Evidence of meeting #16 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chinese.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Perhaps I could just provide some clarity to Mr. McCauley. I know he's been a member of OGGO for quite a long time. Obviously, as he knows, all government contracts are normally published online. Everyone can go and see them.
In this circumstance it's not as if we're buying McDonald's hamburgers. They're not everywhere across Canada and the whole world is trying to procure them. There are successful suppliers. I don't think it's very prudent for us to publish the suppliers'...right now, as it stands, so that we tell the whole world we have a great supplier in China, or wherever it may be, so others can procure them and potentially increase the prices Canada is currently buying at. I just don't see that as a prudent approach.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I'll just respond to that.
If you were watching the virtual Parliament today, the fake Parliament, you saw Minister Anand go on and on about how many great Canadian suppliers are already producing N95 masks. I don't believe that's true, but she states it's true. She listed off so many that, frankly, if this information is provided to this committee by the end of July, according to Minister Anand we'll have more than enough domestically producing suppliers that we won't have to worry about the one or two odd ones in China getting stolen from us.
Frankly, we're not getting any decent PPE masks out of China. I don't know why we're continuing to try to cover up and hide the names of these disreputable suppliers, especially when the minister herself today bragged on and on about how many great companies in Canada were producing PPE and masks right now. Surely if they're doing so at the beginning of June, they'll ramp up enough by the end of July and we won't have to rely on disreputable or dishonest foreign suppliers.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
I just want to respond briefly to Mr. McCauley. I haven't had a chance to review the transcript that he cited in terms of Mr. Matthews' testimony, but I think he may be conflating two issues.
Mr. Matthews did talk about potential problems in the supply chain and did talk about long-standing relationships. I don't think he ever necessarily combined the two, but I would want to reserve the ability to review his testimony, and I will begin with the assumption that Mr. McCauley didn't mean to quote him out of context or even paraphrase him.
The second issue is, I don't think the Minister of Public Services and Procurement has ever maintained that we can entirely replace Asian, Chinese or other international supply arrangements with entirely Canadian industrial capacity.
I think very much the point that she makes is that we are succeeding in bending that curve, in diversifying our supply arrangements and then creating some very real success stories here in Canada with respect to PPE and other commodities, which we are obviously proving to be very adept at producing here in Canada.
I think on the larger point, and I'll finish on this, Mr. Chair, is that the motion that is before us—speaking now to the main motion even though I think technically we're still on the amendment—is very broad and very all-encompassing and would involve all of the same people in replying to it who are involved precisely in securing supplies of personal protective equipment for Canadians and essential workers as we speak.
It is an unreasonable timeline; in fact, I think even an August timeline is an unreasonable timeline for the amount of information that's been requested.
No one is disputing Parliament's right or ability, of course, to examine all of this information in the fullness of time, but it will take a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of senior people to compile it all.
Understanding that must be done, I would call upon the reasonableness of my colleagues across the way in affording more time and in somewhat limiting the scope of the request so that we can give them the information they're looking for, and do so in a reasonable amount of time and not imperil the very considerable efforts that we have under way to secure this incredibly important equipment for Canadians.
Thank you.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate all of the interventions made by my colleagues. Of course, I would view the amendments that were put forward by Mr. Drouin as friendly.
I think there's probably still some debate between my colleague Mr. McCauley and Mr. Drouin when it comes to the deadline, but I would see both of these amendments as friendly.
I guess I have one question that I would want to put to the clerk: Can we request that commercial sensitivity be assessed by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Perhaps I will break from tradition here and go to Paul now on this specific question before we go to Madam Vignola.
2:55 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Paul Cardegna
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to the competing privileges that exist, for example, Mr. Green mentioned the privilege that parliamentarians hold versus the privilege that cabinet confidentiality holds. For another example, Ms. Block also talks about the sensitivity of commercial information that may not be permissible for a committee to ask, but what constitutes that?
These are questions that—I'm being very honest—to some degree are in a legal context and outstrip my specific expertise. What I would say to the committee is that the committee can always ask for the documentation; the committee may not receive it.
In the event that the committee, having sent for documents, does not receive the documents, the only thing the committee can do at that point is report to the House and allow the House to pursue this. Some members may remember in 2009-2010, this was what happened with the Afghan detainee issue that led to a seminal ruling by Speaker Milliken.
My best arguments to the committee would be, if you're not sure in this case of knowing whether one privilege applies or not, to put it forward and see what documents are presented back to you. At that point the committee can then decide, if it doesn't receive the documents it wants, how it wishes to proceed further.
Aside from that, if you want a more definitive answer, I would have to check the law clerk's office. At that point, I would have to say that I can't give you an answer right at this moment before you decide.
I hope that's clear. I'm not entirely sure it is, but that's what I can offer you at this time.
Thank you.
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'm not sure if it's up to me to make this suggestion, but I'd just like to know if we can let Mr. Nagy go get the rest he needs, because we're debating and will probably still be going after 3 p.m.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much.
I would like to try to adhere to our deadline of 3 p.m. eastern time.
Mr. Drouin.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, could I make a recommendation? I'm not sure whether Mrs. Block would agree, but perhaps given that there's one minute left to our official time, can we take it off-line and have a discussion so that all parties can agree to something and actually move forward on that particular motion?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
If Mrs. Block agrees to that and temporarily withdraws her motion for discussion, that would be a pretty valuable compromise.
Mrs. Block.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the suggestion by my colleague, and I agree to withdraw my motion temporarily so we can get that clarification and have those conversations.
3 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't know if this is the appropriate time, but is it possible for us to actually invite the parliamentary law clerk to the committee?
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
If you're talking about inviting the law clerk to discuss this particular motion, now would not be an appropriate time to do that. We would have to deal with the amended motion first.
3 p.m.
NDP
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Mr. Green, the committee now has full restorative powers. That was decided a couple of weeks ago. Whether it's to discuss COVID-19 or any other matters, this committee certainly has the power to invite any witnesses it wants, including the law clerk.
With that, colleagues, seeing that we have an agreement between Mrs. Block and Mr. Drouin for Mrs. Block to temporarily withdraw her motion so a discussion can be held off-line and she may want to reintroduce that motion after that discussion takes place—
3 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, on a minor point of procedure, it does require the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw a motion. May I ask you to canvass that? Alternatively, I can put that to a question by recorded division to ensure that all the members of the committee are in agreement with withdrawing the motion.
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you, Paul. I would ask that you put that to a recorded vote.
Colleagues, that is, of course, as discussed, for Mrs. Block to temporarily withdraw her motion.
(Motion withdrawn: yeas 10; nays 0)
3 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much.
Dr. Nagy, we thank you for your appearance here today. Unfortunately, your testimony was cut short somewhat because of our discussion regarding this motion. However, on behalf of the entire committee, I want to sincerely applaud you for staying awake until 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. Tokyo time to discuss your views and opinions with our committee. It is very much appreciated, and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to question you again sometime in the near future.
Colleagues, with that, we are now adjourned.