these COVID patients...they're very difficult to ventilate to begin with and often need some very experienced operators of the ventilator,” he said.
He said if hospitals were set to be overwhelmed, governments now know they can bring in restrictions and slow the spread of the virus. He said it doesn't hurt, however, to be over prepared.
“Some of them may unfortunately be stockpiled, which is not the end of the world. We will have pandemics in the future and hopefully the stock that's being bought up in Canada is relatively future proof.”
After decades in the automotive business, Jamieson has a deep well of contacts in the industry that he brought together. He said everyone he spoke with was willing to pitch in on the project and there are several manufacturers helping out.
“It didn't seem to matter who I called, people took my call and said, I will help.”
GM retooled one of its facilities to make surgical masks and Jamieson said his industry was well-suited to retool and manufacture something different.
“We know how to make things and we know how to make things at high volume.”
Jamieson didn't want to reinvent the wheel and didn't know how, so he sought to license a ventilator design. An attempt with a company in England fell apart, but then Medtronic, a massive American firm, agreed to release technical designs and allow use of their patent for free. Jamieson's team jumped on the chance.
They partnered with Baylis Medical to help manufacture the Medtronic devices. After early meetings with Health Canada, assuring bureaucrats they could make the devices, they were awarded a $237-million contract to deliver 10,000 ventilators.
The contract has drawn criticism from opposition parties, partly due to the involvement of Frank Baylis, chairman of Baylis Medical and a Liberal MP from 2015 to 2019.
Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner said in the house that it raises questions because it was awarded before the ventilators were even approved by Health Canada. She specifically questioned why this order went through and orders for rapid tests languished.
“The health minister agreed to pay $237 million to Baylis Medical for 10,000 ventilators, even though the devices were not approved in any jurisdiction,” she said.
Jamieson said their ventilator is a copy of Medtronic’s device and he rejects any suggestion of impropriety. Their copy of Medtronic’s device wasn’t approved in Canada but Medtronic’s original was and it was simply a matter of proving to Health Canada they were making the same unit.
“I didn’t know Frank Baylis was a politician when we signed them for the contract,” he said. “They are the largest, privately held Canadian medical device company. Who else should I have partnered with?”
He said Baylis is helping manufacture the devices because they have the clean-room facilities necessary to keep the units sterile.
“I'm not making them in an auto parts plant.”
Jamieson isn’t the only one learning to build a ventilator from scratch. StarFish Medical, a company that normally designs and consults on medical devices, got into the business and is expected to deliver 7,500 devices for a total cost of $169 million.
John Walmsley, a vice president with the company, said they found a design from an inventor in Winnipeg. The real challenge was finding parts and their design had to be structured around what they could find.
“There were a lot of design decisions that had to be made very fast, people worked long hours, seven days a week.”
Walmsley said they reached out at one point to Yorkville Instruments, a company that makes musical instruments, amplifiers and other audio equipment. The ventilator needed a lot of switches and dials and the volume had gone down on the music industry.
“There wasn’t a lot of music being done, not a lot of people buying amps at that time. So they stepped up. And we’re happy to use their components.”
Walmsley said his company has received approval from Health Canada for their unit and now expects to start delivering units quickly. He said when they have completed this order they may stay in the business.
“We’re fulfilling our commitments first, and then see where that leaves us. But we’re definitely interested in the future of the company.”
Jamieson is not interested in keeping his ventilator business going. Medtronic only opened their patent for as long as the pandemic lasts or 2024, whichever comes sooner. He said they have delivered about 3,000 units thus far with four shifts running in the Toronto facility and expected to be done in December.
He said his project should be seen as a success story.
“I know that Canadian engineers and Canadian ingenuity were unbelievable on the project.”
He said he did this fundamentally to protect people.
“I am going to have a glass of wine when we save the first Canadian life. That’s what I am going [to] do to celebrate.”
Mr. Chair, it is indeed a success story.
I think we all remember those early days and weeks of the pandemic when we were hearing the stories coming out of Italy and other countries, when the hospitals were overwhelmed and did not have sufficient ventilators. Here, we have small businesses, small and medium-sized businesses, businesses that are still run by an owner-operator, by somebody who is close to his business and is stepping up to the plate and bringing that human element of “I want to help”.
Will we need all of those ventilators? We don't know, but they can be stockpiled, as the article points out. These are business people who are to be commended for their actions. By the way, is anyone asking what parties they donated to at that time? No, they are not, or at least we should not be doing that. If there were ever a time for a team Canada approach, then this would be the time.
Chair, I do want to take a moment to thank you for your leadership on this committee, because I think we are getting to that good place that my colleague Mr. Fergus described, that good place that we were almost at last week. However, I must speak to the motion in front of us and put some things on the record during this time that you have graciously accorded to me.
This is now the motion that has been before us, I'm going to guess, for at least a week or so. It's the amended motion. I know that members are eager to get to a vote on it, but I think that the thoughtful debate we are having here is exactly what is required to bring us to that good place.
Getting this right is essential. The work we do here does affect the lives of individual Canadians. We have already seen the adverse effects of committee studies going too far.
My colleague Mr. Angus brought forward this morning some information about the WE Charity that was certainly not known to me. He spoke quite at length about the Kielburger brothers and about their work. I'm not really sure why, since they've already shuttered their operations in Canada. I think we can all agree to disagree about the merits of the WE Charity being selected to oversee the Canada student service grant, but indeed, prior to that matter, the WE Charity was, by all reports, a well-respected charity. Tens of thousands of Canadian students worked with them, including, I believe, some of the children of members here in our committee and in the House, and some of the biggest names in philanthropy have supported them. Now they're no longer functioning in Canada.
I'm not taking a position on WE Charity one way or another. I am just stating the recognized facts. We just need to remember that here at this committee when we discuss something it is in public. I appreciate that. I know that the members here want our work to be done publicly as much as possible, but there are indeed real and tangible outcomes to our actions. For every action—
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I have a point of order.
I appreciate Ms. Shanahan questioning why I asked about and raised issues about WE Charity, but she omitted—as she seems to have this funny path of omitting some serious things—that the reason it was raised was that since we have been unable to finish our report, WE Charity and their American-backed financers are running full-page newspaper ads basically disputing the work we have done at this committee and at finance committee. They are running op-eds without saying where the support came from. They're hiring people who are giving them a spin.
Ms. Shanahan and her colleagues are keeping us from finishing our report. I think that is an obstruction of the work of Parliament. That is the key issue on the WE Charity. It's that they are running a major media campaign right now and Ms. Shanahan is doing everything to stop us from doing our work.