Government Operations Committee on May 8th, 2020

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate the time. I'll claim it all.

My comments will be directed to Ms. Sharleen Stewart.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the families of Christine Mandegarian, Arlene Reid and Sharon Roberts, as well as the untold number of other workers who have succumbed fatally to COVID on the front lines of health care. It could be argued, of course, that LTC is solely within the provincial jurisdiction, but given the scale of the tragedy and the magnitude of the loss within LTC, I think taking that line would be gravely irresponsible.

I want to cite something from investigative journalist Nora Loreto. She identified, through her research, that of the 4,408 Canadians who have died from COVID-19, 3,790 were in residential care. That's 85.9% of the deaths.

In previous questions, we heard about the ongoing inquiry into Ontario's LTC homes. Back in 2018, CBC reporter John Lancaster stated that he was shocked at how many of these facilities spend less per capita on feeding their residents than our prisons do on feeding their inmates. Of course, you referenced Pete Seeger's famous line, “Which side are you on?”

I'd like to talk about that and start there. Just how big is a company like Chartwell?

[Sharleen Stewart]

Chartwell is a big company. It's a North American-wide company. In Canada it is definitely one of the for-profit homes. I can share some numbers with you. Chartwell is valued at over $2 billion a year, and last year it paid out almost $130 million in dividends to shareholders.

These are nursing homes that are supposed to be.... Well, the public sees them as being not-for-profit because, of course, money comes from the public purse. The same amount of money goes to not-for-profits as goes to for-profits, so they are cutting money from the public envelope somewhere. I can tell you exactly where it is. You see it. It's on the front line. It's in the care for those seniors.

Not providing full-time work for personal support workers causes them to have one, two or three jobs. As to the hours of care, residents are getting, on average, about 1.9 to 2.25 hours of care per day. We are calling for it to be at least a minimum of four hours a day.

You have companies like Extendicare, which receives over $263 million a year in revenue from the Ontario government, and I can tell you, that money is not going to the front line. You can see it through this pandemic. The numbers are astounding. Notice the difference between deaths and infections in not-for-profit homes versus for-profit homes.

We need to do better, and that's what we're calling for in the inquiry. We're looking across the country to do the same thing.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's certainly not lost on me that these privatizations started under Mike Harris. He is now, of course, the chair of the board there at Chartwell.

We've heard you reference some other lobbying efforts that might be coming down the pike. I believe there is a call for extended EI instead of paid sick days. Why would that be an important thing for these big multi-billion dollar corporations to lobby for rather than having paid sick days for their workers?

[Sharleen Stewart]

It's because it's all in their best interests. Again, as I say, the lobbying is for their shareholders and certainly not for the seniors who are living in their homes in their dying years, or for those caregivers who can't seam together full-time work. Paid sick days are a dream. We did have it in Ontario, and then the government took it away, which was unfortunate.

We hear the chief medical officer saying that we have to stay away when we're sick. These low-wage earners cannot afford to do that. Again, the companies are putting away profits to that degree to the shareholders. A company like Revera is owned by the Canada Pension Plan. I think we need to start there. That's a federal issue. Take a look at that.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. Essentially, Bill Morneau can call them as the sole shareholder, tell them that he's not satisfied and have that company start there.

I have to say that if people are paying attention to this, to where the concentration is for lost seniors' lives, our most precarious people in long-term care, this is not only an outrage, but a national scandal.

We know that in terms of an inquiry, provincially this is being led in Ontario by your union, SEIU Healthcare. What can we do federally to provide a national inquiry or something of the sort to ensure that as we come into a second wave, we aren't leaving our most vulnerable people to be sacrificed once again?

[Sharleen Stewart]

Absolutely, and as I said in my opening statement, we have to be ready for the next wave and to make sure that there's proper personal protective equipment in these homes. We must have infection control measures. When we try to talk to these corporations, they're not talking to us. We should not see personal support workers wearing garbage bags to protect themselves because multinationals like Chartwell are not providing them with the proper personal protective equipment.

The inquiry is a pre-pandemic and post-pandemic one. We have to do better for the seniors of our country. They put a lot into our society. They deserve respect and dignity at the end of their lives.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I couldn't agree more.

The last question is for PSAC.

The Treasury Board is developing a back-to-work plan for reintegration. Have you been contacted and consulted, and are you satisfied with it?

[Chris Aylward]

Thank you, Mr. Green, for the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Give a very brief answer if you could, Mr. Aylward.

[Chris Aylward]

We have just started talks with the Treasury Board regarding a reintegration into the workplace. We have not seen the plan, but Treasury Board has committed that we will see it in the coming days. We look forward to consulting with Treasury Board on the reintegration into the workplace.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, sir, and my apologies once again for temporarily forgetting that you had six minutes left for an intervention.

Once again, thank you to all of our witnesses. It was a pleasure listening to your testimony. You are excused.

Colleagues, we will now take the remaining time, the remaining four minutes that we have before we have to adjourn, to talk a bit about witnesses following May 15. The committee did invite the witnesses listed on meetings eight and nine of the work plan that was dated May 8 of this year. The subjects of these meetings are the distribution of medical supplies and cybersecurity.

Raphaëlle, perhaps I'll turn it over to you for a more in-depth explanation of some of the witnesses that we have coming forward post-May 15.

[Raphaëlle Deraspe, Committee Researcher]

Yes, certainly, Mr. Chair.

The witnesses that we suggest from the work plan are, on the distribution of medical supplies, the Minister of Health, the president and chief executive officer of Canada Post, the vice-president of Amazon Canada and the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

As for the ninth meeting on cybersecurity, the proposed witnesses are the Minister of Digital Government, the president of Shared Services Canada and the chief technology officer of Shared Services Canada, as well as the director general. Also, we have officials from the Communications Security Establishment and, finally, a witness that we had today, Mr. Bilodeau, the acting chief information officer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Raphaëlle.

Colleagues, one other thing I should point out to you is that Monday, May 18 is Victoria Day. That doesn't mean we cannot meet virtually on that day. I believe the whips of all four parties are communicating with members to see whether or not they would like to have a meeting on that date, to cancel the meeting outright or to reschedule the meeting for sometime later in the week.

Could I get some comments from committee members?

Mr. Green, I see you have your hand up. Let's go to you first.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't know what it's like federally, but what are the implications for our staff? I want to be considerate about our staff having that day off or whatever would be granted to them in a typical scenario.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I'll ask Paul if he has more information.

That's a good question. I assume, Matthew, it would be all the staff who would work that day, should we have a meeting, would be subject to the normal holiday time regulations. They would get time and a half probably, perhaps double time. I believe it is a statutory holiday.

Paul, am I right or am I wrong?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Paul Cardegna]

Mr. Chair, you are right. It most certainly is a staff holiday. It's a statutory holiday. I don't know the exact provisions for everyone involved under their terms and conditions of employment.

I'm sure the whips are involved and are aware it is a statutory holiday. They are the ones responsible for setting the schedule, because they are balancing the resources among all the committees, including of course, the special committee on COVID. As a result, if the committee has preferences for which days it should meet, it would be more efficient for the members to talk to their whips directly because the whips are setting the schedule. We don't know what the schedule for the week of May 18 will be yet.

The analysts and I suggest that we isolate for the two meetings following May 15 the witnesses that Raphaëlle just read from the work plan that was distributed yesterday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Paul.

Colleagues, the normal practice has been that the whips announce the next week's meetings one week in advance, so we have not yet heard from the whips. Paul is quite correct. Our representative from the whip's office has contacted me. I'm not sure, Kelly or Ziad, if you have been contacted, but probably the best route is to communicate through your whips. I assume we will find out next week what the meeting schedule will be for the week of May 18.

I haven't heard anything yet, and I'm not sure if any other member of this committee has heard from their whips.

Paul, go ahead.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, the suggestion that the analysts and I are putting forward is that we identify which witnesses—and again Raphaëlle made the recommendation of those she read off who are isolated for our meetings eight and nine of yesterday's work plan—and that we contact them for the two meetings following May 15. I can't put down specific dates, but if the committee is interested in that proposal, we can put it to them for a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Paul.

Are there comments, anyone?

Kelly Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suggest that we contact our whips as soon as possible to voice our opinions as to whether or not we should be meeting on a statutory holiday. I don't know if we need to contact you, Tom, as a Conservative member, so you can communicate what we would prefer and then the others will do the same.

I don't think it's necessary for us to ask staff to come in on a stat holiday to do this work. We could potentially catch up in the following weeks, but I would leave that for other colleagues to speak to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Again, colleagues, the whips are the ones who will be determining the schedule. I've expressed my preference. For what it's worth, I've suggested because it is a stat holiday that we cancel the meeting outright and reschedule it, rather than have it on a stat holiday, but each of you, as was mentioned before, should get hold of your own whips and do it as quickly as possible.

Mr. McCauley, did you have a comment or question?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Yes. I have a comment.

We brought this up before about wanting our witnesses to table their remarks in advance rather than reading them. In today's meeting I think we took what felt like 40 minutes just having witness statements at the beginning, and the minister was going on and on, and flipping back from French to English. I'm wondering if, again, we can discuss, as a group, to agree that we're not going to take up our committee time listening to people read a written speech.

The second part is that I'm generally fine with postponing it. Maybe we can see if we can do it Tuesday morning before the virtual.... If not, we'll just move it back in the calendar.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Kelly, thank you. We've already discussed it once, but I'll turn it over to our clerk first, before I go to Mr. Green, about the problems with appending statements and going directly to questions. Because we're meeting virtually that's really not an option.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I realize that, but there's nothing that says they have to be able to make a statement to begin.