Government Operations Committee on April 24th, 2020

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I just want to point out a few things that Mr. Green has mentioned.

He's referred to the February 26 motion that was adopted by the committee, and I want to remind Mr. Green that it was prior to the House officially standing adjourned. It is my belief that members can present motions only pertaining to witnesses.

I would defer to you, Mr. Chair, but our understanding is that when the House is adjourned right now, as the rules were presented to us, members may present motions, but only as they pertain to specific witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

I do not see any other hands raised indicating a wish to participate, so in that case I'll make my ruling now.

Mr. Green, I'm going to have to find that your motion is inadmissible, but I do want to give you the rationale.

Number one, the House order that was adopted on April 11 was quite specific, in my view. It stated that the purpose of this meeting and subsequent meetings is only to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic and the government's response to it.

Additionally, it said that the role of the committee is to receive evidence. There was some discussion about the motion passed on March 24 that talked about a reduced quorum, and because of that reduced quorum, it had some restrictions on motions being presented at committee.

Some have argued now that we are back with a full quorum and having video conferences, the reduced quorum restrictions should be removed. However, the order of April 11 was quite specific stating that the exception to the normal practice of committees being able to introduce motions is now in effect on these committees. As a consequence, the only motions that may be accepted are motions pertaining to the scheduling and appearance of witnesses and the testimony that they may provide.

As much as I have great empathy for your motion, Mr. Green, and agree with Mr. McCauley that it would be wonderful for all of us to receive as much information as possible during this difficult time, we are constrained—and I, as Chair, am particularly constrained—by the terms of the motion that was passed. They being quite specific, unfortunately, Mr. Green, I have to rule your motion as inadmissible.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate your thoughtful response. Clearly you have given it some jurisprudence.

I'm happy to hold this notice of motion. Sometime, when we do make it back to the House, it will be put.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to our second round of questions.

Mr. Clerk, I don't have my list in front of me. Is Mr. McCauley the first up?

Mr. McCauley, you have five minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Matthews, maybe you could consider finding these documents that Mr. Green has asked for. Even though it's not a legitimate, so to speak, motion, maybe we can share them with the committee.

Let me get to a couple of things regarding the contaminated supplies, for example, the one million masks and the other contaminated items.

Were these items prepaid? Are we getting the money back for them, or is that money just gone?

[Bill Matthews]

On the mask front, Mr. Chair, the—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

—and any other items.

[Bill Matthews]

We can address both if you wish, Mr. McCauley.

The mask company has committed to supplying acceptable products, so they are standing behind their product. We have an ongoing relationship with them. We are looking at the masks in terms of what can be done with them. The relationship with the supplier will continue, and they are standing behind their product, Mr. Chair.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

But they are not appropriate products for Canada, and therefore, we have a million masks that we bought that cannot be used for what they were purchased for. Is the supplier keeping that money?

We've also heard of contaminated swabs and so on.

Is this money gone, or are we allowing them to keep the money? On contaminated equipment that is brought in for Canadian purposes and does not meet our standards, how much money have we spent on that so far?

[Bill Matthews]

In both cases, Mr. Chair, we have ongoing relationships with the suppliers, and they are working to address the quality issues.

In the case of the swabs, it was a pre-existing relationship, and it was a bad batch.

Our expectation, Mr. Chair, is that both companies will stand behind their products and make things right.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You're not answering the question, Mr. Matthews.

Frankly, I don't think Canadians care if we have a pre-existing relationship with the supplier. We cut them a cheque for products to be used for our doctors, for our nurses and to protect our elderly and they are clearly not acceptable for that purpose. Are these suppliers keeping taxpayers' money or will it be refunded to us?

If it's not going to be refunded to us, how much money have we spent on supplies that are not appropriate or do not meet Canadian standards, please?

[Bill Matthews]

I'll try one more time, Mr. Chair.

The company of the masks in question is going to provide replacement product.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Will this replacement product be up to our standards?

[Bill Matthews]

They are adjusting their production, and we're seeing new product now. To be acceptable to us, it has to meet our standards.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

For the million masks that we considered unacceptable, they're going to replace them outright without any additional cost to taxpayers. Is that what you're saying?

[Bill Matthews]

We are expecting them to stand behind their product. They have indicated they would.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Matthews, it's a straight yes or no question. Canadian taxpayers have a right to know, if we have purchased a million masks that are unsuitable to protect our doctors, nurses and our seniors, whether we are getting that money back.

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Are they going to replace them with appropriate products for Canadians, for our doctors and our nurses, or are we just going to let that money go away? It's a simple yes or no question.

[Bill Matthews]

I don't believe it's a simple yes or no question, Mr. Chair. The company is going to supply a replacement product to back up the masks.

The reason I hesitated on that is that it is not a filtration issue. We have issues with the masks, a large part of them to do with elastics, so if they can be used for something else, we will absolutely use them for something else, but these masks never made it into the medical system. To make it in, they have to pass the inspection by PHAC and meet Canadian standards, so our expectation is that we are getting replacement product.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Will that be at no extra charge?

[Bill Matthews]

That is my expectation, Mr. Chair.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay. How much in total have we spent on items that have not been deemed acceptable according to our standards?

[Bill Matthews]

There were two examples in play from a quality perspective, Mr. Chair. One is the swabs, which arrived and were not sterile. They were put back into the system after sterilization.

I am going to turn to Arianne Reza to get an answer on the swab question, but on—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

How much did it cost us then to fix those swabs? Are we paying for that or is the supplier paying for it?