Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 13th, 2020

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Fergus.

I'll review the speakers list. We have Mr. Dong, Madame Gaudreau, Mr. Barrett—he's in the room and not up on my electronic screen—Mr. Angus and Mr. Sorbara.

Now I'll go to Mr. Dong.

Yes, Mr. Fergus?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I just want to add my name back to the list, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, I see it up there now electronically.

I apologize, Mr. Dong. Please go ahead.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I was going to support Mr. Fergus's amendment. I think that would be a good compromise and perhaps would bring this conversation to a more productive path.

Before I get into debate on the main motion, at the end of the last meeting, if I remember correctly, you were going to make a ruling on the motion that I put forward at the last meeting. Are we still on the past floor discussion of hearing a ruling from you, Chair, or are we just going to move on to a new day with new debate?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No, Mr. Dong. Just to refresh your memory, I did make a ruling on that. We have a motion on the floor that we need to dispose of beforehand, and that was new business that you were raising and not an order from the House. That's why I ruled the way I did: that we continue this debate.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Okay. Thank you, Chair, for clarifying that.

I was listening to Mr. Angus's points and comments on the WE Charity, which were a long review of information that came forward through the finance committee. There was a lot of information there, to the point that I was wondering.... We have already received tons of information from WE Charity. Are we still going back and trying to find out more through this motion?

What else are we looking for? Are we going back going through the same thing again? In my colleague Mr. Sorbara's words, are we going to keep on going with the fishing expedition or can we move forward on something new, something that the Canadians trust us and this committee to do? That's my initial thought after listening to Mr. Angus's comments about WE.

I want to start with the tweet by Mr. Barrett following the last meeting. There was a lot of attention brought to his tweet on breaking news. Through Twitter, a very popular social media platform, he was alleging that Speakers' Spotlight had destroyed committee's documents and implied that there is a conspiracy, that there's something illegal happening because they didn't keep the documents over a certain period of time.

There was a lot of assumption of guilt on his part. Then, later on, we all know what happened. Speakers' Spotlight came out with a response to the tweet. I would like to read this response into the record, because I think it would clarify something for the committee. Following that, I will comment on the response.

The response from the Speakers' Spotlight started off with this:

On Monday, November 9th, Michael Barrett, M.P. posted a video on his Twitter feed, with the description, “BREAKING at Ethics Committee we learn that legally ordered WE documents have been destroyed.

That's a quote taken from Mr. Barrett's tweet. The response continues:

In the video, Mr. Barrett states, “Speakers' Spotlight has destroyed all the records of speaking engagements for the individuals named in the motion, the Prime Minister and his spouse, for any period [of] outside seven years”.

The statement is patently false and misleading.

We believe what Mr. Barrett is referring to is a conversation we had with Ms. Miriam Burke, the Clerk of the Committee, a few weeks ago. Ms. Burke had reached out to let us know that the Committee was voting on a motion, and that an Order for documents may be forthcoming. She wanted to get a sense of the volume of the documents that were to be produced, so she could make the necessary preparations, including arranging for translation services.

We let Ms. Burke know that because all of the [speakers'] engagements took place more than 7 years ago, we did not have hard copies of the files, as these had been purged in the normal course of business.

We also let Ms. Burke know that we do have some digital copies of documents that we would produce, along with records of all the speaking engagements dating back to 2008 that were legally required by the Order.

It is standard practice for companies to purge documents after 7 years, and we have always followed this practice. Furthermore, under Canadian privacy law, we are required to destroy all personal information as soon as it is no longer necessary. Therefore, it is not just good legal practice, but a legal requirement that we have been following.

This next sentence is in bold:

To be clear, we have not destroyed any legally ordered documents. Any reports to the contrary are entirely false.

We encourage Mr. Barrett to consult on this matter the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada who, as an Agent of Parliament, would be in position to fully explain the legal requirements to destroy personal information as soon as it is no longer necessary.

It's signed by Martin and Farah Perelmuter. I don't know them personally. I hope I didn't offend them with my pronunciation of their names. They are president and CEO and co-founders of Speakers' Spotlight.

We can see from the response that the company mentioned in this motion has objection, and rightfully so, to Mr. Barrett's tweet quickly following the committee meeting. I want to bring this to the committee, because as elected members, especially members of this committee, we are tasked with tremendous responsibility, which comes with tremendous power as well.

I always tell myself, with respect to my position on the committee, that we have to be extremely careful with what we say and not to assume innocence or guilt as we go on with our investigation of our studies.

I'll come back to the point that there is an ongoing investigation by the commissioner. I completely respect the process. The commissioner will complete his or her study, whichever commissioner, and then come back to the committee. Then we can ask questions. Then we can provide recommendations. To me, that's a much better practice than if the committee....

Mr. Angus has spoken about this quite a few times. The committee has as the power to do its own study. I understand that. However, there is an ongoing investigation happening. I think we should trust the expert, the professional, the unbiased officer of Parliament, to complete his investigation, so we don't run into a situation where we may say something or put forward some recommendations that would contaminate his investigation, or even worse, cast some doubt on his investigation. I don't think that's productive. I don't think that's helpful for Canadians finding out the truth that they're entitled to.

The other thing I want to talk about, and lead off my debate today with, is that in the last meeting, I put forward a motion purely because of the fact that in the last almost year now, if you look at the motions being discussed by the committee, there were no motions put forward by a Liberal member. The record, and I spoke to that, is 14 to 0. I think that is not the spirit of the committee.

I know this is a non-partisan committee and members of this committee can put forward motions, but I was quickly dismissed by a substituting member from the Conservative side. I think it was Ms. Gladu. I don't think she participated in my earlier debate or even in the last meeting. She came in and called the motion disgraceful. I took offence to that.

As a permanent member, I don't think that an attempt to put forward a motion that is on an important matter and is very important to Canadians in the context that there is quite an increase in online activities and online purchasing during the COVID period, and that it is very timely for us to look at how digital currency, despite the fact that it is a very hard discussion—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

On a point of order, Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm trying to understand how this relates to the amended motion we should be voting on. I really wish we could have a discussion with my colleague Mr. Dong on his motion and the others. If he were to move that we go to a vote instead, we could discuss how we should proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

It has been my history to leave a lot of breadth, but I felt the other day that I asked all of you to read a couple of pages from the procedural manual in regard to relevance and repetition. Although I'm loath to ever move to limit an individual member, I would just say again to try to stay relevant to the specific motion that's on the floor, as well to be cautious with too much repetition, or we'll get to a point where I need to rule.

Please go ahead, Mr. Dong. Just explain the relevance to the original motion.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I respect that.

My point was that I just want to make sure that my colleagues on the committee understand where I'm coming from, because I am protesting about a comment made about my motion. I talked about how in the last meeting there were motions put forward by substituting members. These were allowed, debated and voted on.

In contrast, none of the motions put forward by the Liberals were accepted or debated or voted on. I think that speaks to a phenomenon that we're right in the middle of. Then, to have another member from the Conservative Party coming in and calling my motion, which at the time I thought was in order, a disgrace, I think that was disrespectful. I just want to make it clear and make sure that gets on the record.

Coming back to the motion and talking about the medical supplies procured by the government and the services procured by the government, we have to also look at the context that COVID has put us into. Throughout this unprecedented crisis, this side of the committee has been working to keep Canadians safe. As well, protecting our economy was an investment into our small businesses—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I think my colleague should rephrase things. The fact is that the Liberals have obstructed our committee for well over 30 hours and are continuing to do so. They don't get to say that on their side they're concerned about keeping Canadians safe. All of us, as representatives of our regions, work full out, from any party, on the issue of safety.

I think it's really, really not acceptable for the Liberals to claim that they're the ones who care about people's safety because they're obstructing the work of this committee. That is a ridiculous assumption to make, and I think he needs to retract that.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

That is not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It is not.

Go ahead, Mr. Dong.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

All members, as Mr. Angus said, have a responsibility to make sure that everyone who needs help gets help. Canadians have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to slow down the spread of the virus.

I want to give out a shout-out to the doctors and nurses and health care providers on the front lines, especially in my riding. I went out very early on and reached out to the six long-term care facilities in my riding, making sure they had enough PPEs and making sure they were getting enough support from their provincial government and from the marketplace, even, because some of them—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd ask that you begin to rule on relevance. We continue to hear unrelated conversations about things that have nothing to do with the motion or the amendment. I would ask that you ask the member, again, to move to a relevant topic that relates to the things we're currently debating.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

Mr. Dong, please let us know how this relates to the motion, okay?

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Absolutely. The motion is about procurement, about procurement by the government, which includes PPE and ventilators.

What I'm saying here is that, first, we have to look at the background, at the challenges faced by the government and also our front-line workers and health care professionals so that we have a full understanding of the challenges in the procurement area. We're not talking about right now. Going back to April and May, we all saw, through the media, how competitive it was to get our hands on PPE. That's why I was reaching out to local hospitals. That's why I tried to liaise and to connect those who had the resources, who had the PPE, with those who had a serious shortfall of those products.

So I think it's very relevant. If we're going to look at the entire practice of government procurement, we have to understand the background and the conditions at the time. Then we will understand the plan and the execution of the procurement. I think it's relevant.

I also want to give a shout-out to students at Seneca. In May everything was shut down. We kept hearing that some of the front-line workers, a very small number of them, were afraid for their own safety, for their family's safety. There was a serious shortage on that front. But at Seneca, a class of recent graduates stepped forward, over 200 of them, the majority of whom were international students. I can understand why the government, through its ministry of citizenship and immigration, came out with policies to recognize the contributions made so far by non-Canadians trained in Canada with this kind of skill. Again, I want to give a shout-out to those individuals as well.

This work by the front-line workers is critical. That is why the government remains laser focused on securing personal protective equipment and medical supplies that they need, particularly as we see the resurgence of the virus. Canadian health care workers and essential service workers are in need of critical PPE, ventilators and rapid tests. That is what we, as a government, have done. The COVID expert panel, at the request of the Public Health Agency of Canada, and through PSPC, awarded a contract to FTI medical to produce, in Canada, ventilators designed to save the lives of Canadians.

We are proud of our work to support the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and secure the equipment and supplies needed to save lives during this crisis. It is a public health crisis. It seems to me that, especially at the beginning of COVID, we did not have enough supplies to support the work of the first-line health care workers. Over the past month, we have managed to procure enough critical PPE to meet the needs of Canadians while operating in a hyper-competitive market driven by unprecedented global demand. In Canada, especially at the very beginning of COVID, our manufacturing sector was not equipped and was not prepared to produce made-in-Canada equipment. We heard horror stories about PPE being intercepted at the border or in the middle of airports. We were put in a very terrible situation, actually, and I have to commend the government for doing a great job with a short turnaround.

Remember—I think it was the middle of March—when public servants were asked to work from home? With all that resistance, the government was able to move very quickly, not just to secure the very needed PPE and medical equipment internationally, but to also very quickly support our domestic production. I remember that there was an announcement to put in $600 million to boost production capacity in case we would find a vaccine for COVID-19. That was planned back in February, if I remember this correctly, so you can see how swift the government's response has been in boosting domestic production.

Thanks to those efforts, Canada's PPE is being produced here in Canada. I remember that my office was receiving so many calls from the community and from local businesses that were able to get their hands on PPE and that wanted, through our office, to donate to those institutions or organizations, including food banks, North York General Hospital and long-term care facilities that were in serious need of PPE. Very quickly, we were able to meet those demands.

I also facilitated and helped some of these donors to donate to neighbouring ridings, to hospitals in downtown Toronto and in Mississauga, because we were in it together. We heard the health minister say that this virus has no boundaries. It doesn't care if it's in Don Valley North or it's in Oakville, right? Helping everybody was the theme at the time.

We've also seen a tremendous amount of community leaders stepping up. In my riding, which is a very diverse riding, we've seen leaders stepping up from the Chinese Canadian community and collecting donations, going out and securing PPE and delivering lunch. We've seen leaders from the Tamil community, owners of local restaurants, donating food to nurses and doctors working so hard on the front lines and saving lives. We've seen leaders from the Muslim community stepping up and sharing best practices to provide supports for those who had just arrived in Canada. In following the quarantine rules—having to stay home for 14 days and with very limited access to friends and family—they were supported by the community leaders and the community volunteers. These are all very heartwarming facts in terms of fighting COVID with very limited resources at a time when there was very limited access to PPE and medical equipment.

Chair, as you can see, I can go on and on about the dozens of Canadian companies with stories about individuals who stepped up to produce PPE, rapid tests and other products, including ventilators. Companies in Calgary, Winnipeg, Saint John, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Montreal, and cities and towns across the country have worked tirelessly while upholding the highest standards of transparency and providing regular updates to Canadians and members of the House about our procurement work without jeopardizing the integrity of these procurements. I remember that from May through to July, I was on a call almost every day talking with staff and officials in different departments and trying to pass on some information about access to PPE or passing on advice on things we needed to do to protect our seniors.

I thought the government's response was very, very quick. At the time, not just within the Liberal Party, the minister held daily briefings with all party members and senators. I heard at the time that the leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May, was commended for that initiative by the health minister and also noted the changes that she saw very quickly after her suggested advice to the minister.

Those were examples—rare but very good examples—of where all party members pulled together their creativity, their network and their information to support the government's work, whether in public health policy or procurement policy.

I saw that the ministry came out with a portal because it had received an overwhelming amount of information and evidence of willingness by Canadian businesses that were trying to help. They didn't want to be the bottleneck, so they created a portal to take these goodwill offerings. It was later transformed into an online what I would call “marketplace”. Businesses that couldn't access PPE could go onto this portal and talk to the suppliers directly. I thought that was a very, very smart move. It was appreciated by businesses all around, trust me.

I go out and speak to the businesses in my riding. I often start my conversations by asking them if they have enough PPE to carry on. They have to make sure their staff are safe and well protected. Indirectly that is protecting their customers as well.

Chair, since March, our government has been engaging in an unprecedented effort to ensure that Canadians have the supplies they need to stay healthy and safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our procurement experts have worked day and night aggressively buying from all available suppliers and distributors to secure precious PPEs for Canadians.

Today, we continue to operate in the highly competitive global market, in which the entire world is seeking out the same material, including masks, tests, gloves, and gowns. Supply chains remain stressed.

Negotiations are ongoing with a number of companies in these fields. Even still, we will be producing PPE well into the future to help Canadians be safe today and tomorrow. Putting companies before this committee, based on nothing more than the fact that one of the partners in a consortium is a former Liberal MP—I don't know him personally, but he is just one partner in the consortium—could put at risk Canada's ability to do the important work needed.

We have a duty to Canadians to protect the integrity of the procurement system, and we take that very seriously. Our government has kept Canadians informed of what we have been doing to protect them. Since April we have taken steps to be as transparent as possible to keep all citizens, including members of the House, fully up to date on our work.

We have made public the process we are following to procure key COVID-19 supplies. As orders have arrived and continue to arrive, Canadians have been able to consult the PSPC website for a regular update and overview of purchases and deliveries, which is how the contract for FTI became public. In fact, the website includes a nice overview to show how money has been spent on procuring PPE during the pandemic. I'll just give an example to the committee and to my colleagues.

This is a summary of aggregate procurement dated October 15, so it's quite recent. We have a lot of equipment here: vinyl gloves, $2.2 million; N95 respirators, $655 million; surgical masks, $239 million; cloth masks, $34 million; face shields, $261 million; goggles, $23 million; gowns, $1.7 billion; and other protective clothing, $30 million. The government spent $375 million on hand sanitizer. Other PPE—thermometers, accessories, autoclave bags, thicker rubber gloves—cost $21 million; testing equipment, $688 million; ventilators and ventilator accessories, $1.14 billion; and other medical equipment, $293 million. The total amount of protected contract values was $162 million. Together it amounted to about $6 billion.

What's more, an important part of our committee is transparency and accountability. The government is publicly disclosing contracting information to the fullest extent possible while protecting our supply chain. I just want to cite a few. This is all public information. There's one about ABC Technologies. The commodity is face shields for $3.49 million. There's one about AMD Medicom Inc. for N95 respirators and surgical masks. The amount is shown to the decimal: $116,076,840.61. There's a whole bunch being disclosed on the government website. I could go on and on with this big list.

My point is that we have been quite transparent with the products, the PPE and medical supplies, that we have purchased. We've been quite clear with the contracts and the types of commodities and for how much. It's all disclosed online. This information, which is also available on the PSPC website, includes the names of suppliers and the amounts of the contracts. We are regularly updating these sites. To protect Canada's order and our negotiating position, only certain procurement information is being protected. As a government, we have been and will continue to be here to support Canadians. We have their backs with the necessary PPE to keep hospitals, long-term care homes and emergency services functioning.

As well, Mr. Chair, Canadians have been regularly updated on the purchase of PPE as well as new manufacturing contracts with Canadian and international companies through frequent announcements. We have been providing updates on agreements that the government has signed with several companies to secure Canada's access to the most promising vaccines being developed around the world. We're also moving swiftly to ensure that Canada has access to the most effective and efficient testing solutions possible. Along the way, we have been informing Canadians about the agreements we have made with these companies as well as the type and quantity of kits we are procuring.

Let me assure you, Mr. Chair, that our government is committed to providing Canadians, including the members of this committee, with as much information as possible about our efforts to respond to COVID-19. As supply chains for essential equipment and supplies stabilize, we will continue to publicly disclose more contract information. Canadians deserve to have as much information as we can provide without jeopardizing our procurement for critical PPE. That's a risk we simply will not take.

Despite the hyper competitive global market, the government has acquired billions of units of PPE, including masks, N95 respirators, face shields, hand sanitizer and protective gowns and gloves, and more is on the way. We achieved this with a two-pronged strategy in reaching out to multiple suppliers overseas to procure existing supplies and secure future shipments and also calling out to innovative Canadian companies that have been stepping up to produce the most vital PPE here at home. That stability will be even more crucial now that COVID cases are once again on the rise.

Now more than ever, our procurement efforts must continue with full force. Canada remains focused on acquiring enough supplies to allow us to face every scenario in this pandemic. These are extraordinary times. As this government works to ensure Canadians are supported and safe, we will continue to keep Canadians informed of our efforts to keep them safe.

Chair, let me reiterate that as COVID cases climb across the country, we need to ensure that Canadians are prepared for all scenarios. This pandemic is the most serious public health crisis Canada has ever faced and keeping Canadians healthy and safe is our number one goal.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, Mr. Dong was saying earlier how bad he felt because in all of the motions that were brought forward, the Liberals hadn't shown up, but now, to be using the pandemic to divert the work of our committee, to stop us from working, while trying to hide behind the high numbers, I find that it's just not very credible or respectable.

We have a motion before us. The motion is regarding how these payments were made, and for Mr. Dong to be using the pandemic and people's fear of the pandemic as a reason to filibuster and talk the clock out.... We're now into our 33rd hour of the Liberal obstruction. I ask him, if he's going to obstruct and interfere with our committee, to at least stay focused on the subject at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Dong, go ahead.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

If this committee wants to do the work that actually matters to Canadians, then I would suggest that we focus our work on the original motion put forth by Mr. Angus. I'm not in disagreement with Mr. Angus. It's just that what I'm having a problem with, quite honestly, is that a vote took place not once but twice before the committee and lost. The motion was rewritten, almost identically in some parts, into the form—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Point of order, Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Statements made must be accurate. This is the eighth time I've heard that we will not accept the decision not to revoke a decision when a mistake has been made. Let's face the situation now, take the bull by the horns and vote, after 33 hours of deliberations.