Government Operations Committee on May 10th, 2021

[Debi Daviau]

It's actually quite a small number over the size of the public service. Public servants are no different from all Canadians. They still have to go out for essential reasons and take care of their essential business. They still have to care for others who are sick. They have kids in school who are sometimes bringing COVID home from school. Families who work as health care workers are bringing it home.

The majority of the cases are not transmitted in the workplace, but it is nonetheless reported as being a public servant who got COVID.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Daviau. Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

We'll now go to Ms. Vignola for six minutes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Daviau, just now, we were discussing the Phoenix pay system and the compensation being taxed. Ms. Girard told us that the decision on that taxation was up to the Canada Revenue Agency. For a number of weeks, I have been receiving letters asking for Mr. Duclos, the President of the Treasury Board, to come to an agreement with the agency. Each claims that the ball is in the other's court, you might say.

Can you explain the problem about taxing the compensation to us? I know it does not seem to have a direct connection with COVID-19, but public servants are devoted, committed people who have adapted quickly. Taxing that compensation seems to be sending them a message that they are going to be penalized, no matter what.

I would like to know your opinion about the situation between the Canada Revenue Agency and the Treasury Board Secretariat.

[Debi Daviau]

I will answer your question, but I feel that Chris Aylward could then give you a better answer than mine.

The issue is that we got into a legal settlement. Normally, legal settlements are not taxable. We appreciate the position of the Treasury Board that this is a decision that must be taken by Canada Revenue Agency since it's a decision based on income tax law, but we know that a lot of discussions have occurred between the two parties in coming to this decision. From our perspective, at least the damages portions of these settlements should not have been taxable.

I really think, to do it justice, you may want to ask this question of Chris Aylward of PSAC. They've been in the trenches fighting on this very issue.

[Chris Aylward]

Thank you for that, Debi.

Yes, it's a great question. Last fall, the Public Service Alliance of Canada negotiated a settlement for [Technical difficulty—Editor] suffering. That happened last fall.

We had an opinion from the CRA saying that they believed those monies were taxable, because it was in the settlement of a grievance. There was a meeting on February 3 between the Canada Revenue Agency, PSAC and Treasury Board, and it was agreed at that meeting that PSAC and Treasury Board would issue to the CRA an agreed statement of facts. I'm going to say that again, an agreed statement of facts, not opinion, not analysis, an agreed statement of facts.

Treasury Board has failed to sign that agreement of facts. We just received the letter from the CRA two weeks ago and the CRA said that, as agreed, it would review its decision if it received an agreed statement of facts. It went on to say that since that hadn't happened, it would not review its opinion on the matter.

You're absolutely right. The Treasury Board has failed to agree to this statement of facts, and we're asking our members to write to Minister Duclos to ask him to sign the statement of facts. As I said, it's a statement of facts. They're not opinions; they're not analysis. It clarifies what is in the agreement, and that's all it does. The Treasury Board is refusing to sign that agreed statement of facts, and that's what's the issue here.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you. Your answer makes things a lot clearer for me. I will be able to better structure the answers I will be giving to the hundreds of people who are writing to me.

Let me go back to the vaccines.

Currently, what percentage of the employees you each represent has been vaccinated?

I know it may be recent, but has there been an improvement in working conditions since the vaccination phase began?

Perhaps Ms. Daviau can answer first, then Ms. Stewart, then Mr. Aylward last.

[Debi Daviau]

I don't know specifically the percentage of my members, again. It's probably in line with the Canadian totals, but I would have to say that, if anything, it's maybe made it a little worse. It's increased the unknowns. There are some people who are having symptoms as a result of having had the vaccination shot, and they aren't able to secure code 699 leave to cover off the time period they might be sick following a vaccine.

For the moment, there have been no changes to the workplace, and no assurances about changes in workplace configuration or other health and safety concerns that have been mentioned throughout this testimony.... For the moment, the vaccinations have not played into improving the situation, but hopefully, as we crest the peak here, they will.

[Sharleen Stewart]

It's been varying between sectors. Long-term care obviously was the first to get it, and then hospitals are now getting their first vaccination. Today we had a good announcement that they're going to move them up to priority for the second one, so that they're fully vaccinated, but the ones who have been forgotten are the frontline home care workers. I mean, they have missed cues all along the way, and they are going into personal homes, as you know, so they need to be made a priority, and they need to get vaccinated right away.

The vaccine isn't the issue. I would say probably right now we're looking at about 60% of workers who have been vaccinated, but it's really hard to get information from the employer on how many have. The issue now, even during Nurses Week, is not so much the vaccine; it's the conditions of work. The last year has been horrific for them, so that's more of an issue than the vaccinations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Stewart.

We'll now go to Mr. Green for six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

It's certainly not lost on me that today marks the first day of National Nursing Week. I want to take this moment to thank all the incredible frontline nurses and health care workers across the country. I know that SEIU has a pretty significant nursing division and represents 60,000 workers.

I am also struck by the fact that we are almost a year to the day from some really poignant testimony that Ms. Stewart provided to this committee at the outset of this pandemic. I wish we could have been here under better news. I can recall the interview I conducted with the secretary-treasurer, Tyler Downey, when he first announced the loss of Christine Mandegarian, and of course all the pain and anguish that all the health care workers are experiencing across the country in terms of the absolutely disproportionate loss. I want to state that right now. It's estimated that 80% of all the deaths due to COVID-19, 25,000 deaths, are connected to long-term care facilities.

I was struck by the opening remarks of Ms. Stewart, when she named the members who have been lost from her local. I want to take a moment away from some of the administrative questions that have been asked and I want to give Ms. Stewart an opportunity, on this first day of nursing week, to honour those workers we have lost and perhaps share a bit more with the committee. I feel that in the order of magnitude of the loss, sometimes the individual stories are lost to us.

If Ms. Stewart agrees, perhaps she could share a little more detail about the people who died just because they went to work.

[Sharleen Stewart]

Certainly. Thank you for that, Mr. Green. It is really emotional. I have had too many conversations with families, calling them and asking what the union can do for them, and hearing their stories about their mothers and sisters passing away. These were women who passed away. It is a predominantly female sector.

Sadly enough, too often their families tell me that these women were really concerned about the personal protective equipment that they weren't getting. They were concerned about the conditions in the workplace. You know, the flags were being raised for decades and for months before these women died.

Again, all of the SEIU members, and most of the frontline health care workers, were women, and women of colour, and marginalized women in marginalized communities. They were immigrants. Many of them were single mothers. They struggled before this pandemic, but they continued to go to work. In many cases, their families begged them not to go to work. They were afraid they would get sick and bring it home, but they always put their residents first. No matter what, when they were in the news, that was the number one thing. They had hearts of gold. They cared so much about their residents. These workers are those residents' families, probably 75% of the time, but when I hear the stories about them....

You know, they are women and mothers who just want the dream of having a full-time job, one job—one job—so they can raise their children as single mothers and have a living wage. They don't want to be rich. They want a living wage, with benefits, with retirement security and with paid sick time. They often ask why the care economy, which is predominantly women, is not respected and dignified in the same way our male-dominated work is. Nobody should ever go to work and not return home, or return with a bad infectious disease. The solutions are so simple.

I honour them at every opportunity I have.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I share that honour with you. I would go further to say as a comment—and I won't ask you to comment on it unless you so choose—that I have called on the government to consider the application of the Westray law where there are instances of criminal negligence that have led to workplace death through either negligence or just as you've identified. It seems like, time and time again, the stories that come back are about workers who were asking for safe work environments and who were denied, through financial pressures, their ability to withhold or to refuse work, although legally they are allowed to do that.

I hope to have another round, but I'll share with you now that the way the publicly traded, for-profit sector has taken wage subsidies and paid out in dividends rather than providing and doubling down on the living wage and on the fuller-time, more secure employment, I think is going to go down as part of this national scandal. I hope that legislatively, as lawmakers, we can have within our frameworks accountability—again, through the Westray law, but I would also go even further, to extend it to political decision-makers—people who might have interfered from province to province on evidence-based expert advice and withheld funding or additional aid in the course of this pandemic. I hope there is an accountability framework in place so that this never happens again.

Mr. Chair, I know my time is running out. I will come back with some questions in my second round, just about what the standards might look like in a non-profit, taking the profit out of long-term care.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

That ends our first round.

We will now go into the second round.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.

I have received complaints from colleagues about personal protective equipment. The people involved work for the federal public service, including Canada Post, and the protective equipment they received was not adequate. The management of the procurement during the pandemic ran into some problems, especially with certain types of equipment. That led me to introduce a notice of motion to the committee a few days ago. Now that the required time frame has passed, therefore, I propose the following motion:

That the committee, as part of its study on the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, invite representatives from Tango Communication Marketing, as well as relevant officials from Health Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada to appear to provide testimony on the procurement of KN95 respirators by the Government of Canada.

As you know, last week, we learned in the media that the Government of Canada had sent $81 million to a Montreal company, Tango Communication Marketing, for the purchase of masks that turned out to be ineffective. No one even received the masks. Health Canada rejected them. We lost $81 million on one contract and we do not even understand how that happened.

We feel that it's important to shed light on the matter and to understand why the federal government handed over the money without knowing about the quality of the product.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus. You've tabled your motion.

I will call for a debate.

Mr. Drouin is first, and then Mr. McCauley.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We on our side have no problem at all with the motion itself, but I just have one procedural question. We know that this case is probably going to end up in court, so it may be that some witnesses decline to appear, in order not to incriminate themselves before our committee. I would therefore like to ask the clerk what options we have, in those circumstances, to have witnesses appear if they refuse to come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Clerk.

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

If I understand your question correctly, Mr. Drouin, you're asking what provisions or what powers the committee has to have witnesses appear. Or, are you asking more about the effect that the current...? The federal government is currently in a legal battle with the company Tango Communication Marketing. I didn't quite catch your question—I beg your pardon.

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

Mr. Paul-Hus's motion invites Tango to come before us, but they.... I know I'm not their lawyer, but I'm just presupposing that they may not want to appear before our committee, given the fact that their case is in a court. I'm just wondering this: In such circumstances, what are the options available to our committee?

[The Clerk]

It is true that there is a sub judice convention that exists that usually says that Parliament shouldn't deal directly with issues that are before the courts. However, there's quite a lot of leeway within that in the sense that it is a convention; it's not a hard and fast rule. It is something where members are advised to be careful when asking questions or when inviting witnesses. The sense is to not have Parliament prejudice a process that's already going on before the courts, in order to maintain the integrity and the independence of both branches of government, the legislative and the judicial.

That said, there are ample examples of committees inviting witnesses who were involved in legal issues. It's really an invitation. It's incumbent upon the witness to decide whether they want to appear or not. I would advise the chair and all members that in dealing with a situation where the sub judice convention is relevant, members should exercise significant caution when asking questions, to ensure that they are not putting the parliamentary process in a situation in which it may have an inadvertent influence on the process that is ongoing on the legal side.

The committee is still well within its powers under the standing orders. If a witness refused, the committee could still issue a summons for them to appear, but that is a last resort. Usually I would suggest that you invite the witness first.

It's difficult for me to say what would happen at this point, because I'm not sure if the witnesses will be forthcoming and wish to appear before the committee. However, when I was considering this motion, I did advise the chair, as I would advise all members, that caution should be used by the committee members when pursuing this, to ensure that there isn't seen to be any sort of infringement on the court's rights.

I hope I've answered your question. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Drouin, just to go further to you, if you are comfortable with that, I can tell you that I have looked at the sub judice convention and the rulings that have been made in the past. Recognizing that the avenue is there, we would need to proceed with caution, as the clerk has indicated, and make certain we're not putting anyone into a without prejudice type of issue along those lines.

That said, I feel that in this situation, as indicated, we should allow the debate and continue at this point.

Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

My concern was more long along the lines of what Mr. Drouin had put forward. If I hear the clerk correctly, it sounds as though we're fine with the motion; we just have to be careful with questioning.

[The Clerk]

If I may, Mr. Chair, on that point, to my mind there are essentially two separate issues here: whether the motion can move forward; and if the motion is adopted, what process does the committee follow when it's asking questions?

I would advise the committee to be cautious at all times when dealing with an issue that is before the courts. That said, there's nothing that prohibits the committee from inviting this group to appear, and there's nothing that prohibits the chair from a ruling one way or the other.

Again, if the chair rules either admissible or inadmissible, any member could challenge that ruling. That said, I would advise caution, based on the idea that the committee wants to make entirely sure that it does not appear to be trying to influence or prejudice the process currently happening before the courts. It's really up to the committee to decide how it feels it is appropriate to exercise that caution.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think that clarifies it, and I thank Mr. Drouin for bringing it up, because it's similar to what I was going to ask.

Thanks, Mr. Clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

Is there any further debate? I'm not seeing any.

With that, I would ask that if anyone is in disagreement with this motion to indicate that at this point in time.

(Motion agreed to)