:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
I think it's obviously quite important to have this discussion here today. I'm going to speak about the motion on having the debate here, which all Liberal members supported .
I want to start by saying it's unfortunate that here we are in the calendar session meeting as the health committee during the greatest pandemic of our time, certainly, with the greatest impact that we saw across this country in long-term care, and the need to study this as a committee is crucially important.... This was something that Liberal members had identified as their next study of choice in the rotation with the agreed upon motion, but unfortunately that changed on May 28 when there was a change in the scheduling of issues.
However, I think the commitment—certainly from Liberal members, and I'm sure there are others maybe we'll hear today—to get back to the study of long-term care is incredibly important. This is why we're bringing forward this motion now. We don't think it can wait any longer. We think, as a committee, we have a duty to speak about the important issues that are affecting Canadians.
Certainly, as a health committee in the pandemic, it's also very timely as we've seen I think just today the details coming out in the media on the Quebec coroner's preliminary inquest. In Ontario, we have a new Minister of Long-Term Care and we have more media reports of some issues there. This is incredibly timely, if not something we should have been looking at, but again, we're at the will and the whim of the committee.
In terms of the specifics in the motion—I'm sure it's in front of all of you—I'm going to refer for now to the section of the motion, or the meat of the motion.
I'll read this motion for the record. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Health undertake a study for no less than 4 meetings, consisting of no less than 2 hours per meeting, for the purpose of calling subject matter witnesses on the state of Long-Term Care in Canada;
That the committee’s area of study include, but not be limited to:
a. Consulting broadly and completing an analysis of steps that need to be taken to ensure that residents in Long-Term Care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve with a specific focus on proper pandemic planning and the creation of standards;
b. Examining infrastructure needs in Long-Term Care and how federal infrastructure funding could help create spaces for pandemic planning and enhanced quality of care;
c. Exploring opportunities for federal/provincial/territorial partnership with the objective of improving care for Canada’s most vulnerable populations;
d. The difference in quality of standards between non-profit and for-profit Long-Term Care facilities;
e. Examining workplace conditions including wages, infrastructure, qualifications, and paid sick leave;
That potential witnesses be sent to the Clerk no later than 5 days after the passing of this motion; and, that the Clerk shall use the regular process of establishing numbers of witnesses relative to the weighting of each recognized party’s proportionality on the committee.
I'm going to start by speaking to section (a) of this, consulting broadly and completing an analysis of the steps that need to be taken to ensure that residents in long-term care facilities receive the quality of care and life that they deserve.
Mr. Chair, many communities were hard hit, certainly after the first and even into the second wave of the pandemic. The vast majority of what we saw were the horrible conditions that some long-term care facilities were in. In my riding in particular, we were hit hard at Orchard Villa in Pickering. We lost over 70 residents and it is tragic. In fact, I've already attended one-year memorials, so with the fact that, as a health committee, we have not yet studied this, it's something that we absolutely must do. I still remember a time when committees would study a subject matter, create a report and have recommendations to the government. I think that's what we're trying to get back to by this point.
Section (a) of this motion is really about that broad awareness and analysis and speaks to the fact that we want to put forward, as a committee, what we hear from witnesses. Witnesses should include families to share the experiences they went through with their loved ones in long-term care. We should hear from workers to see what they experienced and what needs to change. We need to hear from subject matter experts, people who understand how other countries around the world have implemented better long-term care standards but also pandemic preparedness. We saw a lot of these failings, so to speak, these long-term care homes not prepared to deal with a pandemic that had literally life-ending consequences.
The second piece I'm going to speak about, or section (b), examines infrastructure needs in long-term care. I think this is crucially important and very timely in Ontario. I can speak to this point. At the time this happened, we realized, or many were saying, that a lot of these long-term care homes didn't even have air conditioning. In the heat and in these waves, people were dying, not just from COVID but from malnutrition or dehydration.
I know that, before the pandemic hit, one of the calls was for proper air conditioning, proper ventilation. Again, this is basic pandemic preparedness. At the time, our premier, Premier Ford, said that every building, every long-term care home, would have air conditioning and that not a single new one would be built without it. It turns out, just in the news, I think last week or maybe the week before, that Ontario never changed those regulations. There are new long-term care homes being built in this province right now without air conditioning.
Again, I understand that it's provincial jurisdiction, but as a health committee, we need to hear about these things. We need to hear best practices and make recommendations to the government so that, when they are engaging in these discussions with provinces and territories, we can say, “This is what we heard. This is a group of people, advocates or families who have shared their experiences, and this is maybe a standard that we think should be across the board.”
If you get into section (c), exploring opportunities for federal-provincial-territorial partnerships, again, I spoke to that in section (b) in terms of needing to hear from a wide variety of witnesses in order to have these conversations with provincial and territorial partners at the table, so that we can say exactly what we're hearing. We can, as a committee, like I said, make recommendations.
This shouldn't come as any surprise for a committee. Our government has committed already to the issue of long-term care and creating national standards. There was already $1 billion in the fall economic statement and then $3 billion in budget 2021.
I think it's incredibly important that, as the health committee, we say something about this. In my previous committee, which was finance, this process, having a committee report, is incredibly important. I'm going to compare it to how we would do things, for example, for the budget.
The government, the Minister of Finance, would always call or open up public consultation for the budget coming up, in whatever year that was. They would always open it up online and do round tables. That would be driven through the ministry of finance and the Minister of Finance's office. At the same time, there would be outside groups, for example, that would be also putting together their budget recommendations. Then the finance committee would also start a consultation process.
Why do I bring this up? It's because there is nothing wrong.... In fact, I would say it's imperative that, as a committee, we do our own independent study—committees are independent—with all parties having the opportunity to bring the witnesses who they feel—
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to suggest checking the booth, because I haven't changed anything in my headset.
In terms of the parallels between committees, again, there was a specific and distinct role for the finance committee in their preparation for the upcoming budget. Those budget implementations or consultations often had provincial and territorial, whether it was consultations or.... In fact, one year we invited the premiers from all the territories, or if we could particularly get there ourselves.... We wanted to hear kind of more specific input.
The point of that comparison is that committees all the time engage in consultations, even if they are at times in provincial and territorial areas of jurisdiction. It's a way for us to consult to see what the federal government can do. Is there a role for the federal government to do more? What are the concerns from provinces and territories? We can't know what those issues are unless we have those conversations.
The reason I bring this up in the context of item (c) in the main motion is that committees often engage in consultations and bring their own witnesses, their own themes of a study, when it's a topic that the government is actively engaging in. The government's going to do its own consultations. There are third parties bringing forward their own recommendations as well. I just don't understand why, as the health committee, we would be silent on such an important issue, so this is what I think is so crucially important. We're going to be able to engage as a committee with witnesses and in a forum that is a little bit different from what maybe third parties or the government itself can engage in.
It's also good to have a different perspective. Our committee is made up of multiple parties, all parties that have party status in the House. There are opportunities for dissenting reports and amendments. There are opportunities for recommendations based on what witnesses tell us. I think it's incredibly helpful to have that, to be able to provide that to the minister and to the government.
It's incredibly important that we don't stay silent and that we have those varying perspectives that would make up a report as well as recommendations. Then, as a committee—again I'm referring to finance—we would often look back and ask which committee recommendations were accepted by the government and which weren't. Did we need to go back and speak to witnesses again on that? Was there more information that was needed? It gives us an opportunity to really dive into these really important topics.
That, as I said, doesn't stop our committee, even in the section referring to federal-provincial-territorial partnerships, from having those conversations where there are areas of agreement and areas of disagreement. Are there jurisdictional questions? Let's bring all of those witnesses together and then, once we hear the testimony, we can move forward and determine what we'd like to do next or what we recommend to the government. The government can choose to take it or not.
This is our role as a committee. I see this as a paramount role of this committee, especially on a topic like long-term care, where we saw so many residents pass away from COVID. We heard horrible descriptions of what happened.
I want to next turn to section (d) of the motion and the difference in the quality of standards between non-profit and for-profit long-term care. This is an area of a lot of attention, because we certainly saw that the for-profit model had major issues. The homes that had substantial outbreaks, had issues, were for-profit homes. That's not to say that they were all for-profit homes, but that's where we saw these issues.
There was an earlier motion in the House from the NDP, and my criticism of that motion was that it just said to get rid of for-profit, and had no details on what that looked like. How do you do that? Do you move forward in a phased way? Who takes those homes on?
I fully recognize that we need to look at the for-profit model and why they had so many issues of the homes that had outbreaks and issues. Why was it the for-profit model? Frankly, you can't get into that debate in an opposition motion. The way it was written, it had no details or parameters around that. I think this is a perfect opportunity for us to look into that. Why did this happen? What would the vision be? How do you phase it in? Who takes it on? What happens to those residents? Are there other provisions or standards that we can then create to help ensure that, at the end of the day, it's not for profit but it's the quality of care to the residents who live there? All seniors as a baseline have the right to live with dignity.
Paragraph (e) is as follows: “Examining workplace conditions including wages, infrastructure, qualifications, and paid sick leave”. I have heard, certainly, and I'm sure many members have had these conversations as well, that workplace conditions are certainly a factor. Often there are not enough people working in long-term care. The wages are low. It's precarious. Workers have to go from one home to the next simply to earn a decent wage. How does that infrastructure look? Workers were worried about getting sick and bringing that home as well. They didn't have enough PPE. There were the qualifications, and there was also the paid sick leave. If somebody was in contact with somebody else with COVID, could they take time off work?
These are all issues. Certainly, our government committed early on in the safe restart and in the other funding to help prepare for this, to increase wages, in particular in long-term care. Some provinces took it on, and others didn't.
I'd love to hear from the nurses association, as one example, in this study to talk about how workers in long-term care are doing. What's the state of their mental health? Are we going to be in a workforce shortage? How do we encourage and how do we train workers in a way that provides a good wage and not the horrific conditions that we saw throughout this pandemic? This must be weighing incredibly heavily on people who were working in these situations and living in these situations, for sure.
On that note, I want to highlight some things for anybody who may wonder why we are looking at this. Frankly, I would argue that we should have been looking at this before, but I think as committee members we all agreed to move forward on the work plan, with the Liberals indicating that when it came back to our turn to study a specific area, it was going to be long-term care. I would like to have studied this sooner, and I know that many of my colleagues would have as well, but here we are. For me, the important piece is that we just get on with it, and we actually bring forward and hear from the people we need to hear from.
I want to read a little bit into the record, Mr. Chair, with regard to why this is so important. This is an excerpt from the Operation Laser report that the Canadian Armed Forces observed in long-term care in my community. I have to warn you that some of the stuff is pretty graphic. This is at Orchard Villa in my riding, not too far from where I am right now, actually.
These are some of the things they noted:
a. Lack of cleanliness noted:
(1) Cockroaches and flies present; and
(2) Rotten food smell noted from the hallway outside a patient's room. CAF member found multiple old food trays stacked inside a bedside table.
b. Inappropriate PPE use noted throughout all staffing levels (doctors included); and
c. Poor IPAC/PPE practices (double/triple gowning and masking, surgical mask under N95, scarves under masks, etc).
Standards of Practice/Quality of Care Concerns:
a. Patient's being left in beds soiled in diapers, rather than being ambulated to toilets;
b. Mouth care and hydration schedule not being adhered to;
c. Lack of proper positioning (head of the bed raised) for meals/fluids;
d. PSW and Nurses aren't always sitting up residents before feeding/hydrating/giving meds; choking/aspiration risk is therefore high; includes observation of incident that appeared to have contributed in patient death (code blue due [to] choking during feeding while supine—staff unable to dislodge food or revive resident)....
This is what happened in my community. A resident in long-term care choked to death because they weren't sat up for eating. It goes on to talk about “Respecting dignity of patients not always a priority. Caregiver burnout noted among staff,” an important piece to section (d) that I was referring to.
The report also notes:
f. Unsafe nursing medication administration errors;
g. Staff putting food and important belongings outside of residents reach....
It goes on to talk about:
i. Incident of likely fractured hip not addressed by staff; Med Tech and SNO addressed and transferred resident to hospital;
j. Multiple falls, without required assessments following the fall;
k. Inconsistent and suboptimal assessment and treatment of pain; and
l. Lack of knowledge evident regarding what qualifies as a restraint. Multiple scenarios of walking aids being removed, or mattresses set on floor as patients were unable to stand from that low position (to prevent them from wandering the facility).
a. Liquid oxygen generators not filled therefore not usable;
b. Limited and inaccessible wound care supplies;
c. Found 1 working suction locked in basement storage room; remainder of suction units not functional, last battery check was in 2014;
d. Oxygen concentrators not easily accessible.
e. Patients were sleeping on bare mattresses because of lack of access to laundry/linens; and
f. Poor access to...soaker pads....
It goes on. Obviously this is a reminder for family members who had their loved ones in facilities like this. I don't think I need to read on, but I can. I think the point, when you hear of that, is that this is just one home. That's just one home in my riding that had those conditions.
I know there are other members who are going to speak on this motion, but when you think about that and when you hear about those conditions, how could you as parliamentarians on the health committee today not support doing a study, calling witnesses, hearing from families, seeing what their loved ones went through, and hearing from workers who were completely overworked and saw conditions that at times they couldn't even help and what that must mean for them. How do we make sure workers are never put in this situation again? How do we make sure that family members aren't reading about these conditions, about their loved ones being in soaked diapers and covered in cockroaches?
As a committee, this is the greatest tragedy we've seen in this country throughout this pandemic. As a committee, as parliamentarians, we have an absolute responsibility—not even a right—to look into this, to hear from people, from families, from workers and from experts, and to make recommendations to the government so that this never happens again.
The government has already committed to permanent changes and national standards. Why, as a health committee with all of our respective backgrounds and input on this subject, would we not want to make recommendations on what those standards should be? As the health committee, why would we not want to have our voices heard, our constituents represented and these witnesses called?
Mr. Chair, I can go on and on and on about this, but the point is this. This is, as I said, an enormous tragedy in our country. We have a duty and a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to provide a voice to the voiceless.
Through this study, we will be able to bring in and hear those witnesses. Then, as a committee, our duty is to make sure that we do everything we can to write a report, to make recommendations and to make sure that what we hear is reflected in the government's deliberations, in the government's work with provinces and territories, because this absolutely has to be done in partnership.
We have that opportunity, as the health committee, to bring forward what we feel should be done and to make sure that our constituents and the constituents across this country, in regard to long-term care, are absolutely heard and reflected in our report.
Mr. Chair, maybe I'll leave it there for now, but technically, do you want me to reread the motion into the record that I've moved?
I think this is a very important motion, and I hope the other members of the committee will support it.
As many of you know, my riding of Brampton South has been impacted by the pandemic. Grace Manor, one of the LTC homes in Ontario, required assistance from the armed forces early in this pandemic, and the report they wrote had some shocking stories. This is an issue that Canadians care about deeply.
Mr. Chair, I need to explain why, as a local MP, I had to sign this letter, and why I believe all members of this committee should support this motion. Due to the dedicated work by a group of long-term care families, multiple stories emerged from a long-term care home in my riding. First, there was a recent story that a staff member had been withholding medication to residents. Second, residents died of dehydration. In my riding, Mr. Chair, residents died of dehydration. This happened after the CAF report, Mr. Chair.
Last Friday there was a protest in my riding organized by families of long-term care residents worried about their loved ones, about their parents, about their grandparents. This is happening in June 2021, a year and a half into this pandemic.
Mr. Chair, I'm confident that any member of this committee would be ringing the alarm if this happened in their riding or in their province. Many of us have met with individual family members and organized communities leaders, such as the Canadians for long-term care group. In a response to this motion they said that they are beyond happy to see this. The Canadian Association for Long Term Care is ready to take part in this. People want the issue of long-term care taken seriously.
I want to share maybe the single most important reason that this committee needs to undertake this study as the next priority. According to the National Institute on Ageing's long-term care COVID-19 tracker, residents of long-term care homes accounted for only 4% of the positive cases in Ontario, but 42% of COVID-19 deaths in the province have been among the residents of long-term care homes. Nationwide, it is 59%, despite only counting as 6% of positive test cases. This is a shocking figure.
When the majority of deaths have a clear commonality, it is important that we investigate that as part of the COVID study. The seniors and other residents of these homes are among the most vulnerable Canadians, and the provincial government has a duty of care to them, which was grossly neglected during this pandemic.
Our seniors did not just build this country; they defended it too. Generations of brave Canadians from all walks of life have stepped forward to serve and sacrifice for our country. Hundreds of thousands have fought and many continue to serve, so we have a responsibility.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the virus have disproportionately affected them, particularly those living in long-term care facilities. Some seniors spent a prolonged period alone and separated from their families and communities. We heard stories, Mr. Chair, where seniors could not see their family members who spoke their language, and they were so vulnerable. Many sad stories are there. Public health measures meant many seniors needed to rely on friends, families or community services for access to groceries and medicine.
During the first wave of the pandemic more than one in three long-term care homes across Canada faced an outbreak situation. They simply were not prepared for a severe outbreak of a virus like this. There is an extent to which this is understandable. The COVID virus did not even exist two years ago, and it spreads more easily than other common viruses. Most of us did not see this coming, but we need to know how to be prepared for the future.
Most people would have expected family facilities, like long-term care homes, to have standards to enforce infection controls and prevention procedures that would have reduced the risk of this virus. This was clearly not the case. Much has been said about the labour practices of industry, with personal support workers having to combine part-time shifts at multiple homes, and working conditions that do not encourage them to stick around. I have met with many representatives of PSW professionals, and there have regularly been issues of morale and stability in the field.
They have also told me about the impact of the pandemic on staff. It has been widely acknowledged in Ontario that the problems in our long-term care go back decades. However, even shortly before the pandemic began, the provincial government in Ontario made cuts to long-term care and health care services in its budgets, which led to decreased facility inspections and issues with staffing across the province.
We can all hope that the pandemic has been the wake-up call that will finally lead to short- and long-term improvements in long-term care homes, but we need a road map. After the tragedies we have seen, Canadians want the federal government to be there to work with the provinces and territories on what is their jurisdiction.
I have received hundreds of emails from my constituents asking for that, and I'm getting many calls right now. There has been much discussion about public versus private and non-profit versus for-profit homes. In Ontario, for-profit homes had significantly more deaths than public ones, and some parties have proposed eliminating for-profit homes entirely. However, not all provinces have had this experience, and this discrepancy between death rates, between these models, is less significant. We should hear testimony on the pros and cons of each model. We need to study this.
I know there are people who may think the federal government has no role in this issue, particularly in Quebec. I mentioned earlier that 59% of Canada's COVID deaths were in long-term care homes, but 72% of those were in Quebec, by far the most of any province or territory. That is why, from the beginning, we have been working with all the provinces and territories, including Quebec and Ontario.
Today, my colleague, Ms. O'Connell, referred to an article on the CBC website about the results of the inquiry into Quebec's situation in long-term care during the first wave. I read it a few minutes ago, and I was shocked. This inquiry says that Quebec authorities believed there was no asymptomatic transmission for weeks, allowing it to spread undetected. As Ms. O'Connell mentioned the source of this report was a coroner's inquest.
Géhane Kamel, the coroner, said the goal of the inquest was not to determine guilt but to come up with recommendations to prevent future tragedies.
I agree with her that the goal of this study was not to blame provinces but to work with them hand in hand. That is why we should be doing our own study on this issue to make recommendations as to how the federal government responds.
Going back to the article, there were disturbing things found by this report. For Canadians watching this committee at home, if you are easily disturbed, I recommend you mute my speech for about a minute.
These are the facts found by this inquest. There was a shortage of oxygen equipment. The report says that dead bodies were left untouched for hours and that staff were working despite having symptoms of COVID-19. A patient attendant could not receive a COVID test, despite losing his sense of smell two days earlier and having flu-like symptoms. He was told he couldn't be tested because he had not travelled abroad. Finally, I would like to use one last quote from a nurse in this article: “It was a horror movie.” Another nurse spoke of the delay in funeral homes' receiving bodies.
Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry about this horrible report out of Quebec today. How can we not work with Quebec and all provinces and territories?
The National Institute on Ageing researchers also found that deaths in Canada's long-term care settings were three times higher compared with other OECD countries. Not surprisingly, Mr. Chair, most Canadians fear having to move into a long-term care setting as they age after seeing what happened during this pandemic.
The armed forces reported on the conditions at the LTC in my riding, and I would like to remind members of this committee what they found.
Members of the Canadian Armed Forces also assisted in long-term care facilities. The Canadian Red Cross is still helping. They did a crucial job helping with our parents, grandparents and elders. For that, we owe them our deepest thanks.
I mentioned it earlier in my remarks, but the details are important, Mr. Chair. Staff were found moving from COVID units to other units without changing contaminated PPE. They were not following basic infection-prevention policies like washing hands between patient interactions and were cleaning gloves with hand sanitizer instead of changing them. Wounds were not being treated in a sterile manner. Medications were not being properly documented. Staff were aggressive in repositioning the patients and were not assisting the residents during meals, documenting that they refused to eat rather than helping them. With regard to the last one, they were leaving food in the residents' mouths while they were sleeping. That was at the beginning of the pandemic. It was actually the most serious of the five homes within the report.
However, it was revealed that the Ministry of Long-Term Care continued to investigate the home. In March, it was found that the long-term care home's owner had failed to document the fluid intake of three residents. The result of this was that one of them died of dehydration. As a result of a separate investigation, a nurse who worked at the same home is now facing 11 charges of failing to provide the necessities of life for withholding medications from residents.
Mr. Chair, it is irresponsible. Not making substantial adjustments after the tragic first wave proved to be dangerously irresponsible. As it stands, Canada needs to be prepared to train higher and to fund more personal workers, even in the absence of a pandemic. We have an aging population and seniors want to stay in their homes as long as possible, something that is even more true after the devastation that was seen in long-term care.
We need to bring improvements to this field, to the working conditions, to the pay and to the respect they are given. It is a field overwhelmingly dominated by women, often immigrants and people of colour. These workers need to be appreciated so that the best of them stay in the profession and the bad actors are no longer allowed to remain because we are desperate for workers.
Another home in the CAF report was the Eatonville Care Centre in Etobicoke. Some of the issues noted include COVID-positive patients not being isolated and continuing to room with ones who had tested negative. They were allowed to wander around, risking spread throughout the home.
There was a general culture to fail to use supplies, including basic PPE, because they cost money. The report also described severe understaffing during the day, leading to patients not having the proper support, and the morale and well-being of the staff being at risk. There were nearly a dozen fungal infections from improperly used catheters, and gross non-adherence to some recurring orders, such as regularly checking vital signs or turning patients, in some cases using the excuse that it may wake them.
They also noted abusive and aggressive behaviour, and degrading or inappropriate comments directed at residents, as well as inaccurate reporting to the patients' families regarding their status on things like feeding, pain levels and general conditions.
At Hawthorne Place Care Centre in North York, there was little to no disinfection done prior to catheterizing, with significant gross fecal contamination being noted in numerous patients' rooms. There was a significant shortage of RNs, especially on weekends. There was a significant deterioration of cleanliness standards throughout long-term care. Staff reported that some residents had not been fed for several weeks. Forceful feeding and dehydration was observed, causing choking and aspiration. There was a noted incident of a catheter being in place three weeks beyond the scheduled change date.
We also need to examine different ways that provincial governments have responded to the crisis in these homes. In Ontario the people were promised hiring around long-term care homes after the devastation of the first wave, but no substantive improvement materialized. As the second wave began, these facilities were still unprepared for a full outbreak. Despite warnings that there was an immediate need to hire and train more infection prevention experts and thousands of personal support workers, the provincial government remained slow to act.
We need to work on this for the sake of residents in long-term care and their families. Let me be clear. It is never too late to study this. It is never too late to talk about these issues. These issues are not over. These tragedies are not behind us. They are still happening today, not in Vancouver, not in Calgary, but they are happening here in my riding of Brampton South. This is why my constituents sent me here to speak on their behalf. I am doing so now, proudly and with full responsibility. We all have a responsibility.
I would like now to speak about our government's record for the awareness of the members of this committee and Canadians who are watching. Our position is clear. Those living in long-term care deserve safe and quality care, and to be treated with dignity. The pandemic has shone a light on systemic issues affecting long-term care facilities across the country. In 2020's fall economic statement, our government committed $1 billion to the safe long-term care fund to ensure our seniors and their caretakers are well protected and supported. Not only that, but in budget 2021 we have invested $3 billion to ensure standards across the nation for long-term care.
For a sense of what budget 2021 includes for Canada's seniors, I will list a few things.
Budget 2021 proposes to provide $90 million over three years, starting in 2021-22 to Employment and Social Development Canada to launch the age well at home initiative. Age well at home would assist community-based organizations in providing practical support that helps low-income and otherwise vulnerable seniors age in place, such as matching seniors with volunteers who can help with meal preparation, home maintenance, daily errands, yardwork and transportation.
This initiative would also support regional and national projects that help expand services that have already demonstrated results in helping seniors stay in their homes.
For example, knowledge hub can help seniors access the local services available to them, or provide information, resources and training to community-based organizations in delivering practical support to seniors.
Our position is clear. Those living in long-term care deserve safe, quality care and to be treated with dignity. As I said before, the pandemic has shone a light. Budget 2021 also proposes to provide $41.3 million over six years, and $7.7 million ongoing, starting in 2021-22, for Stats Canada to improve data infrastructure and data collection on supportive care, primary care, and pharmaceuticals.
We have invested every step of the way, and regularly supported our seniors with the funds required to keep them safe. However, we need to keep taking action. We need to continue acting in support of Canadians and long-term care homes, and we can do this through the help of this motion. We can make recommendations.
We are all so lucky to be Canadian. We have had one of the best vaccine rollouts in this world, and we are now number one in the G7, G20 and the OECD for first doses administered and rapidly catching up on the second doses.
Canada isn't great because it is Canada. It is great because of the Canadians who live here and who, for generations after generations, have worked hard to make this one of the best places to live in the world. From all over the world, hard-working individuals who wanted only the best for themselves, their families and their communities made their way to Canada. They built this country to what is it today from coast to coast to coast. Canada's seniors have given their all to leave behind a country that will propel us forward in this world and allow us to thrive, to prosper and to be able to reflect Canadians' values in our dealings with other countries.
All of us should reflect on the immense contributions Canada's seniors have made in shaping our country. They are friends, family, neighbours, co-workers and role models. They have laid the foundation for a better life for millions of Canadians.
On the Liberal side, we recognize the contribution of Canada's seniors to our country. Not everyone in this industry is a bad actor, Mr. Chair. It is full of dedicated, caring people working in circumstances that are difficult and emotionally draining at the best of times, but there's an urgent need to reform. The federal government has a role to play in protecting the health and safety of all Canadians. The children and families of long-term care residents have been asking for this for over a year, and we owe it to them to give this study full consideration.
Now that we are building back our economy and starting our recovery, let us find strength in the legacy of resiliency, determination and compassion provided to us by seniors. We owe them our debt of gratitude. Now we need to be there for those who raised us and built this country.
That is why the Liberal members on this committee have brought forward this motion to say to Canada's seniors that, yes, absolutely, they deserve safe, quality care, and they deserve to be treated with dignity.
Let's hear from families. Let's hear from workers. Let us study this.
This is a very important issue. We need to study this. We need to give some recommendations. Our seniors are looking. Canadians are watching. Mr. Chair, this is our responsibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding on how we got here to this day is that, in the summer of last year, the Liberal government prorogued Parliament, which delayed committees for some time, and then I remember the Liberal members on this committee filibustering programming motions that would have allowed us to study issues. What it meant is that it took several meetings and actually a House order to get the health committee onto an agenda.
Then we had to use additional procedure to get the agenda set for the last several meetings of the committee, which included studying the government's COVID response, including long-term care—I'll get to that in a second—and there were several meetings of filibuster as well with the Liberals here. My understanding is that Liberal members on this committee have utilized the tactic of filibuster to waste, I would say, several meetings when we could have been looking at other issues. Opposition members have actually had to use House motions to compel the committee to to do its work. It has a been a very frustrating year for me.
Where we were today, Chair, was that we had passed a programming motion for the last several meetings, as you are aware. The Liberals had an opportunity through their filibusters of that motion, as well as that motion, to amend and include other options. They did not raise the issue of long-term care at that point in time.
I'm a little puzzled as to why.... I'm not puzzled. I know why we're here today. I think actually it was my colleague who put out a little statement that I want to read into the record very briefly, because I think it sums it up: “Liberals misusing the appalling conditions in long-term care as a political ploy is a slap in the face to all seniors in care. We don’t need more 'study'—the problems are crystal clear and families need action. Liberal rhetoric and refusal to act costs lives.”
Chair, my understanding is that we had this meeting set today. There was a notice of meeting that went out to have the law clerk and other commissioners come to the committee to look at the fact that there is a probable case of contempt in the government's refusing to provide unredacted documents, as ordered by the House of Commons, to this committee for review. We had the deputy minister of procurement come before committee and confirm that the government did not provide unredacted documents to the law clerk, and today's meeting was supposed to get clarity from the law clerk in that regard.
Of course, then, after the notice of meeting went out, you cancelled the meeting, Chair, and this meeting was put forward to discuss a study that could have been put forward by the Liberals some time ago.
I firmly believe that the government does need to act on long-term care. I believe Ms. Sidhu just made the following comment: that it was “irresponsible” to not make adjustments after the first wave. I agree with her. The appalling conditions we saw in many long-term care facilities happened in early 2020. That occurred before the government prorogued Parliament and before the government members on this committee filibustered motions to study. I'll also point out that many witnesses from the long-term care community actually testified in front of this committee after opposition members managed to pass this.
As said in his statement—and members were reading what the government had put in the budget—the government has every impetus to act in this regard. I know that they have a panel of people, but they haven't acted on national standards of care, let's say, or anything yet. They haven't done that.
The other thing I want to talk about is the government's acting on recommendations. We were supposed to have a meeting today essentially to deal with the fact that the government did not act on recommendations. In fact, an order of this committee, which was to provide unredacted documents to the law clerk for review.... My faith in this government's ability to respond to recommendations from this committee is limited.
I share the concern of my colleague that the government would use this issue as a filibuster to filibuster their own motion. If they really wanted this, there were number of ways they could have put this forward, but we had the speak for over a half an hour. It's clear we're in a filibuster of the Liberals' own motion.
Given that, I move:
That the Committee proceed to resume the agreed upon meetings in accordance with the motion passed on June 2, 2021.
I have to tell you that I've been in Parliament for 13 years, and there have been a few times when I have been extraordinarily disappointed. Those generally have not involved a substantive issue but rather parliamentarians' abuse of the process and engaging in disingenuousness. That's exactly what's happened here, and I need to state this for the record. For anybody watching this, I have to say that all of the cant, the misinformation, the feigned outrage and the cynicism that I have seen expressed by the Liberals today is a new low for me.
Let's review what has happened. About a month ago, we put a motion before this committee to determine what the last six meetings of this committee would be, with specific witnesses for each of those meetings. We debated those, we passed them and then what happened? The Liberals filibustered. Do you know why they filibustered? Because they wanted one thing: They wanted to give the chair some flexibility with regard to the order of those meetings, not to change them.
Every single member of this committee, with the exception of perhaps, Mr. Jowhari, who I understand is not on this committee, got notice last week of what the meeting would be. We were to hear from the law clerk and from the Clerk of the Privy Council on the issue of documents. For anybody on this committee to try to, with a straight face, look into a camera and say that they weren't prepared for the meeting today because they weren't aware of what's going to happen is simply disingenuous beyond belief.
I'll tell you something else: For the meeting that was supposed to happen today, which was the result of the motion I spoke of being passed unanimously. Ms. O'Connell voted for it. Mr. Van Bynen voted for it, for what those last meetings would be. The meeting for today, by the way, was scheduled last week. We got notice of it. Late Friday afternoon, Ms. O'Connell put in a motion for a 106(4).
Mr. Chair, I must, for the record, express my extreme displeasure with you. You have not once ever scheduled a 106(4) meeting on the next business day, not once. A Standing Order 106(4) meeting has to be scheduled within a prescribed time. That 106(4) meeting came after the meeting that was supposed to be held today, which was to hear from the law clerk and to hear from the Clerk of the Privy Council, and you took it upon yourself, Mr. Chair, to bump that meeting unilaterally and instead substitute a 106(4) meeting that easily could have been scheduled for tomorrow or Wednesday.
We all know what's going on here, and Canadians should know that Liberals are filibustering this meeting today, and they're doing so to avoid this committee holding the government accountable for their refusal and failure to abide by a House order to produce documents for this committee. Today we were supposed to hear from two witnesses—the Clerk of the Privy Council and the law clerk—whose job it is to ensure that the supremacy of Parliament's will is carried out.
I have to say that to use long-term care as a political ploy is a new low in politics. For these Liberals to move on the last day of the health committee, before we adjourn for the summer, a motion to study long-term care.... They have had all year to do that. By the way, the conditions in long-term care, the appalling conditions, the ones that Ms. Sidhu quoted, occurred over a year ago. They were reported in the Canadian Armed Forces report that happened in March, April and May of 2020. Not a single Liberal member moved a motion to study long-term care then. That's how much they cared about that issue.
By the way, we don't need more talk. Who are you kidding? Everybody in the country knows about the appalling conditions of long-term care. Everybody in the country knows what needs to be done, and what do the Liberals want to do? Chat. Is that the Liberal answer to these severe deaths in long-term care, let's have four more meetings to talk about it?
The Liberals formed the Government of Canada in this country, and they can do anything they want. They just spent $380 billion, and they can't act on long-term care? If the Liberals were serious about addressing long-term care, they would have done something. They would do something. They wouldn't just talk about it.
By the way, with great respect to my colleague Monsieur Lemire, there are significant issues of jurisdiction, which, by the way, trots out extraordinarily selectively. When he doesn't want to vote on dental care or pharmacare or something else, it's an issue of the provinces. He lectures the NDP that we don't understand jurisdiction.
Now the Liberals want to talk about long-term care, which is squarely something that's within provincial jurisdiction. It's not an issue now. That, of course, is because they're using this as a political football. I think that is shocking and disgusting and appalling disrespect to every senior in long-term care in this country that Liberals would use this issue to try to skirt accountability.
You know, a government that's afraid of accountability is a government that's lost its moral compass to govern. A government that's afraid of transparency.... I know why the Liberals are nervous. It's because they know that they're in square violation of an order of the House. The very same contempt that brought down the Harper government over the Afghan detainee issue, which the Liberals voted for, they're now doing today.
:
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today. As the House of Commons Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, I am pleased to be here so that I can answer your questions.
With me is Michel Bédard, Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Legal Services.
I hope that our answers will assist the committee in your deliberations.
[English]
As you know, the House of Commons adopted a motion on October 26, 2020, that instructed this committee to undertake a study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and ordered the production of documents from various government departments and ministerial offices relating to this study.
The House's order required that before their tabling in the House and distribution to the committee, all documents be vetted by my office for matters of personal privacy information and national security, and for the category of documents relating to the COVID-19 vaccine task force and its subcommittees, that they be also vetted for information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations between the government and a third party.
On November 24, 2020, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Ian Shugart, testified before the Standing Committee on Finance that the documents responsive to the House's order could constitute millions of pages.
On November 27, 2020, I appeared before this committee and confirmed that I would devote close to 100% of my office's resources to the review of the documents in order to meet the seven-day timeline provided in the order, and that we could review up to 50,000 pages during that seven-day period. The same day, this committee adopted an order asking my office to prioritize the order in which we vet the documents and confirming that we could obtain an extension of time to review them if necessary by reporting to the committee.
The order also stated that all documents were to be circulated to the committee in both official languages. This became the second report of the committee to the House, which was adopted on December 4, 2020.
On December 7, 2020, my office received approximately 5,000 documents totalling almost 27,000 pages from various government departments and ministerial offices, which we vetted in accordance with the House's order and within the seven-day time period prescribed. In the letters accompanying the documents, the government indicated that my office could expect to receive subsequent batches of documents from the government.
The majority of the documents provided by the government were only in one official language.
[Translation]
As soon as we received the documents, I wrote to the Clerk of the Privy Council to ask him whether the government intended to provide the translated versions of the documents and, if so, when we could expect to receive them.
In his reply of December 18, 2020, Mr. Shugart stated that, in his opinion, following the second report of this committee, adopted by the House on December 4, 2020, my office was best placed to determine the sequencing and content of translation.
On December 22, 2020, I responded to Mr. Shugart’s letter and indicated that the government has an obligation to produce documents in both official languages in accordance with section 8 of the Official Languages Act and consistent with Standing Order 32(4), and that the second report of this committee neither diminished nor removed this obligation.
I added that, to avoid any additional delay, my office would be taking the extraordinary step of providing the documents we have received to date to the Translation Bureau on behalf of the government, but that I expected that, moving forward, the government would take the necessary steps to translate the documents in a timely manner. This is so that we receive the documents in both official languages for tabling in the House and for referral to the committee, once our approval process is complete.
[English]
The same day, I reported on this exchange to the committee. My office subsequently received additional documents from the government, so on February 3, I wrote again to Mr. Shugart asking when my office could expect to receive translated versions of the documents so that they could be tabled in the House and distributed to the committee.
On February 26, I received correspondence from the deputy clerk of the Privy Council indicating that the documents were being provided in the language in which they were available in the government's systems to produce them as quickly as possible, and that, given my office's role in determining the priority and sequence for vetting and distribution of documents, the government's position was that we were best placed to determine the order in which documents should be translated and to access additional funding from the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. The deputy clerk also advised that the government expected to provide documents in response to the House's order on a monthly basis.
On March 2, I reported to this committee on the issue and reiterated my position that it is the government's obligation to provide bilingual copies of the documents. I also sought instructions from the committee about how it wished to proceed with respect to the translation of the documents for the fourth, fifth and any subsequent batches produced by the government.
We have to date been able to provide 6,307 documents to the Speaker for tabling in the House.
On February 12, this committee adopted a motion instructing the chair to inquire as to whether the contracts for Canada's seven vaccine agreements had been provided to my office in response to the House's order, and if so, requesting that the translation be prioritized so that the agreements could be tabled in the House and distributed to the committee as soon as possible. The motion also provided that, if the agreements had not yet been produced by the government, the committee request that they be provided by the government to be vetted in accordance with the parameters set out in the House's motion, and this committee review them in camera.
On February 25, the chair of this committee inquired about whether my office had received the vaccine agreements from the government, and I confirmed that we had not. The chair subsequently wrote to the Clerk of the Privy Council requesting that the government provide the agreements to the committee.
Finally, On June 4, the assistant deputy minister of the policy, planning and communications branch of Public Services and Procurement Canada, Mr. James Stott, informed this committee that the government was providing its vaccine agreements after having examined the contracts “under the strict requirements of the Access to Information Act and consulted implicated companies as is required to ensure the appropriate safeguard of their information”, and that the government had applied the applicable exemptions “to protect third-party or personal information, as well as to avoid jeopardizing orders or compromising Canada's negotiating position given the volatility of the marketplace.”
[Translation]
That concludes this review of the facts. I will gladly answer your questions.
Thank you.
[Translation]
As you know, my name is Caroline Maynard and I am the Information Commissioner of Canada. Since this is my first appearance before your committee, I thought I would start with a very brief overview of my mandate.
[English]
I have no doubt that most of you, if not all of you, are familiar with the process of making access to information requests.
The overall administration of the Access to Information Act falls under the authority of the Treasury Board Secretariat. This means TBS oversees the handling of the access to information requests within government institutions.
My role is to investigate complaints relating to those requests, normally because the institution is late in responding or because requesters are not satisfied they have received all the information to which they are entitled.
I also have the power to initiate complaints myself, and at times, when an institution appears to have chronic issues relating to the access to information process, I can initiate a systemic investigation of that particular institution. In addition, I can participate in court proceedings when necessary. My office has done this on a number of occasions.
[Translation]
As an Agent of Parliament, I report annually on the activities of the Office of the Information Commissioner. Just last week, I tabled my annual report for 2020-21. I can also issue special reports to Parliament in respect of important issues that fall within my powers and functions.
My most recent special report focused on the systemic investigation I conducted into Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. But in the past twelve months, I have also tabled special reports on systemic investigations conducted into the Department of National Defence and the RCMP.
[English]
My goal is to maximize compliance with the Access to Information Act, using the full range of tools and powers at my disposal. I understand you are currently considering documents you received from PSPC that contain redactions based on the principles of the Access to Information Act. However, these documents have not been requested pursuant to the Access to Information Act, but rather, produced through motions adopted in the chamber and in committee.
Since my mandate does not encompass reviewing redactions to records produced in contexts outside the access to information regime, I have not been consulted, nor have I been involved in any way. As such, I cannot comment on the disclosure or redactions of these particular documents.
It is worth noting that if these records were requested under the act and I were to receive a complaint concerning their disclosure, I would undertake an investigation that would require that I afford parties a reasonable opportunity to make representations prior to reaching any findings. I would also be precluded from commenting publicly on any investigation in progress.
[Translation]
I will leave it at that, as I am mindful of the time. I will gladly answer your questions.
Thank you.
:
We've heard quite a bit today. I think Mr. Davies' line of questions established the obligations of the government under both the House order and the order of the health committee.
Mr. Dufresne, thank you for all your work in this regard, and thank you for your ongoing efforts to provide transparency to Parliament. It has been disappointing to not be able to have access to some of these documents, given the gravity of the situation. I would be remiss if I didn't say I feel as though we should talk about Britney Spears and her conservatorship today and I feel as though I should just say “Free Britney” on the record. However, given that and the amount of testimony we've heard today, I'm fairly confident in what needs to be done next.
Therefore, I move:
That the analyst and clerk be directed to prepare a brief report to the House, outlining the material facts of the possible contempt, discussed with Bill Matthews, Deputy Minister of Department of Public Works and Government Services, concerning the documents ordered by the House on October 26, 2020, and further requested by this Committee on February 19, 2021; and that report be tabled as soon as it is ready.
Chair, it's very clear to me that the government is in contempt of both the House motion and the motion in front of this committee. I believe Mr. Davies has provided a master work to this committee in terms of laying out the obligations of the government that they have failed to comply with. Certainly the government's parliamentary secretary has not responded in any factual way that would provide a case otherwise, and that's disappointing.
Parliament is supreme. The questions that have been raised by all opposition members today really show that regardless of political stripe, Parliament is supreme and we have a right to this information. When the House or the committee orders this information, it's not up to the government to try to sue the Speaker of the House of Commons or to try to obfuscate. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If there's no problem, then there should be no issue providing these documents to us.
If there are problems, then it is up to Parliament and to this committee to consider best ways forward. Certainly I look forward to the clerk and the analyst providing this report and I look forward to ensuring that Canadians, regardless of how they vote, know that Parliament functions; and that whatever flavour of government is in office, but certainly this Liberal government right now, understands that its power is limited by each of us. We don't report to the government. We hold them to account. That is our role here.
To the Liberal members on this committee, including the parliamentary secretary, your role is to hold the government to account. It is to ensure that every action is happening in the best interest of Canadians, not to toe the party line, not to cast aspersions, but to ensure that transparency is provided, accountability is provided, and good and just government is provided.
What we have seen from this government, on the obfuscation and delay of government, is an affront to Parliament and an affront to democracy. We might not agree on policy and we might not agree on political stripe, but we should agree that Parliament is supreme. We should agree that our rights as parliamentarians are paramount.
On the work of Mr. Dufresne and the law counsel, I know you've tried to do your best—and the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. I strongly feel this. What has happened over the last several months in Parliament is very concerning to me and many people. Of course, there might be times when the government might not want certain facts to come to light. That is true of any stripe of government, but we cannot ignore the fact that Parliament is supreme, that we have the right to look at these documents, to ascertain what happened, to pass orders for production of documents, and then provide a better path forward where we see deficiencies.
There are ways to put constraints around the release of documents. For example, Mr. Barlow's motion talked about reviewing things in camera. These are deliberations and bounds that can be put on release of information, but that's not what this government did.
That's certainly what Mr. Davies exposed with his line of questions today. There was no effort to work with Parliament. There was no effort to work with the opposition. It was a borderline dictatorship move, and that's enough. Enough of that. We don't want that.
This motion is important, and I hope every member on this committee agrees that we are supreme and we have an accountability to our constituents. I hope it passes, and I hope that light is shed on these matters.
Again, in my closing words to you in this Parliament, I would just go to Mr. Dufresne.
You have a big job ahead of you in coming days, and I want to say to you on behalf of the 120,000-plus constituents who I represent, they are depending on you to make a case for our place of democracy. We cannot allow what has happened to continue. As Parliament adjourns for the summer, we look to you now to ensure that the torch is borne and to ensure that we're not silenced by rulings that preclude our supremacy.
Thank you, Chair.
I now pass it over to the rest of my colleagues, hopefully in support of this motion.
I believe that our whole committee is indebted to the excellent work of Mr. Davies, who explained it in extremely explicit terms, but I will reiterate it, probably not as eloquently as Mr. Davies has done.
The call for the vaccine contracts is fairly simple. There is a House motion that calls for documents that it says should be redacted. It says explicitly that they are to be redacted by the clerk and not by the government or any part of the government.
There is then Mr. Barlow's motion, which calls for those documents to be redacted in accordance with that motion. This is dead simple. This is not difficult to understand, and in fact, the government is blatantly disagreeing with it.
Yes, it's parliamentary supremacy, and that's clear. As Ms. O'Connell said, we've heard it over and over again from the , from the previous , from Liberals, from Conservatives, from NDP members. It is beyond a doubt. We've heard it from the law clerk that Parliament is supreme.
However, that's not really the critical part of this because we are to be governed by the people, and Parliament is merely a function of the people. When this government decides to blatantly and blazingly disobey the Parliament, they are saying to every one of my 100,000 plus constituents, “We don't care. We're going to do what we want. We are unresponsible.” This is the height of irresponsible government. This is why our country was founded. This is the reason for the Magna Carta. This is the reason that we formed a responsible government.
If government—if the executive—is not going to listen to the committee, why do we even exist? Why is this committee here? If we have no power, if we have no authority over the bureaucracy, we're just wasting money. We're just a dining club. We're not a function of the people, which is what we are supposed to be.
When, Ms. O'Connell, you call into question parliamentary supremacy, you are calling into question the very foundation of our country, of our nation, which I believe is the greatest country in the world. It is absolutely incumbent on all of us—and I say this not just to my colleagues in the NDP or my fellow Conservatives but also to my Liberal colleagues. You are the stewards of responsible democracy. If you don't vote for this, you are literally disregarding all the men and women who sacrificed their lives so that we could have responsible government, so that we could have a government that responds when people's voices are heard. We are saying, “You know what? The law clerk doesn't get to see those documents.” There are all sorts of provisions that are there to protect national security.
Whether it be MP Barlow or MP Rempel Garner, they have used that power with precision. They haven't said, “Let's go ahead and have these documents all go out to the public.” They're aware of the impact of this power, of the unfettered absolute power to require any document, any witness from the civil service, at any time.
What they've done is protect our national security. They have protected the ability of any type of privacy by giving it to the law clerk first, who is a creature of Parliament, and giving him the ability to censor it so that we make sure that no unnecessary documents.... On top of that, they even go the next level and say, “We'll have the committee in camera so that we don't inadvertently allow some information, some privacy or other documents....”
In conclusion, the law is absolutely clear. We, as parliamentarians, have the unfettered, absolute power to have any documents that we want when we want them, and we have asked for them. The government has disregarded that. This is not just a slap in the face to Parliament. It is a slap in the face to every one of the 37 million plus Canadians who send us here to Ottawa, who we represent. Shame on you if you don't vote for this motion.
Thank you.
First, because it is the national holiday in Quebec and the festivities have begun, I would like to wish all the Quebeckers here a happy National Holiday. Unfortunately, there are not many of them.
We can still take an interest in issues such as the provinces' sole jurisdiction over long‑term care centres. However, that is not what we are talking about right now. It is about the hierarchy of law.
Does constitutional law trump statutory law? Why are the government and some officials pitting the prerogatives of Parliament against those of personal information? That's what I'm wondering about.
Let me also refer to section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867:
The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.
I would also like to mention Standing Order 108(1)(a), which refers to the powers of standing committees:
Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to sit jointly with other standing committees, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House.
Mr. Chair, I thought it is helpful to share this with you, especially as it relates to the study that we should be doing now. For me, it is really of national interest to know how much Canadians are paying for vaccines. We are talking about supply and demand, an issue that has an impact on the world.
We know that Canada's first problem was that we didn't have a domestic vaccine production capability. So we found ourselves completely dependent on the international market. If supply and demand cause prices to fluctuate, will the price of a vaccine purchased when it first became available in December, and the price of a vaccine purchased this summer be the same? Consequently, did the vaccine cost more at the beginning because the government wanted to put on a show for the cameras? Can we have the exact information?
What we have learned from the budget is that $9 billion was apparently allocated for the purchase of vaccines. If we can compare supply and demand, would we be able to have more information?
This is a public policy issue. The difficulty in being able to analyze the actual price of the vaccines—because the documents were redacted by the department instead of being sent to a law clerk who would have redacted them, according to the rules of the motion—is really interesting. According to a February 5 article, Canada paid more to be at the top of Pfizer's and Moderna's delivery lists in December, paying an average of $37.70 per vaccine, according to data released by Statistics Canada.
At a committee meeting, I asked Mr. Pinnow, the president of Pfizer Canada, just how the supply and demand factor influences the price of a vaccine. He replied, “Pfizer has been on record from the beginning to say that traditional supply and demand economics do not factor into our pricing decision.”
I then asked him whether the price of a vaccine purchased by the Government of Canada or any other country in the last quarter of 2020, in December, would be higher or lower than if the vaccine were purchased in summer 2021, when there's less demand. Mr. Pinnow answered: “Again, I appreciate the question, but we will not be discussing pricing publicly.”
So we are really in a position where parliamentary privilege does not apply. This is about the best interests of the public, the public interest in knowing how much the whole COVID‑19 pandemic will have cost. We are given no answers, but I think that knowing the data is absolutely essential.
Statistics Canada, in an analysis of international merchandise trade for the month of December 2020, tells us the following: “Based on a preliminary analysis, it is estimated that Canada's imports of COVID‑19 vaccines totalled approximately $16 million in December.” Is this number good or bad? Could we find out?
As of December 30, Ottawa had received 424,150 doses from Pfizer and Moderna. The government declined to say how much it had paid for each one, but Statistics Canada's analysis put us back at $37.70.
However, Canada also received its first vials in time for Christmas, shortly after the U.K., but before the European Union. It made for great television in Canada and other countries to see seniors finally getting the vaccine.
However, according to figures released by a Belgian MP last month, the European Union paid far less for those doses than Canada—$22.91 for Moderna and $18.47 for Pfizer. The U.S. also paid less than us, $24.80 for Pfizer doses and $35 for Moderna doses, according to data published by Washington and Forbes magazine. The Europeans and Americans are vaccine producers.
Canada is not because we have given up our ability to produce vaccines. Fortunately, we may take some symbolic steps towards producing vaccines, but that will probably be after all Canadians have been vaccinated. The Americans and Europeans have ordered more vials than Canada and they have production facilities at home. These two factors influence prices. In this regard, I would like to know whether we, as taxpayers, have paid the right price for what we received, and especially whether the government will remember that depending on other vaccine‑producing countries has put us in a weak position. The same is true for personal protective equipment.
We are entering another phase with the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), where we are still totally dependent on the prices in other countries. Is there anything we can do about it?
Transparency, meaning not having redacted documents, would allow us to make informed decisions in the best interests of the people we represent.
My hypothesis is that we have paid far too much and that the pharmaceutical companies have made a lot of money on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. Of course, we are in a pandemic and the debt is over $1 trillion. The amount of money is very relative, but I think it is essential to have responsible management. Perhaps that is what we do not have.
I remind you of the urgency of making sure that Canada's plants can be used and that our researchers can do research by applying basic science. We need to fund the entire vaccine chain, the ecosystem, as Mr. Lamarre said to the committee last week. We have missed the boat in many ways, and ultimately, we should ask whether the money we overpaid for vaccines could have been invested in producing our own vaccines.
I think those questions answer themselves. However, I'm not a scientist, I'm a parliamentarian. I would like to be able to rely on very tangible data to have these things clear in my head. But the government is not allowing us to have the data at this time. It seems to me that it would be irresponsible to run an election campaign on such a fundamental issue: have we paid too much for vaccines?
In that sense, I support the motion.
I really sincerely hope that the members of the opposition don't start charging rent for how much I am living in their heads right now.
I find it particularly interesting that when you have a very weak argument you instead go to personal attacks. That's all we've heard in these last ramblings.
Let me do a bit of a recap here.
What we heard today was that thousands of pages or documents—however you want to define them—were provided to the law clerk. They are continuing to be provided in unredacted form when appropriate. The law clerk confirmed that. He also confirmed that the government has never indicated that they are withholding anything. In fact, he confirmed that the documents are still being produced. In fact, he also didn't argue in any way—and didn't take the bait from the opposition—to say that the government was in any way in breach. He clearly said that he is continuing to do his job. He is receiving the documents that are being provided.
I think the Conservative and NDP coalition's big day today was to try to get some gotcha moment that just didn't happen, because it's not happening because the government is providing the documents.
That's a quick recap.
What has happened here since then is this whole kind of like throwing of spaghetti to see what sticks. Mr. Morantz spoke about national security. Nobody in the motion before us is talking about national security. He perhaps is at the wrong committee. The reference to national security was simply on some of the parameters in the House motion for redactions, but the law clerk never suggested that any of the documents from the October 26 motion were not being complied with. In fact, he said he's still receiving them, and that work is still ongoing.
Then what did the Conservatives do? They called this a dictatorship. They referred to Watergate, Richard Nixon.... I mean, has there been a substantial argument on the facts before us? No. It's nothing but name-calling. This is the Conservatives' big moment.
Documents are being presented. In fact, I think the clerk said that over 6,000 documents have been provided to the clerk. I received notification of them, and guess what? Not a single member of the opposition has called to have a meeting to review any of those documents. We haven't had a meeting talking about them. The Conservatives just received them. The conspiracy theory that I'm referring to is the fact that there's this conspiracy theory that there's some big set of documents not being provided, and they don't receive anything. In fact, they've received the documents, and what they're not telling Canadians is that there is no scandal in them, so “let's pretend that there's some big thing here that's missing”. It reminds me of the U.S.—the big lie. There's no scandal in the documents that they've received, the thousands of documents that they've received, so now it's about innuendo of what else is out there.
Well, Mr. Chair, let me move on, then, to the next part that was brought up. Mr. Lawrence and I forget who else mentioned it, but they talked about the contracts. The contracts are the base of this issue. Mr. Maguire said that: the contracts are at the base of this issue. Mr. Lawrence said it's “simple”. Well, Mr. Chair, I have the October 26 motion in my hands right now. It is four pages long. There are 30 clauses in this motion. The opposition even included an amendment through the process—30 clauses, four pages, and not a single mention of vaccine contracts. How simple is that?
I think what has happened here is that the Conservatives went on a fishing expedition with the NDP, and nothing came up. Then they get into revisionist history with what I keep referring to as “the Barlow motion”, because again, Mr. Chair: four pages, 30 clauses, and not a single mention of the vaccine contracts that the Conservatives say are at the heart of this. They have a funny way of showing what's at the heart of something.
There's been more mention of personal attacks on me than vaccine contracts by the opposition today. I think Canadians can see through the games.
After the October 26 motion was put in place—30 clauses, four pages and no mention of vaccine contracts—the Conservatives realized that, oops, they didn't mention that, so in walks the Barlow motion on February 5.
In this motion they actually acknowledge in the third paragraph—I kept referring to it today—that, “If the Law Clerk does not have such documents”. Well, if it was so simple and in the October motion or order of the House, why would you put in a provision like that? It's because it didn't exist, so the Conservatives are trying to rewrite history.
But, when you take the Barlow motion, it clearly says that if the law clerk doesn't have these documents—because the law clerk was never required to have those documents—it sets out parameters of how these documents should be shared with the committee.
Here's the big thing that Conservatives don't want Canadians to understand, Mr. Chair. It asks for the vaccine agreements with the suppliers, that they be tabled with the committee in both official languages and that the documents be vetted in accordance with the parameters set out in the House motion.
The law clerk confirmed that was done. The documents were provided to the members of this committee. They were provided in both official languages and they were set out with the parameters of the motion. The vetting was done based on the parameters of the main motion.
The difference is, and what the Conservatives are trying to argue, that the law clerk should have done the vetting. If the members of the opposition wanted that, why didn't they include it in their motion? It is not the government's fault that the Conservatives create this web of lies, confusion and procedure upon amendments, motions and orders that don't actually make sense, and then come back and say that government never did the thing they never asked it to do.
No Canadian would see this as a logical way to do business. Instead, the government, in an attempt to be as transparent as possible said that here are the documents in both official languages and that the government had vetted them based on the parameters of the October motion. The government complied. The Conservatives are so unused to the government because when they were in government.... These members are so not used to committees actually receiving this information that I think their heads exploded and they didn't know what to do.
I guess to conclude, Mr. Chair, I'm pretty animated on this because I feel like it's such a misuse of this House. The insults that have been said, that this is somehow a dining club and why are we here....
If the members want something to do, why don't they go through the thousands of documents that have been provided to them? Why don't they speak to Canadians about those documents?
It's because there's no scandal. The only things Conservatives know how to do is make up conspiracy theories and suggest that there is some horrible thing happening and Canadians just need to know about it.
When you actually look at the facts in front of you, I think it says a lot that the Conservatives and the NDP actually tried to filibuster their own motion today because they know they don't have legs to stand on. Instead they resort to personal attacks, name-calling, referring to this as a dictatorship—a dictatorship that provided all the documents. I think they have a pretty messed-up view of what a dictatorship looks like because we complied with the motion.
It's not the government's fault that their motion doesn't make sense. It's not the government's fault that the October order didn't include vaccine contracts. The government complied with it. It's not the government's fault that after 30 clauses, four pages and not a single reference to vaccine contracts, now the Conservatives, propped up by the NDP, are crying conspiracy theory and crying that there is some horrible thing happening here.
This is my last point, Mr. Chair. I think it's pretty horrible that.... I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Lemire's comments about vaccines being too expensive. I'd be super curious to know what he thinks the price of one of his constituent's lives is. He wanted us to wait and not purchase vaccines, but I would say, Mr. Chair, that we worked to save lives, to procure vaccines for the saving of those lives. I think his constituents would be very interested to know that he felt we spent too much money trying to save their lives.
I think what we have here is a classic case of the Conservatives really not having any facts to back up their accusations. Instead, they turn to innuendo and name-calling. That's fine, Mr. Chair. I think Canadians can see right through it because we have the documents right in front of us. The committee has been provided thousands of pages and not a single thing has been raised by these committee members. I think that says it all.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.