:
Good afternoon, everybody. I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 30 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
The committee is meeting today from 3:32 to 5:32, Ottawa time. We will hear witnesses as part of the committee's study of government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants to this meeting that screenshots and taking photos of your screen are not permitted.
To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few of the rules. Interpretation of this video conference will work very much like in a regular committee meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French audio. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are ready to speak, you can click on the microphone to activate your mike. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.
To raise a point of order during the meeting, committee members should ensure that their microphone is unmuted and say “point of order” to get the chair's attention.
The clerk and the analysts are participating in the meeting virtually today. If you need to speak with them during the meeting, please email them through the committee email address. The clerk can also be reached on his mobile phone.
For those who are participating in the committee room, please note that masks are required unless seated and when physical distancing is not possible.
I will now invite the TBS witnesses to make their opening statements.
In the spirit of reconciliation, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are speaking to you today from the traditional unceded territories.
My name is Marie-Chantal Girard, and I am the assistant deputy minister of the pensions and benefits sector. I am joined by Tolga Yalkin, assistant deputy minister of workplace policies and programs at the Treasury Board Secretariat.
In mid-March, many of the nearly 300,000 federal public servants began working from home virtually overnight.
Many continued their day-to-day tasks, delivering information, programs and services to Canadians.
[English]
A number of them were also asked to take on new work to support the government's response to the pandemic, including implementing public health preparedness and response measures, supports for citizens and businesses impacted by the crisis, and much more.
For example, more than a thousand federal public servants volunteered to staff the call centre for the Canadian emergency relief benefit.
Many other public servants are continuing to play an enabling role in supporting the delivery of government programs and services, including building up and maintaining a reliable information technology infrastructure to support remote work.
At the Treasury Board Secretariat, officials continue to support the government's response to the pandemic. They are managing the supply cycle of government planning and reporting, providing guidance to deputy heads for the management of human resources, and providing policy directions to departments in a whole range of other areas.
[Translation]
My colleague and I are here to answer your questions related to the human resources management of the public service during the pandemic.
[English]
The office of the chief human resources officer has been providing guidance to deputy heads on overall human resources management throughout the pandemic. In doing so, we continue to be guided by the advice of public health authorities, including the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada's public service occupational health program, on all issues relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccination.
[Translation]
Like all Canadians, the vast majority of federal employees have already been or will be vaccinated according to the vaccination program in the province or territory in which they reside.
[English]
In light of the prevailing public health guidance, public service employees will largely continue to work remotely for the foreseeable future. For employees in key federal workplaces, the Government of Canada is expanding the use of rapid tests for screening purposes. Those in workplaces where there is a higher risk of exposure will be offered rapid tests on a voluntary basis, administered by trained personnel.
[Translation]
Within the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, there is an acknowledgement that, beyond the immediate physical health risks posed by the global pandemic, there are, and will continue to be, both short- and long-term psychological impacts for employees in the public sector, just as we are seeing in the broader Canadian society.
[English]
Steps continue to be taken, and active communications through a number of avenues are ensured so that public servants are aware of the supports available to them. These include enhanced access to mental health support, tools and guidance, and information and training sessions to help them navigate the challenges they face.
[Translation]
Temporary changes were made to the federal public service health care plan, expanding the list of covered service providers to include psychotherapists and social workers, and removing the requirement for a prescription for required paramedical services or extending the validity of the current prescription.
[English]
Temporary measures were also put in place to facilitate more flexible and alternative work arrangements and to support employees who are unable to work remotely. In addition, the COVID-19 and mental health virtual resource hub was launched. It provides free and accessible resources, supports and tools for employees, and is open to all Canadians.
[Translation]
While we continue to prioritize mental health and apply a mental health lens to much of what is done, employees face different mental health issues in their day-to-day environment. The goal is to ensure everyone finds the support they need.
The pandemic has not impacted all Canadians equally. In the federal public service, diversity, accessibility and inclusion are a priority, and much work remains to be done.
[English]
At the Treasury Board Secretariat, a number of actions have been taken over the past year to support departmental efforts in this area: first, the publication of new disaggregated workforce data and, last month, the launch of a new online interactive data visualization tool; second, the creation of the centre on diversity and inclusion in the office of the chief human resources officer, which leads new and innovative initiatives, does recruitment and talent management, and coordinates and co-develops solutions with stakeholders; third, the launch of the federal speaker's forum on diversity and inclusion to provide a platform for diverse public servants to share their lived experience; and finally, the implementation of the mentorship plus program, which pairs employees from diverse backgrounds with executive mentors and sponsors.
[Translation]
Public servants provide important programs and services to Canadians, and we are continually looking at ways to improve supports and resources available to them.
As has been the case thus far, any guidance on return to work sites will be guided by science, and developed in collaboration with deputy heads and in consultation with bargaining agents. We will, of course, adjust as the science evolves.
With that, we would be happy to answer questions members may have.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to take that question.
There are, obviously, a number of different ways in which Treasury Board Secretariat has supported deputy heads who have the authority and are accountable for the administration of their organizations.
For example, on the issue of equipment, a number of questions were raised early in the pandemic as to how and under what circumstances deputy heads should be considering the elaboration of policies for equipping their public servants in a pandemic. Treasury Board Secretariat provided guidance, I believe in April of last year, on equipping employees. It helped to establish consistent and uniform norms that the departments could then apply, depending on their own context.
A series of guidance has been provided on the duty to accommodate. I believe Madam Girard raised that in her remarks. That was key to ensuring that in a remote working context, we are abiding by our commitments under the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that employees who need reasonable accommodations are adequately accommodated.
A whole host of guidance has been provided on mental health, including a mental health hub that has been developed for employees. I believe it has garnered over 300,000 unique page views, which I think is a testament to the importance of that guidance.
Mr. Chair, I could go on, but perhaps I'll stop there. I'm happy to answer any additional questions.
:
Thank you. I also want to extend my thanks and welcome to the witnesses who are here today.
I want to begin by changing the focus a bit. News reports today have dozens of people in long-term care facilities, potentially, based on military reports here in Ontario, having died from dehydration and neglect, which I think is to our country's great shame. I know there is a lot of finger pointing around jurisdiction and who is responsible for national standards, but there is one company that, through its Crown corporation ownership, is well within the purview of the TSB. That, of course, is Revera.
Revera has had, I believe, somewhere around 300 deaths within its facilities. I don't know if Revera is also included in the military report as it relates to the dehydration and negligence, but we know that back in 2007 the Public Sector Pension Investment Board purchased what was then termed a retirement residence real estate investment trust—a retirement REIT. Essentially, Revera is a real estate company masquerading as a care company. In some of my preliminary work on this it's very clear, through their own governance structure as put on the PSP website, that they report to ministers.
I have a question, through you, Mr. Chair, for Ms. Girard, who also happens to be involved in some of the pension work. What risk analysis has your department done through the Treasury Board, understanding the potential social and financial risks that could be presented through the Crown corporation ownership of Revera?
:
Thank you for the question.
I have the overall data, but I do not have the data for each department.
Clearly, from the outset, the key principles of our office, as the largest employer, were to take measures to avoid contributing to the spread of the virus and to ensure the safety of our employees.
As of April 29, 2021, 4,581 employees had contracted COVID-19. Let me be clear that this number is cumulative. It is not the number of people who had it on April 29, but rather the number of people who had contracted it since the beginning of the pandemic.
As for the second part of your question, we will have to take a look and provide an answer to the committee later.
:
Okay, then two francophones will not be speaking to each other in English.
A number of measures have been taken.
I repeat that the first directive stipulates that the work must be done from home in all cases where it is feasible.
If, because of the imperatives of service and program delivery, employees must work on site, all preventative measures must be applied. This issue has been studied by various workplace committees to reflect the reality of how each workplace operates rather than a cookie-cutter approach across the country. All personal protective equipment has been provided, signage has been installed and distance is maintained where possible.
I would add to my answer that the occupancy rate in federal buildings is approximately 25% to 30%, which is considered acceptable at this stage.
As part of the vaccination campaign, everyone is sending the message that vaccination is the solution. Employees are encouraged to get vaccinated as soon as their turn comes in the provincial and territorial vaccination strategy.
In the more critical locations, our rapid testing initiative comes fully into play and completes the range of measures.
I'd like to use this time to revisit a notice of motion that I've placed. I've sent it out to your P9s. It's to hopefully get to the heart of the matter, which is controlling the controllables and having a better understanding about how we might be able to offset some of the losses we're experiencing through this Crown corporation.
I'm going to move the following:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c)(ix), the committee undertake a study of the Public Sector Pension Investment Board's (PSP) ownership of Revera Inc., and that the committee invite witnesses including, but not limited to, the Chair of PSP and the Chair of Revera Inc.
I will just take a moment, Mr. Chair, to speak to that. Members of this committee will recall that I tabled this earlier in the year. I think it is appropriate given that we're hearing today in the news and understanding that there is very little we can control. This is one of the things I believe we can control.
Given the purview of this committee and the conversations that have arisen today, I think we should go ahead and call the appropriate people to this committee to give us some kind of assurance that as a Crown corporation, even at arm's length, they are working within the parameters of best practices around public health and safety and workers' health and safety. I think this is the way to do it.
When we're talking about public servants' returning back to the offices, walk us through what's going to be required to have them return. I'm not talking about CBSA, who are at their usual spots, but just the general day-to-day, for lack of better words, public servants.
Who's going to make that decision? It sounded like, you said earlier, it will be on a department-by-department basis. I'm just curious, who's going to decide? It is Treasury Board's purview, I guess, but who will decide that, based on what metrics, and so on? Obviously, it's a very large undertaking. I would assume these discussions are taking place already. Can you update us, then, if that's the case?
:
Thank you for the question.
Actually, the guidelines provided by the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer are aligned with the provisions in the collective agreements. The guidelines also comply with public health directives.
However, each leave request is assessed on a case-by-case basis. We have seen the situation fluctuate dramatically. At the beginning of the pandemic, of course, there was a period of adjustment, during which employees took leave using code 699. Thereafter, we saw that use drop steadily until the end of January. At that point, the high schools in Ontario closed and we saw a slight increase in the use of code 699.
Whatever the case may be, each employee has a discussion with his or her manager, who assesses all the adjustments that could be made to ensure productivity and that the employee is working to the extent possible. That is done by reorganizing tasks or hours of work.
Once that assessment has been done, the manager must make sure that leave taken under code 699 is not used for regular vacation days, such as those normally taken in the summer. Leave under code 699 is intended for employees who cannot get to work or complete their tasks, for reasons beyond their control.
Good afternoon. My name is Debi Daviau, and I am president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, or PIPSC, the union that represents some 60,000 mainly federal public service professionals across Canada.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this exceptionally important issue. I would be happy to answer any and all questions you may have following my presentation.
I would first like to highlight how tens of thousands of dedicated public servants have continued to faithfully serve Canadians since the start of the pandemic. For example, PIPSC members built the systems to deliver the financial support programs desperately needed by their fellow Canadians. They helped thousands of stranded Canadians to return home. Our members worked miracles to get personal protective equipment to those who needed it. We built the technical infrastructure to allow other public servants to continue their work from the safety of their homes. Our health care professionals took to the front lines, and our scientists pivoted to focus on fighting COVID-19.
Right now a small percentage of our members still remain in their regular workplaces. They provide critical services, for example, health care in prisons and in remote communities, meteorological forecasting and IT support. Overall, though, approximately 90% of our members are currently working from their home offices.
In general terms, we are reasonably satisfied with how the government has handled the crisis's impact on its employees. Our representatives at all levels, from steward to me as president, have been in regular and frequent contact with their ministerial or departmental counterparts to identify specific concerns and fix specific problems.
There have been no layoffs of our members, and in some cases we've been able to come to an agreement with management to ensure the organization's continued operations and viability until the crisis is behind us for good.
I can't pretend there haven't been issues with individual departments or even local managers misinterpreting or simply ignoring Treasury Board directives. Yes, there have been a number of inconsistencies across Canada when it comes to implementing safety protocols and around our members working from home, but overall, I'll give the government a passing grade so far.
At this point, the main concern is one of adapting to the new work reality and to what the “new normal” will be like for the public service. It's about giving employees the choice to work at home or in an office, whether a satellite location or their regular workplace.
This means ensuring proper employer support for home offices and telework, making sure employees working from home have the equipment they need to do their job. For those who can't or don't want telework, it means ensuring that any future Government of Canada workplaces are designed with safety and health considerations at the forefront.
Just as important, it also means a big change in the public service work culture. It's no secret that many managers still don't trust their employees to work remotely, despite their demonstrated success in continuing to serve Canadians for the past year and a half. This will require a great deal of management training.
Also, because of the incredibly negative impact the pandemic has had on people's mental health and their work-life balance, the employer must develop new tools for ensuring the wellness of public service employees.
That's our overall reaction to the government's approach on COVID and its effects on employees to date. However, I also have some very specific points that I'd like to bring to the committee's attention today.
They are related to identifying which existing collective agreement provisions need to be modified or tweaked to ensure that public service managers have the ability to be flexible with employees while still respecting our contracts.
Our first concern on that front is about leave with pay, also known as code 699, which is getting lots of airtime today.
The vast majority of federal public servants have been able to work through this crisis without requiring extra leave. However, those who need more flexibility because of caregiving duties, to deal with health risks or who cannot perform their tasks at home, can use code 699 to apply for their leave.
At the beginning of the pandemic, there was more use of code 699 than now, because many federal public servants didn't have access to the tools to do their jobs from home at the time. I know that historically public servants are many commentators' preferred targets, but despite what you may have heard, to date the use of code 699 has in fact been minimal—a drop in the bucket, so to speak. When it's needed, it's needed. It's that simple.
It's also a fact that women, caregivers and those with health risks need access to code 699 leave to cope with the pandemic. It's broadly recognized that the burden of child care and financial repercussions in the COVID era has disproportionately fallen on women, but the Treasury Board proceeded, even after conducting a gender-based analysis and over the objections of bargaining agents, to make changes to code 699 that introduced a distinction between health issues and caregiving duties. The net result is that it's now more difficult for our members to access 699.
We find this so wrong that we have written to the , the and the , urging them to reverse this decision. We have also filed policy grievances on this issue, as have other bargaining agents.
Our second concern is about the duty to accommodate. At this point, it's very clear that the employer's duty to accommodate extends beyond the traditional workplace to include remote work and telework. We need to determine the most appropriate and reasonable accommodation in individual cases. This could include a combination of existing provisions augmented by temporary measures. Clear and concise guidelines on this are needed right away.
Our third concern revolves around hours of work provisions. They must be adapted in the future to reflect the high reliance on remote work, both during the pandemic and in the foreseeable future.
Before I conclude my remarks, I want to emphasize how critical it is for the Treasury Board and individual departments and agencies to continue to consult and work closely with bargaining agents to ensure that all these points are being addressed. The government's response to the pandemic and its treatment of federal workers has been commendable so far. Let's not change that now.
I'd like to thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer your questions, as would my senior adviser, Emily Watkins.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate today.
My name is Chris Aylward. I'm the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, representing over 140,000 federal public sector workers.
I would like to begin by commending the federal government for its continued financial support to Canadians and businesses impacted by COVID-19. Many of the 140,000 members of the federal public service are proud of their ongoing work to help deliver this support, and proud of their contributions during a time that remains difficult for many across the country.
Our members at the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada have helped process tens of millions of applications for financial assistance for individuals and businesses, and are continuing to do so every day.
Border services officers deal with potentially infected travellers daily; food inspectors are in grave danger of outbreaks at meat-packing plants, and personnel in federal penitentiaries face similar threats.
With the restrictions brought on by each new wave of COVID-19, they have done this work around the clock when needed, with their children by their side, with family members to care for, and with the constant stress of changes that the virus has brought to the daily lives of each of us.
During my appearance before the committee last May, I noted that the government, as an employer, had been in unprecedented regular communication with our union as the pandemic unfolded. I am pleased to report that these open lines of communication have been maintained.
These open channels of co-operation have allowed us to facilitate greater support to our members, so that they might not only provide critical services to Canadians but also address the myriad of workplace problems generated by the pandemic.
A key and ongoing concern for PSAC members, and in fact for all public service employees, is the government's commitment to the health and safety of its employees. The pandemic is far from over and it must remain a top priority.
Despite some exceptions that we continue to work through, we acknowledge that the federal government has worked hard to keep the vast majority of our members safe during this pandemic. The measures put in place by Treasury Board have been in consultation with PSAC through respectful dialogue.
This largely effective collaboration has permitted the establishment of important new measures, including the vaccination framework and planning for the easing of restrictions.
The shortcomings in health and safety were largely apparent for our members working in specific sectors, notably border services officers and our food inspectors, fisheries inspectors and transportation inspectors. Safety measures were at times lacking or too slow in their implementation.
Moving forward, whether on the front lines or in offices, our members need to know that protective measures and training will be in place, and that personal protective equipment will be in stock and available. The availability of rapid testing should also remain an ongoing priority for those performing on-site work.
It must also be noted that many of our frontline workers were not given priority access to vaccines by provincial authorities. We hope the federal government can work with its provincial counterparts to avoid this in the future. The race between vaccines and variants will determine the outcome of this pandemic as it unfolds, and our workers need every protection available afforded them.
The PSAC is also continuing to work in full collaboration with Treasury Board as co-chair of the centre of expertise on mental health in the workplace.
One key lesson from the last year is that the flexible leave provisions negotiated between federal public sector unions and the government have been key to allowing workers to weather this crisis while continuing to deliver for Canadians.
Provisions such as the 699 leave have allowed thousands of workers to care for children when child care centres and schools shut down at various points in the pandemic. They allowed workers to keep their communities and family members safe, and to care for those who fell ill, including themselves. Rather than plunge these workers into personal and financial chaos, and rather than dragging the public service and our economy right along with them, they allowed these dedicated employees to work flexible hours and take the time they needed to address the hardships created by the pandemic.
That's why it has been disappointing, however, that the government has attempted to restrict the use of 699 leave across the public service, despite clear evidence that it is largely being used only when necessary.
Now, more broadly, PSAC is pleased the government has continued to respond to this crisis with progressive measures to support Canadians. Actions such as expanding access to employment insurance, the CERB, and supports for students, parents, seniors, women's shelters, food banks and emergency housing, have all been welcome and much needed.
The federal government's expenditures are an investment in Canadians and the future of this country. This pandemic has shown that public services are unique and indispensable. We cannot return to austerity measures, an austerity mentality and cutbacks to social services and programs. Instead, let's ensure the wealthiest pay their fair share while we work to rebuild and remake our country, and indeed the world, into something much better.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to start off by wishing every nurse in our country a happy National Nursing Week—registered practical nurses, RNs, all of them. They really carried us through a pretty traumatic year.
Members of the committee, my name is Sharleen Stewart. Thank you for hearing from me today.
SEIU represents over two million members across the United States, Puerto Rico and Canada. I proudly serve as international vice-president of our union and president of SEIU Healthcare, which represents 120,000 people nationally and 60,000 in Ontario. They are all frontline health care workers.
As I stated at this committee last summer, our elder care system has failed. It has failed working women, who make up the vast majority of frontline staff. It has failed seniors, who were robbed of dignity and life. It has failed their families, who just yesterday marked Mother's Day, mourning mothers and grandmothers who died in isolation. In short, it has failed everyday people.
On the other hand, the past year has rewarded others: shareholders who collect dividends from corporations purporting to deliver care and executives at real estate investment trusts—otherwise known as REITs—masquerading as care corporations, who earned big performance bonuses as death, suffering and economic depression descended over the women they employ.
SEIU Healthcare lost five workers in Ontario alone from COVID-19, because they went to work in service of their community. I'd like to read their names into the record: Christine Mandegarian, Arlene Reid, Sharon Roberts, Maureen Ambersley and Lorraine Gouveia. All of them were women, and all were women of colour. Meanwhile, three publicly traded nursing home chains—Chartwell, Sienna and Extendicare—have collectively paid out over $230 million in cash to shareholders in these past 12 months.
I provide this contrasting overview to demonstrate whom the system serves and whom the system fails. It serves nursing home chain owners and it fails families.
Members of this committee, I want to thank you and your respective parties for engaging with SEIU over the past year. I have had meaningful conversations with MPs from most parties, including , and . You've been open and you've taken collective action.
We know that over eight cents out of every dollar spent to respond to COVID-19 is a result of decisions by MPs in Ottawa, and we thank you for that, but what is done with those federal dollars in emergency response when transferred to the provinces should concern us all.
Let's take our largest province as an example. Provincial regulations have been cut to eliminate minimum care standards for seniors. Provincial regulations have been cut to eliminate background checks for new staff.
This is skilled work. It is hard work, and it is work that must be protected and rewarded. When a province caves to the lobbying of the for-profit industry, we get more part-time work, lower pay and no accountability. We need new national standards that focus on people and care, not the real estate holdings of the nursing homes industry. We cannot allow more money for provinces to make a bad system bigger. We need standards to make a bad system better. As the recent report from the Ontario commission on long-term care indicated, we don't need to study the studies. We need to act.
Members of this committee, I ask that you champion national standards in your caucuses and in your provinces, and provide money, with strings attached, to do the following. First, increase staffing levels so that work is safe and the care is dignified. Second, put in standards that pay personal support workers and all health care workers a living wage. Third, put in standards that ensure full-time jobs where benefits are the norm and not the exception. Fourth, create financial penalties for nursing home chains that fail to meet care standards. Fifth, transform operations from a private system to a public system, like that of our trusted hospitals. These five items are not only popular among voters of all parties; they are also good public policy.
Thank you so much. I'd be happy to take any questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Daviau, just now, we were discussing the Phoenix pay system and the compensation being taxed. Ms. Girard told us that the decision on that taxation was up to the Canada Revenue Agency. For a number of weeks, I have been receiving letters asking for Mr. Duclos, the President of the Treasury Board, to come to an agreement with the agency. Each claims that the ball is in the other's court, you might say.
Can you explain the problem about taxing the compensation to us? I know it does not seem to have a direct connection with COVID-19, but public servants are devoted, committed people who have adapted quickly. Taxing that compensation seems to be sending them a message that they are going to be penalized, no matter what.
I would like to know your opinion about the situation between the Canada Revenue Agency and the Treasury Board Secretariat.
:
Thank you for that, Debi.
Yes, it's a great question. Last fall, the Public Service Alliance of Canada negotiated a settlement for [Technical difficulty—Editor] suffering. That happened last fall.
We had an opinion from the CRA saying that they believed those monies were taxable, because it was in the settlement of a grievance. There was a meeting on February 3 between the Canada Revenue Agency, PSAC and Treasury Board, and it was agreed at that meeting that PSAC and Treasury Board would issue to the CRA an agreed statement of facts. I'm going to say that again, an agreed statement of facts, not opinion, not analysis, an agreed statement of facts.
Treasury Board has failed to sign that agreement of facts. We just received the letter from the CRA two weeks ago and the CRA said that, as agreed, it would review its decision if it received an agreed statement of facts. It went on to say that since that hadn't happened, it would not review its opinion on the matter.
You're absolutely right. The Treasury Board has failed to agree to this statement of facts, and we're asking our members to write to Minister Duclos to ask him to sign the statement of facts. As I said, it's a statement of facts. They're not opinions; they're not analysis. It clarifies what is in the agreement, and that's all it does. The Treasury Board is refusing to sign that agreed statement of facts, and that's what's the issue here.
It's certainly not lost on me that today marks the first day of National Nursing Week. I want to take this moment to thank all the incredible frontline nurses and health care workers across the country. I know that SEIU has a pretty significant nursing division and represents 60,000 workers.
I am also struck by the fact that we are almost a year to the day from some really poignant testimony that Ms. Stewart provided to this committee at the outset of this pandemic. I wish we could have been here under better news. I can recall the interview I conducted with the secretary-treasurer, Tyler Downey, when he first announced the loss of Christine Mandegarian, and of course all the pain and anguish that all the health care workers are experiencing across the country in terms of the absolutely disproportionate loss. I want to state that right now. It's estimated that 80% of all the deaths due to COVID-19, 25,000 deaths, are connected to long-term care facilities.
I was struck by the opening remarks of Ms. Stewart, when she named the members who have been lost from her local. I want to take a moment away from some of the administrative questions that have been asked and I want to give Ms. Stewart an opportunity, on this first day of nursing week, to honour those workers we have lost and perhaps share a bit more with the committee. I feel that in the order of magnitude of the loss, sometimes the individual stories are lost to us.
If Ms. Stewart agrees, perhaps she could share a little more detail about the people who died just because they went to work.
:
Certainly. Thank you for that, Mr. Green. It is really emotional. I have had too many conversations with families, calling them and asking what the union can do for them, and hearing their stories about their mothers and sisters passing away. These were women who passed away. It is a predominantly female sector.
Sadly enough, too often their families tell me that these women were really concerned about the personal protective equipment that they weren't getting. They were concerned about the conditions in the workplace. You know, the flags were being raised for decades and for months before these women died.
Again, all of the SEIU members, and most of the frontline health care workers, were women, and women of colour, and marginalized women in marginalized communities. They were immigrants. Many of them were single mothers. They struggled before this pandemic, but they continued to go to work. In many cases, their families begged them not to go to work. They were afraid they would get sick and bring it home, but they always put their residents first. No matter what, when they were in the news, that was the number one thing. They had hearts of gold. They cared so much about their residents. These workers are those residents' families, probably 75% of the time, but when I hear the stories about them....
You know, they are women and mothers who just want the dream of having a full-time job, one job—one job—so they can raise their children as single mothers and have a living wage. They don't want to be rich. They want a living wage, with benefits, with retirement security and with paid sick time. They often ask why the care economy, which is predominantly women, is not respected and dignified in the same way our male-dominated work is. Nobody should ever go to work and not return home, or return with a bad infectious disease. The solutions are so simple.
I honour them at every opportunity I have.
My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.
I have received complaints from colleagues about personal protective equipment. The people involved work for the federal public service, including Canada Post, and the protective equipment they received was not adequate. The management of the procurement during the pandemic ran into some problems, especially with certain types of equipment. That led me to introduce a notice of motion to the committee a few days ago. Now that the required time frame has passed, therefore, I propose the following motion:
That the committee, as part of its study on the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, invite representatives from Tango Communication Marketing, as well as relevant officials from Health Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada to appear to provide testimony on the procurement of KN95 respirators by the Government of Canada.
As you know, last week, we learned in the media that the Government of Canada had sent $81 million to a Montreal company, Tango Communication Marketing, for the purchase of masks that turned out to be ineffective. No one even received the masks. Health Canada rejected them. We lost $81 million on one contract and we do not even understand how that happened.
We feel that it's important to shed light on the matter and to understand why the federal government handed over the money without knowing about the quality of the product.
:
It is true that there is a
sub judice convention that exists that usually says that Parliament shouldn't deal directly with issues that are before the courts. However, there's quite a lot of leeway within that in the sense that it is a convention; it's not a hard and fast rule. It is something where members are advised to be careful when asking questions or when inviting witnesses. The sense is to not have Parliament prejudice a process that's already going on before the courts, in order to maintain the integrity and the independence of both branches of government, the legislative and the judicial.
That said, there are ample examples of committees inviting witnesses who were involved in legal issues. It's really an invitation. It's incumbent upon the witness to decide whether they want to appear or not. I would advise the chair and all members that in dealing with a situation where the sub judice convention is relevant, members should exercise significant caution when asking questions, to ensure that they are not putting the parliamentary process in a situation in which it may have an inadvertent influence on the process that is ongoing on the legal side.
The committee is still well within its powers under the standing orders. If a witness refused, the committee could still issue a summons for them to appear, but that is a last resort. Usually I would suggest that you invite the witness first.
It's difficult for me to say what would happen at this point, because I'm not sure if the witnesses will be forthcoming and wish to appear before the committee. However, when I was considering this motion, I did advise the chair, as I would advise all members, that caution should be used by the committee members when pursuing this, to ensure that there isn't seen to be any sort of infringement on the court's rights.
I hope I've answered your question. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.
With that said, Mr. Paul-Hus, we are basically at the end of our time frame and we want to be respectful of our witnesses. The unfortunate part is that to continue with the questioning would extend this well past our time frame. It has been a long day, and I would basically like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. I appreciate it.
Ms. Stewart, your comments are very well appreciated. My wife is a nurse, and I can tell you she's been involved quite extensively over the past year and a half, so I am extremely aware of not only the tremendous work that our nurses are doing all across this country, but also the huge mental health impacts upon them in that avenue. I appreciate your comments along those lines.
Ms. Daviau and Mr. Aylward, thank you for your presentations.
Thank you, everybody.
Ms. Watkins, I see you here, and we appreciate your being here with us.
With that said, thank you, everybody, for attending today.
I declare the meeting adjourned.