Government Operations Committee on Oct. 26th, 2020

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

I am trying to understand Mr. Paul-Hus' motion. A motion has just been tabled in the House requesting the production of documents related to this matter in the Standing Committee on Health. There is also a similar study in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Members of the official opposition have assured us that they are acting in good faith and that they do not intend to call Health Canada officials, who are busy responding to the second wave of the pandemic. However, if the motion is adopted, they will appear before our committee, and then possibly before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We already know that they will certainly appear before the Standing Committee on Health. I am trying to understand the reasoning behind such a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Paul-Hus, do you want to answer that?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes, certainly, Mr. Chair.

First of all, it is a very clear and public record that specifically relates to the awarding of contracts by the department. There is overwhelming evidence...

Mr. MacKinnon, you seem to think this is funny.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Forgive me, I was speaking to my colleague.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I think it's good that we're meeting in person. It allows us to see each other and see the management problems we have.

We believe this event requires immediate investigation. We're talking about $137 million in overpayments by the Government of Canada for ventilators that should have cost $100 million at most instead of $237 million. There is also the obvious link between former Liberal MP Frank Baylis, who works through an intermediary, and the government.

Everyone knows about this story, it's public, and it's the job of this committee to get to the bottom of it. It will not put the safety and lives of Canadians at risk, as the Liberals have been saying all day. We are talking about a $237 million contract. That is a quarter of a billion dollars, for those who can count. We have a right to know what is going on with this contract and how Frank Baylis was able to get it through indirect means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Lloyd, go ahead.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

My quick point here, in response to Mr. Drouin's point, is that I don't think it's up to our committee to presume what the other committees may or may not be studying in the future.

I think it's completely fair game. I agree with my colleague Mr. Paul-Hus that this is a fair motion for this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

I have Mr. McCauley, and then Mr. MacKinnon.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm fine, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Okay.

Mr. MacKinnon, go ahead.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I want to make sure that we are discussing Mr. Paul-Hus' motion right now. I see that we are.

First, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics agreed to study the same thing. The reasonable Canadians who are listening to us and who see what has just been voted on in the House of Commons, which is a motion to study 28 topics and to review documents that could never be read in five human lives, can see that this is an opposition fishing expedition to look for documents. There are now several committees that want to study each and every instance of government procurement.

Here we are in the second wave of a pandemic, where officials from different sectors of government are responsible for the procurement of essential equipment and the delivery of emergency income support programs, which are vital to our people, our SMEs and our businesses. These people ensure that information technology is operating at full capacity. They have to take care of all this while maintaining relationships with partners, the provinces, territories, labour, employers, business, community organizations, and so on.

However we are debating whether we are going to require the filing of documents for a single procurement. This suggests that the opposition parties are not consulting each other before tabling all these motions. There is a proposal for a shipbuilding study, and certainly this is an issue worthy of study. Shipbuilding represents one of the largest procurements in Canadian history and is truly national in scope.

We have agreed to study information technology systems, another subject rich in possibilities, and some other procurements. I believe that my colleagues and I have demonstrated complete transparency and openness by agreeing to productive studies that would allow Canadians to see that, at the very least, members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates are able to work together, roll up their sleeves and agree to do proactive work that will ultimately benefit Canadians.

In the previous Parliament, I believe I did this with Mr. Drouin, Mr. Jowhari and Mr. McCauley. We did some studies that added to the government's thinking, philosophy and direction on very important issues, whether it was procurement, information technology or government operations. We've also looked at some fairly controversial topics, such as payroll systems. We were able to work together.

Welcome, Mr. Chair. I'm a little sorry that you're arriving while we're in such turmoil.

Now we are receiving proposals for review of each of the topics, procurements, issues and opportunities. We know that the Public Accounts of Canada will be made public. The government will be fully transparent and will be judged on all of its actions and initiatives in this pandemic environment.

I'm making a plea before my colleagues and the public today. Let's be constructive. If a committee of the House wants to look at a certain issue or several other issues that need to be examined from top to bottom as we see fit, the government party will be on board. We are offering to work together on some important issues, such as pandemic procurement.

Canada must be able to produce the essential equipment needed to deal with this pandemic. Now we are debating a single purchase as part of our initiative to build a national manufacturing force to deal with the pandemic. I'm talking about the supply of ventilators. A number of companies that did not manufacture ventilators have dropped their regular operations to respond to the Government of Canada's call. That is also what the auto parts manufacturers have done. The president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association told us that the companies that responded to the federal government's call to produce the ventilators, if they were needed, did so not out of partisanship but out of national pride. We thank them for that.

The Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has taken the initiative to go after what is needed to build strong national capacity. It has worked hard, day and night, in partnership with the Department of Public Services and Procurement. It responded to the government's request for help in building the national capacity that Canadians wanted so badly. We have received calls from citizens, governments, partners, unions and the medical community from all walks of life who have made it clear to us that Canada needs to regain its standing in the medical equipment supply chain. That is what the government has done, and it has done so very quickly.

We agree to study this initiative, just as we agree to study the issues that affect the departments that this committee usually deals with.

Once again, I invite my colleagues to be constructive and to agree to work together. Let's not show bad faith. Let's do the important studies that have been proposed by all members of the committee. Let's set a reasonable schedule. Let's call the necessary witnesses in an orderly fashion so that we don't overwhelm the people who are working to protect all the citizens of our country. Let's do studies that will be constructive. That is why we have been sent here by the voters.

If some want to undo all we've done and ask for a parliamentary committee study on each of the purchases, we're going to be here for five Parliaments, Mr. Chair. We published details of $6 billion in purchases on the website in a transparent manner this summer.

So I reach out to my colleagues. Let's work together. Mr. Chair, I think what you are implicitly telling us is that we should decide together, in a subcommittee, on the order of business of the committee, and resume our work, which has been suspended, in the interest of the voters. We need to provide mature and orderly reflection to the government.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is chaired by the official opposition, and I maintain that this gives you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Paul-Hus, some responsibility for the choices we make here together. We're in a minority, so you're in the driver's seat, if you put your heads together. However, it does give you a certain responsibility, in my opinion, to present us with a work plan, so that we consider it, the Bloc Québécois considers it, the New Democratic Party studies it, and we decide on our work plan together.

I'm reaching out to you. There's a great deal of material. We want to proceed in a completely transparent way and to treat this work with the seriousness that it requires. Mr. Chair, I hope that we can decide together on a working plan that will benefit Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon.

I agree with you on the fact that a working plan is what we need. That working plan is what our whole purpose is about. It's creating that working plan, getting to those motions so they can get to the subcommittee, which should be following this meeting, such that the subcommittee can determine the studies we need to do. The faster we can get through this, the better it will be. I ask everybody to try to adhere to that.

I notice that everybody is wishing to speak.

Mr. Paul-Hus, I have you. I'm going to let you respond later. We'll hear from everybody else before we give you a chance to respond to people. Some of the questions that are coming from others are directed at you. I'll hold you for a little bit.

I have Mr. Kusmierczyk, then Mr. Weiler, and then Mr. Paul-Hus after that. They are followed by Mr. Drouin, Mr. McCauley, Madame Vignola, and Mr. Jowhari.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to ask if my honourable colleague Mr. Paul-Hus could reread the motion. I'm not entirely clear I understood the exact motion here. I just want to be clear before I add my comments to the discussion. If possible, I'd ask that my colleague be allowed to reread the motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I'll reread it for you, and I'll do it in English:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the federal contract of 10,000 pandemic ventilators awarded to FTI and fabricated by Baylis Medical, and that the committee report its findings to the House in November 2020.

Did you want to add to that?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, may I speak to that? I'm not sure if I used up my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Yes, certainly.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Chair.

I really do appreciate the question from my colleague, although I'm struggling to understand this, knowing that, again, other committees are taking up this work. Just going back to my original point in previous meetings, I'm struggling to understand the value of this particular committee taking up this study at this particular point in time.

When we look at where we are today and where we were many months ago when it comes to medical procurement, we've taken a whole-of-government approach focused on responding to the COVID-19 outbreak. We've worked with partners across all levels of government. We've worked with industry to secure PPE and life-saving medical supplies.

My wife is a nurse practitioner. I remember early on having a conversation with her after seeing what was happening in countries such as Italy with the challenges they had with PPE and medical equipment. I recall the conversations we had, not just about what was happening in Italy, but about what was happening right across the river in Detroit and southeast Michigan. We were seeing hospitals being inundated and overwhelmed and doctors and nurses struggling to get PPE, struggling to get medical equipment, as the first wave washed over Detroit and southeast Michigan. We saw it literally. We saw it on the news every single day.

Mr. Chair, I have to tell you that in Windsor we have 1,500 Canadian nurses who live in Windsor and who travel across the border each and every day to work in American hospitals. We didn't have to watch the news. Many of us know such Canadian cross-border nurses. We were getting information first-hand on what they were experiencing in Detroit with the lack of PPE and medical equipment and the challenges they were facing. Some of them were asked to carry their masks home with them in a paper bag and bring them to work the next day.

Those are some of the things we were thinking about back then, when the first wave hit. With this tremendous effort on the part of the government and on the part of local industry, Canadian industry, we mobilized. We've had the largest peacetime mobilization of industry to produce PPE and medical equipment. We've made this incredible leap from where we were to where we are now. It's absolutely incredible.

We have this momentum that we've established over the last number of months. I think it's important that we see that momentum carry through. We've heard over the last six months and in the summer that we're in a much better position now than we were back in March. That's thanks to the tremendous work of the government, the tremendous work of our officials, the tremendous work of industry and partners—our provincial partners as well—and others who really worked together to acquire the necessary PPE.

We've also been able to bring online production, in terms of long-term planning—the 3M facility in Brockville, and Medicom—to make N95 masks, face shields, gowns, as well as makers of non-medical masks. Again, we've mobilized all our forces and all our folks in order to address PPE and medical equipment, not just in the short term but also in the long term. At this point in time, well over 70% of our orders for face shields have been received. And I might add that the majority of those are from Canadian manufacturers. We received 85% of our orders for hand sanitizer, including from companies like Fluid Energy in Calgary.

Again, we're heading in the right direction. We're gaining momentum here, and that's important because we are preparing for a second wave. The last thing we need is to take the attention of our officials, and all the partnerships that we've built, away from developing and continuing to build up our stockpiles, continuing to build up our PPE, or continuing to build up our medical devices. We can't afford for folks to take their eyes off the ball at this critical juncture, especially knowing that there is a second wave upon us.

Again, you look at the fact that as the numbers are rising around the country, we are starting to get nervous. I can tell you that, again, even having those conversations with my wife, who's a nurse practitioner, my number one priority is to make sure that we have the PPE and the medical devices necessary to protect not only Canadians and their health, but also the health and safety of Canadians who are front-line health care workers.

Again, my concern—and this is something my colleague had brought forward—is that we're asking officials to basically attend meeting after meeting and take time away from their important, critical work just as we're entering the peak of the second wave. We're asking them to take time away from their important work to come here and testify, and to produce documentation, duplicate meetings rather than having one meeting focused on those discussions.

It represents for me a real clear and present—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm just trying to seek clarity. We will be meeting in subcommittee, and I was hoping that you could provide the committee with an update on how we are to proceed. My understanding is that we've already adopted four motions at this committee, which have been agreed to by all parties, and now I would hope that we would have a subcommittee meeting so we can get working on those four motions that we've already adopted at committee.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how we are going to proceed, or if we're going to keep scheduling committee business meetings without proceeding with those four motions that have already been adopted at this committee. I'm just seeking clarification on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin. I appreciate that.

Yes, we are at 5:30, and we would like to be able to get to subcommittee. I would ask that people, when they do their presentations, recognize that time frame so we can get to subcommittee to get some motions moved forward. It is up to the discretion of the committee as to how you want to proceed. At this point in time, I ask everyone to understand that and respond to that accordingly.

On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm just going to be blunt here. It's the intention of the governing party just to filibuster this out. We have a meeting at 5:30 for the subcommittee. I'm happy to sit here for hours and hours, but if that's your intent, let's just say so and move on to the subcommittee then. It's absolutely a waste of our time to continue this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

At this point in time, we are in discussion. If it's the intent of the committee to adjourn so that we move to the subcommittee, that has to be done from the floor. It cannot be done from a point of order.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Paul-Hus, go ahead.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

First, my colleague interrupted one of his colleagues. I don't mind. However, I should point out that we just lost 30 minutes, and we want to be efficient. The parliamentary secretary says that he wants efficiency, but everyone here seems to be intentionally wasting everyone else's time.

Of course, the Liberals don't want to hear about the motion involving Frank Baylis. That's their issue. However, we're talking about the effective management of public funds, and $237 million is no small amount. Even though another committee will study all the spending that has been done, we're fully aware that we'll never know the whole story. That said, once we find out about a situation, Canadians expect us to shed light on it. That's quite clear.

We now have evidence that the Liberals have no intention of helping the opposition members do their job. This is obvious. They're simply filibustering to waste everyone's time, when we're dealing with critical situations.

If we hadn't found out about the story involving WE, two brothers would have received $43 million to manage a $1-billion program. Now we're talking about a $237-million contract awarded to a former Liberal colleague, and the people on the other side don't want to hear about it. I can understand them, but it's not my job to support them in this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Green, do you have a point of order?