Government Operations Committee on Dec. 16th, 2021

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I can't agree more with my colleague from the Bloc. This is starting to become preposterous. There are 17,000 public servants working for PSPC. To say that we can't get an inventory, especially after the scandal of the government throwing out all the supplies of the national emergency stockpile years ago...I'm pretty sure that even this government caught on that this was a problem and would make preparations to ensure they knew how much was in stock. To say that it would take months of study to figure this out I think is just bogus.

This government also gave a sole source contract to a Canadian company to produce 4.4 million masks a year for the government. These masks are in production and have been for many months, so there are Canadian masks available.

Further, they gave a $23-million gift to a massive American company with a market capitalization of something like $33 billion. We gave them a corporate gift to make 25 million masks a year in Brockville, Ontario, so we do have the Canadian masks here. Surely, if the government has prepurchased all of these masks from China, we can certainly shift them to hospitals and other areas.

I will note this in regard to the comment about the WTO: If my colleague had tuned in to any of the previous OGGO meetings, you would have noticed that since the start the government invoked the national security exemption to bypass any trade deals, and also made changes to legislation to avoid having to comply with any of the trade deals when making emergency purchases.

I just can't understand why there's this desire to protect foreign- and especially Chinese-made masks when we have taxpayer-funded masks being made in Quebec and Ontario. It is deplorable that we are not using taxpayer-funded masks made by Canadian companies.

I want to repeat a quote from the previous PSPC minister: “It has become evident that when it comes to long-term solutions to Canada’s needs, domestic production is a reliable, important and effective solution and one that must continue to be at the forefront of our minds from a procurement perspective.”

This is our own minister saying this. I think my colleagues, the Liberals, should get on board, support Canadians and stop this endless filibustering over a very reasonable request from the Bloc that masks for Parliament and for government workers should be made in Canada.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

I have Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

First, I really appreciate Ms. Vignola for the spirit of her motion. It's really important, for this committee especially, to be leading in this discussion. If we can't do it here, we're in deep trouble.

I am worried about taking out the word “deplores”. I'll give you an example from my riding. We had a local distillery that stepped up to the plate, Wayward Distillery, in Courtenay. They started making PPE and hand sanitizer. They pivoted their distillery to making hand sanitizer during the beginning of the pandemic to support health workers, police, first responders and frontline service workers, and they made a lot of it. They donated $75,000 worth, and then they started getting contracts to develop it. They couldn't keep up with the demand, and they brought in ethanol and product from overseas to be able to supply it. Then Canada flooded the market with Chinese sanitizer. Now they're sitting on all this ethanol. They brought it in so cheaply, they couldn't sell it. They're sitting on this stuff. This is a business that's hanging on by a thread. They put everything into it to help Canadian companies, frontline service workers, and to help Canadians out. I think that's deplorable—I actually think that's deplorable—that this business is sitting on that inventory, completely stressed out. I have huge concerns about that.

I have no problem leaving “deplores” in there, because Canada still hasn't procured from this company and many other companies that stepped up. A veteran owns this company. He's been let down by his own country. I'm sharing that story because I think this is deplorable.

The other part of this motion that I have concerns about—and this is why, as New Democrats, we like motions to come in ahead of time, so we have time to look at them and bring back some thoughtful, positive contributions—is that the way this motion is written, it doesn't prohibit a Canadian company from procuring overseas. There are a lot of Canadian companies that are bringing in foreign PPE. This motion doesn't cite the fact that the product has to be Canadian made, when we're asking the government to replace the foreign product.

I think the motion should be amended after “Quebec”, “and made in Canada” should be in there. I'm hoping that the mover of this motion would be open to that amendment.

I agree; I would love to have all of the PPE replaced by January 31 as well. I don't know how practical that is. I think what is practical is at least having a timeline, where the government can report back to this committee by January 31 on a commitment to and implementation of Canadian PPE. Clearly this needs to be moved on quickly. I think this committee and Canadians need confidence that we're going to have Canadian-made PPE in circulation, replacing the foreign PPE.

Those are our contributions right now. I would ask the mover of this motion whether he'd be open to an amendment after “Quebec”, to add “and made in Canada”.

That's my explanation, and I'm going against his suggestion to remove “deplores”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

I take it that you are moving a subamendment to the amendment. Is that correct?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Housefather, do you accept that subamendment?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm fine with it. I think the subamendment is not a problem.

The issue, Mr. Chair.... I just want to deal with both the amendment and the subamendment, if I may, and go through the issues that I see.

Again, essentially, I'm disturbed by the fact that we didn't see this before, because I would like to have had time to consider it and understand all of the issues. Maybe Mr. McCauley is right when he says that the WTO part is not necessary. At first blush, it seems to me that I don't want to pass something without having a proper study and knowledge of whether or not I'm in violation of WTO rules. That's why I proposed to include it: because right now I didn't know enough. I mean, if we had the motion for a few days, that would be one thing. If we're thrown at it in the context of a meeting, we have no time to check anything.

On the word “deplores”, I want to explain my logic. Of course, I would like everything as much as possible to come from Canadian companies, and of course we on the Hill, more than anyone in our federal departments, should be using Canadian produced goods as much as we possibly can, but to say that something is deplorable.... I don't know, for example—and none of us do—that those masks were not purchased in some big stockpile in March of 2020 when nothing else was available. None of us knows what the stockpile is. None of us knows when they were actually purchased. To say “deplorable” to people who worked on getting those contracts and sourcing them at the beginning.... I don't feel that it's right for the committee to say that their work was deplorable. We just don't know. That's why I proposed to attenuate the wording.

With respect to January 31 and what Mr. Johns said, I think it's totally reasonable. If the motion said, “Look, we see an issue, we're very concerned and we're upset that the masks used in federal departments and on Parliament Hill are not being sourced from Canadian companies, and we ask that government investigate this and come back to the committee by January 31st with a response that indicates how quickly all of these things can be sourced from Canadian companies”, I would be fine with that. But this motion basically calls on everything to be replaced by January 31. I don't know if that's possible. I don't know if we'd be breaching contracts.

Again, the problem is with something being thrown at us at the very last minute with no ability on our part to research it. So while I have no problem with Mr. Johns' subamendment and I would include it as part of what I'm proposing—I have no problem with that—again, I just don't think that the motion as it is currently worded, without any of my amendments, is plausible. I would ask the committee that we at least change the date or agree to change this to “that a government response be provided by January 31”. If the committee is willing to do that, then I'll come back with a different amendment. Because, again, I don't think it's reasonable, with no knowledge of what the contracts are and no knowledge of what the situation is, what the stockpile is or what contracts could be put in place, that we're putting in a date of January 31st for this to happen.

I hope that explains why I put forward that amendment. Again, I'm happy to include Mr. Johns' words as part of whatever amendment I'm proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Just so we're clear, we're discussing Mr. Johns's subamendment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Johns' subamendment is not to make any changes to leaving “deplores” in. It's about adding to the subamendment “Canadian made”. Just so we have clarification. Is that correct, Mr. Johns?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Yes. After “Quebec”, add “and Canadian made”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Okay. Thank you.

We're discussing the subamendment as discussed.

Is the committee in favour? Do we have consensus on this subamendment?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Paul-Hus would like to intervene, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I have Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Things get complicated when it comes to amendments and subamendments. I agree with Mr. Johns' proposal. However, I don't agree with Mr. Housefather's subamendment. We're against the subamendment. We would like to keep the original motion as amended, which is very reasonable.

I want to add that there's a public health issue with the masks currently available here. The masks should be removed, analyzed and used elsewhere. From a symbolic point of view, the employees in the House of Commons and the Parliament Hill buildings should have masks made in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

I'm sorry, I missed Mr. Lobb. I apologize.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my colleague Monsieur Paul-Hus. I thought it would take two to three minutes to pass Madame Vignola's motion here, and it's going to be 24 hours before it's approved.

Thinking about Mr. Housefather's points on the WTO.... I mean, how many times has Justin Trudeau said “made-in-Canada solution”? I have Doug Ford's “made-in-Ontario solution”. I'm sure Monsieur Legault had a “made-in-Quebec solution”. In Navdeep Bains' words, “made-in-Canada supply is essential.” Minister Anand, who was at that time public service and procurement minister, right here in Ontario said, “Made in Canada. Enhanced Canadian supply.” There are 50,000 examples here, and I'm sure they are all well in compliance with what they said.

The other thing, which almost makes me think we should have a study on this now, is that if procurement, or whomever would be responsible for these inventories, doesn't know how many there are, that would raise a serious alarm bell to me, because it would seem that your inventory levels would trigger a purchase. If you don't know what your inventories are and you just keep pumping out these purchase orders, how many gazillion masks are out there and we just keep buying them?

If we're in this disarray in year six of the Liberal government.... I didn't come here to be political today; I came here to pass her motion. Now I'm thinking we need to have a 10-part series on how many masks and PPE are in the country. Now, I'm really concerned.

We'll worry about the motion right now, but this is blowing my mind that Mr. Housefather thinks perhaps nobody knows how many masks there are in this country.

I'll cede my time. I think I made my point.

I see that Mr. Housefather is not happy with my comments. That's fine, but these are all my points. Maybe I took them out of context, but I think that's pretty much what he said. There's no issue with made in Canada, there's no issue with made in Quebec, made in Ontario, where they're made. I mean, the government gave them grants. I say let's get on with it to see if we can't find another thing to look at or conclude the meeting here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

Just so we're clear, we're talking about the subamendment by Mr. Johns.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I feel I need to respond to that quite absurd intervention.

What I said was that the members of the committee are not aware of what the stock is. I didn't say that the public servants who are responsible for it are not aware. I said that we are sitting here, having received a motion 10 minutes before we started debating it, and none of us have researched any of these questions as to what contracts are currently in place or when the stock that is currently being used on the Hill—and this is also speaking about other government departments—was actually purchased. We don't know if it was a one-time buy in March or April of last year, or whether there are ongoing purchase orders and there's another purchase order that could easily be changed to a Canadian company, or if we have stock in place that will not run out by January 31 and may only run out in March.

I don't know those answers. I might know them if I had a day to study this, but I never saw this motion before, and so I am not the person who would be aware of that. There would be many people who would be aware of that, and the committee, if we really wanted to do our proper due diligence, would ask about it. We didn't ask. We're now voting on things where we don't have a basis for understanding the contract that is currently in place and when the stock that is there will run out.

Again, if this were a motion to say we would like an answer because we're very concerned about the situation as to when we can replace these masks with Canadian masks, I'd have no problem with it. I tend to not be a very partisan person, and I don't really think this is a great way to start, but I never said what I was alleged to have said.

Again, I continue to support Mr. Johns' subamendment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to echo what my colleague Mr. Housefather said. I don't think our intent was to say that PSPC does not know the level of inventory; it's just that we've not been furnished with that information in this meeting. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

All right. Is there any more discussion? I'm not seeing any hands up.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, just before we vote on my subamendment, I believe that the amendment put forward by Mr. Housefather is not going to pass. Therefore, I'm going to withdraw my subamendment. Let us vote on his amendment, and then I will come back to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I think we need to have unanimous consent for the withdrawal.

[The Clerk]

Yes, Mr. Chair. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, to withdraw a motion requires unanimous consent of the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment? I see that.

(Subamendment withdrawn)

Okay. The subamendment is withdrawn. We are now discussing the amendment to the amended motion, namely, Mr. Housefather's amendment to the amended motion.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, I see that your hand is up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again I would ask that we adopt MP Housefather's amendment and remove the language about “deplorable”. Again I emphasize the fact that we don't have the facts in front of us.

Really, this is an inauspicious start to this committee. When I was reading out the routine motions, they talked about the “spirit of collaboration”. We haven't even discussed the basis of facts. We don't have those facts in front of us. We do not have a single testimony. We do not have a single document that tells us anything about the numbers of PPE that were procured, how it was distributed, what is the plan moving forward—nothing. This is not how a committee is supposed to work. We're supposed to work from fundamental facts, establish those facts and then communicate them.

I'll be honest with you. I feel broadsided by this motion in general. Again, I want to debate. I think it's an absolutely critical issue to debate, but we need to have the time to debate it and have the proper facts before we make a statement.

As of July, there were 2.7 billion pieces of PPE that were procured by PSPC—2.7 billion pieces of PPE that were procured—and they were procured because we needed PPE en masse and we needed it quickly to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to protect the health and safety of our frontline workers. There were 190 million N95 masks procured, 77 million non-medical masks that were procured by this government, 11 million cloth masks that were procured by this government and 450 million surgical masks procured by this government to protect Canadians—those in hospitals, those in homes and those on the Hill.

To MP Housefather's point, we should have a discussion about Canadian-made PPE and promoting Canadian PPE, absolutely, but we need to have some facts here as to how that PPE is procured and how that PPE is distributed. Is it purchased in bulk?

What was the rationale? Are these masks the masks that were purchased six months ago when there was a dearth of PPE or 10 months ago when there was a dearth of PPE and a fierce competition for PPE across the world?