EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Health NUMBER 046 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Monday, June 21, 2021 Le lundi 21 juin 2021 Standing Committee on Health CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE June 21, 2021 Committee NUMBER 046 NUMBER 046 NUMÉRO 046 46 21 06 2021 2021/06/21 11:10:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la santé Standing Committee on Health HESA Chair Mr. Ron McKinnon 2 43

(1110) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 46 of the Standing Committee on Health. We are meeting today pursuant to a request under Standing Order 106(4) by at least four members of the committee to discuss a request in this case to undertake a study on the state of long-term care in Canada. We will go first to Ms. O'Connell to move her motion. Ms. O'Connell, please go ahead.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Pickering—Uxbridge, Lib.) :

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.

(1115) 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—

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) :

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

(1120) The Chair :

We have a point of order. Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

There is a problem with the

interpretation. I am hearing a lot of echo. My intention really is not to interfere in Ms. McConnell's speech as she is trying to interfere in provincial matters. But I am having difficulty understanding what she is saying, because I hear an unpleasant echo at the same time as the French

interpretation.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lemire. Could the clerk check that?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Jean-François Pagé) :

We will check. [ English ] If you could talk, we'll see if the translation is working. Please go ahead.

The Chair :

Monsieur Lemire, how long has this been a problem—for a couple of minutes or just now?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

It has been going on for several minutes. However, I hear it less with you. I was hearing it more with Ms. O'Connell.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'll ask Ms. O'Connell to check her mike boom. Maybe you could back up a couple of paragraphs so that Mr. Lemire has the opportunity to hear all of your argument. Go ahead, please.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is the echo still coming through? Is it my headset, or is it perhaps the

interpretation booth?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

It seems to be working well now, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you.

[ English ]

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm not reading from a script, so where I think I left off was in regard to the partnerships with provinces and territories. I was comparing it to the finance committee, for example, when we would do a yearly budget, and the fact that the ministry, or the Minister of Finance would engage in consultations on any upcoming budget, and then there would be a kind of independent outside external consultation. For example, a chamber of commerce might do consultations with their members and then feed it up into the consultation process at one particular stage.

Then the finance committee would do its own pre-budget consultations. In fact, they are mandated to do so, but the finance committee, in particular, for example, would set the scope.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

We have another point of order.

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

Can I ask you to check the French

interpretation again? Because I am still getting the echo. As several hands are up, why don't you give the floor to the next person and come back to Ms. O'Connell afterwards?

[ English ]

The Chair :

Ms. O'Connell has the floor and she's able to keep it as long as she has something to say. Perhaps we should suspend and check the sound again.

The Clerk :

It should be good now.

The Chair :

The clerk advises that it should be good now. Ms. O'Connell, if you want to carry on, please go ahead.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

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?

(1125) 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:

1. Infection control:

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).

(1130) 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).

Supplies:

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?

(1135) 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?

The Chair :

You can do as you wish. You could say to the committee that you move the motion as read, if you wish.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Sure. Since I did start off by reading it, Mr. Chair, I'll do it that way, that I move the motion as read.

(1140) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell. We'll go now to Ms. Sidhu. Ms. Sidhu, go ahead, please.

Ms. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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.

(1145) 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.

(1150) 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.

(1155) 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.

(1200) 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.

(1205) Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Sidhu. We go now to Ms. Rempel Garner. Go ahead, please, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

Thank you, 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 Mr.

Davies 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 Mr. Davies 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 Mr. Davies 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 parliamentary secretary speak for over a half an hour. It's clear we're in a filibuster of the Liberals' own motion.

(1210) Given that, I move:

That the Committee proceed to resume the agreed upon meetings in accordance with the motion passed on June 2, 2021.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. That motion is not in order. We do have a motion on the floor.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I challenge your ruling. It is a non-debatable dilatory motion, and it should be in order.

The Chair :

A motion to adjourn the debate would have been in order, but this motion is not a motion to adjourn the debate—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I challenge your ruling.

The Chair :

Thank you. The question is this: Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

The Chair: Very well, the committee has decided that the motion is in order. Ms. Rempel Garner, would you please move your motion at this point?

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I just moved it. It requires a vote.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Could you remind me exactly what the wording of the motion is?

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I move:

That the Committee proceed to resume the agreed upon meetings in accordance with the motion passed on June 2, 2021.

The Chair :

Thank you. Is there any debate on this? I see a number of hands up. I don't know if they're up regarding this motion or not.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

On a point of order, Chair, it's a non-debatable motion.

The Chair :

No, it's not a non-debatable motion. It's not a motion to adjourn the debate. It's a separate motion completely—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

It is a dilatory motion, Chair, on a point of order. I challenge your ruling.

The Chair :

It is debatable as it stands. Anyway we—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I challenge your ruling.

The Chair :

I hear you. Thank you so much. The question is this: Shall the decision of the chair that this is a debatable motion be sustained? (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

The Chair: It looks like it's the will of the committee that this is not a debatable motion. Therefore, we will go to the vote. (Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The Chair :

Thank you, committee. Ms. O'Connell, go ahead on a point of order, please.

(1215) Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Chair, I'd like to get some clarification from the clerk. I get that we went through those votes, but how can members of a committee determine whether something is debatable or not? If that was the case, then every single debate could be shut down and parliamentary privilege would be an issue. Mr. Chair, I'm going to put it on notice that the members who just voted to make a debatable motion non-debatable just potentially infringed on our parliamentary privilege to debate. Members opposite may have the majority of the votes, but they don't get to rewrite the rules. They don't get to override privilege.

I would suggest that you confer with the clerk about the actual technicality of what just happened here. If not, as I've said, I will be giving notice of a breach of privilege by the members just now. I suggest you confer—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

On that point of order, Chair—

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Excuse me, Ms. Rempel Garner, I have the floor. You like to make up your own rules, but you have not been recognized—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

That's the Liberal government, actually.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

—so I don't want to be interrupted again. Thank you. Mr. Chair, can you please confer with the clerk to determine if members' privilege was just breached?

The Chair :

Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead on the point of order.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Yes, I would just like to remind colleagues that there are three types of dilatory motions, which means non-debatable motions: adjourn debate, adjourn a meeting or proceed to whatever. I did move a motion that was that the committee proceed to, which was on an already agreed upon matter of business in the committee, so it is in fact a non-debatable motion. This is why members raised a challenge to your ruling, which was incorrect, as it was a dilatory motion.

Members who voted against the sustainment of your ruling actually were voting in favour of sustaining our parliamentary privilege, because your ruling was incorrect. Now there has been a vote that has passed. We need to move on to the matter of business that was at hand earlier today. Again, for the member to say that privilege has been breached, it's a little rich, given that what we were debating, which they were trying to filibuster, was the release of documents that the government refuses to provide to the committee under a House order.

We now need to have the witnesses here so that we can proceed with the questioning, as was originally scheduled on Friday. This is just ridiculous at this point.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. I'll ask the clerk to weigh in on this matter, if it's something you can throw light on.

The Clerk :

Can I talk to you in private, please?

The Chair :

Yes, absolutely. We will suspend for a couple of minutes, at the call of the chair. The meeting is suspended.

(1215) (1220) The Chair :

Thank you, all. The clerk has suggested that this was a legitimate dilatory motion. It's not one that I am familiar with, but we'll check and get back to you. In any case, the committee has overruled the chair's decision and we shall carry on. The motion is that we carry on with our regular meetings. We do not have witnesses scheduled at this time. We will have to resume that process in due course. Ms. Rempel Garner.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I have a point of order, Chair. I did check with the law clerk and the law clerk has said that he would be available at this time, so he is waiting.

The Chair :

I see. Thank you.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

You just have to call him. Because he is an officer of Parliament, he would already have credentials, so we can just wait right here.

The Chair :

Thank you. I think it would be inappropriate to do this because of the other witnesses we had been asked to speak with as well. Is there any further discussion?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

I have a point of order. My hand was up, so I will just keep it up. Mr. Chair, since the meeting was technically cancelled, because we wanted to discuss something really important—and first of all, I take great offence to the fact that we're not discussing long-term care—doesn't the committee require 48 hours' notice for any meeting to be issued? There is no notice given or an agenda, so how would members of the public...?

I get that the Conservatives, backed up by the opposition members, want to just hold meetings, but we actually live in a democracy where you must demonstrate to the public the business of these meetings. Is there not a requirement for notice to be given, and an agenda and other witnesses to be provided?

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell. Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead on a point of order.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

We are actually in a meeting right now, so the notice of this meeting was given to the public. Therefore, we are in session. The motion that we just moved gave direction to what the next item of business would be on the committee agenda. I would also point out that you did give notice to the witnesses to be prepared for Monday. The notice of meeting, as originally scheduled, went out on Friday, so it is in order to proceed and have witnesses appear. These witnesses are ready and waiting, I might add.

Any further continued delay on the part of the Liberals is essentially what I said earlier, I would argue, which is that they are trying to avoid accountability on this issue of covering up documents.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. Ms. Sidhu, go ahead on the same point of order.

Ms. Sonia Sidhu :

Mr. Chair, on the point of order Ms. O'Connell just raised, I just delivered the rationale for a study. There is a protest that is ongoing in my riding. Other members are not thinking this is an important issue. I delivered the speech to give my own rationale. Long-term care in my riding is a very important issue, and events in long-term care in my riding happened and, as I said, are happening now. I know there is—

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. This is not responsive at all to the matter before the committee. You have to intervene, Mr. Chair. You can't allow a member to go on talking about a rationale for long-term care. The issue before this committee right now is that we have a motion that just passed to proceed to the previously scheduled meeting. That's what we should be doing. You can't continue to entertain such dramatically irrelevant talk as what is coming from Ms. Sidhu right now.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Davies. Ms. Sidhu—

Ms. Sonia Sidhu :

On a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, I don't know what happened. Ms. O'Connell moved a motion. I want to ask the members whether this is not an important issue. I would like to know what happened to the motion we moved on long-term care. We all want to study long-term care to give recommendations. It's a burning issue in my riding.

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC) :

That's debate, Mr. Chair. It's debate.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.) :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Barlow and Ms. Sidhu. Ms. Sidhu, on the the motion, I'm unsure. I think the motion is basically tabled until we raise it again. Was it Mr. Barlow who had another point of order?

(1225) Mr. Majid Jowhari :

No, it's me, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Mr. Jowhari, go ahead.

Mr. Majid Jowhari :

I seek your advice. By moving 106(4), was the meeting that was originally scheduled cancelled? If that meeting was cancelled, what is the procedure called for when we want to move into a new motion and a new study? I would seek your guidance on that.

The Chair :

Thank you.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

On that point of order, Chair—

The Chair :

Hang on a minute. Thank you, Mr. Jowhari. Yes, the meeting formerly scheduled for this time slot was cancelled, and this was raised in its stead. This meeting did not have any witnesses invited to it. Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead, please.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Chair, we're now wasting time. As I said earlier, this meeting was called. We are in a meeting right now. We used appropriate procedure to move to another order of business, and the witnesses are standing by. Any further attempts by the Liberals to continue to obstruct that, I think is a breach of the rest of the members' privilege. We need to proceed. There is no other procedure here.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. Mr. Van Bynen, go ahead, on a point of order.

Mr. Tony Van Bynen (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This meeting was convened on a request under Standing Order 106(4), and it's not as if the Conservatives haven't used the same format to gain a discussion on things that were important to them. However, my question is this: If the meeting was cancelled, where does Ms. Rempel Garner get the authority to invite witnesses? I thought that was supposed to be done through the clerk and/or through the chair. How is it that these witnesses were invited? I mean, can I invite some witnesses?

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead on the same point of order.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

We are in a meeting right now, so to my colleagues who aren't aware of that, we are in a duly constituted meeting that is being broadcast to the public. We used appropriate procedure to proceed to another order of business, which specified what the order of business was, and the witnesses are ready to proceed. I can't help that the Liberals are worse at procedure than I am. This is all immaterial. We need to proceed.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. The members are entitled to raise points of order. Ms. O'Connell, go ahead on a point of order.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Thanks, Mr. Chair. It's not my problem that the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP don't care about what happened in long-term care, but I guess as long as Ms. Rempel Garner thinks she's better at procedure, then she—

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

I'm sorry. I've been recognized. Mr. Chair, I'd like to—

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

A point of order, Mr. Chair. What was just said is very defamatory and it is in provincial jurisdiction anyway. They are talking about getting into provincial jurisdiction and,…

The Chair :

Mr. Lemire…

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

…really, the subject should be deleted.

[ English ]

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

He can't—

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

And then for the Liberals to accuse the Bloc Québécois of wanting to protect the interests of the provinces is unacceptable.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Lemire, you're out of order. Please wait until you're recognized. Ms. O'Connell, please go ahead with your point of order.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's unfortunate that the Bloc gets upset when the Conservatives want to challenge our competence when it comes to procedure. Allow me to read from Bosc and Gagnon:

...to avoid situations where the members of a committee are forced to consider issues without warning, committees usually deem it appropriate to adopt rules on notice for substantive motions. Such notices are normally 24 [to] 48 hours.

Mr. Chair, while the members may have procedurally moved ahead.... First of all, the Liberal members moved ahead procedurally with an issue that mattered to us. If they wanted to steamroll the committee, and frankly Canadians, to not talk about long-term care, that's their procedural prerogative. However, the suggestion and the boasting and the gloating, to somehow say that our caring about long-term care.... They completely railroaded us from voting on it and talking about it. The fact that this is a point of pride for them is frankly disgusting, but that's for them and their voters to deal with. Mr.

Chair, on the motion, or moving forward as it is, first of all, I would challenge that what Ms. Rempel Garner is proposing is actually even consistent with the motion. If you recall from our motions previously, the programming motion, there was to be a weighted balance in terms of witnesses. Ms. Rempel Garner has been in contact with certain witnesses. I don't know who, and it doesn't actually provide for Liberal members—I don't know about the Bloc and the NDP, as I'm assuming they all worked together on this—to have the witnesses we proposed, because unless she—

(1230) Mr. John Barlow :

Mr. Chair, this is debate. We need to move on. The motion has been made and voted on. This is clearly debate.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Excuse me. I am so sick of—

Mr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC) :

This is filibustering.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

—Conservative members feeling that they can just speak over me. I have been recognized by the chair as having the floor. I get that Mr. Barlow doesn't want to hear from me. That's his prerogative, but I am duly elected and have been recognized by the chair. If the chair wants to cut me off, he can do so, but it is not the right of Mr. Barlow to step in and tell me to be quiet.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I have a point of order, Chair.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

I'm interrupted—

Mr. John Barlow :

You're on point of order talking about the issue—

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Chair....

Mr. John Barlow :

You are not arguing about the issue, so stick to the point.

The Chair :

Mr. Barlow and Ms. Rempel Garner, please don't interrupt—

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

I get that Conservatives don't like to hear women speak, but that's fine. They want to to just interrupt me.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I was speaking; I'm a woman.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Chair, my point on this is that the original motion had conditions in terms of witnesses and each party having the opportunity to bring witnesses forward, so if Ms. Rempel Garner is simply going to control the witness list, then that's not consistent with what this committee had previously agreed to.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I have a point of order on that point of order, Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell. Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner. I'm just about ready to rule on this.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Thank you. The witnesses are prescribed by the programming motion that was referenced in my dilatory motion, so I would argue that Ms. O'Connell is wrong. I would also argue that continued attempts by the Liberals to raise points of order on this are filibustering to waste time so that the witnesses can't come here and the Liberals can't be held accountable for producing documents.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner. Mr. Lemire, did you have a point of order?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire :

I just want us to remember that, if we are talking about infringing on rights, we must also make sure that we respect areas of jurisdiction. The motion as initially submitted infringed on areas of jurisdiction. That being the case, Mr. Chair, I feel that you should have ruled the initial motion out of order because it deals with standards in long-term care homes.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lemire. Mr. Van Bynen, go ahead.

Mr. Tony Van Bynen :

My understanding is this:

That a 48 hours notice, interpreted as two nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the clerk of the committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

On a point of order, Chair, it was not a substantive motion; it was a dilatory motion.

The Chair :

Ms. Rempel Garner....

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Time is being wasted.

The Chair :

Ms. Rempel Garner, please do not interrupt Mr. Van Bynen.

Mr. Tony Van Bynen :

I do not interrupt you, Ms. Rempel Garner—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

You do.

Mr. Tony Van Bynen :

—so I would appreciate the same courtesy.

...that (2) the motion be distributed to members in both official languages by the clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour, and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day; and that when the committee is travelling—

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Tony Van Bynen :

—outside the Parliamentary Precinct, no substantive motions may be moved.

My point is exactly that. We were unable to be prepared. I was prepared to deal with 106(4), and now, all of a sudden, we're being asked to be prepared to ask questions of witnesses who are not here because the meeting was cancelled. Now, all of a sudden, Ms. Rempel Garner takes on the role of the clerk and/or chair and takes it upon herself to invite other witnesses, and I am denied the opportunity to prepare my questions and pursue the line of questioning that's appropriate. At this point, I think, if we want to talk about democracy, these procedural gymnastics are defeating the democracy that we've very hard worked for.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

On that point, Chair—

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. We have Mr. Maguire first. Go ahead, Mr. Maguire, on a point of order.

Mr. Larry Maguire :

I'll allow Ms. Rempel Garner to go ahead.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner, on that same point of order, please.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Thank you. What the member read was for substantive motions. The motion that was passed was a dilatory motion. Members need to be prepared for dilatory motions. Members also need to be prepared to do anything that happens at committee. Again, I can't help it if Liberal members are not prepared for committee. We are prepared for committee, and we need the witnesses here. We are wasting time, which is, I'm sure, the Liberals' objective, but the witnesses are prepared to testify and they should be here now. Please rule.

(1235) Mr. Majid Jowhari :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can we invite witnesses when we are dealing with a dilatory motion? If the dilatory motion is passed and it was not on the agenda for the topic with witnesses coming, can we invite witnesses or have witnesses participate?

Mr. Larry Maguire :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, these decisions have already been made by the votes that we held earlier, so I would ask you to move forward.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Maguire. I will ask the clerk to read Ms. Rempel Garner's motion that was just passed.

The Clerk :

It is:

That the Committee proceed to resume the agreed upon meetings in accordance with the motion passed on June 2, 2021.

The Chair :

Thank you. I will rule on this now. The motion calls for us to resume the agreed upon meetings. I'm prepared to talk to the House administration and see if we can get another slot, and

schedule that meeting if we can, but that is not about adding business to this meeting. It's to “resume” the meetings. I do believe some notice is appropriate. Therefore, we'll try to

schedule a meeting as soon as possible. If there are no further points of order, if there's no further business—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Chair, I have a point of order.

Mr. Don Davies :

Mr. Chair, I would like to speak.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Go ahead, Don.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. 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.

(1240) By the way, with great respect to my colleague Monsieur Lemire, there are significant issues of jurisdiction, which, by the way, Prime Minister Trudeau 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.

The Chair :

Mr. Davies—

Mr. Don Davies :

I have the floor, Mr. Chair. I've listened all meeting to a lot of people talk.

The Chair :

No, I have the floor. I have the chair.

Mr. Don Davies :

No, I have the floor—

The Chair :

I have the floor. I am the chair.

Mr. Don Davies :

I'm speaking to my point of order.

The Chair :

I am the chair—

Mr. Don Davies :

It's my point of order.

The Chair :

Hold up here. I just wanted to observe that I've given everyone fair latitude to speak and to debate this point of order. I think you have made your points very clearly. I would just ask you to wrap it up fairly soon, because it is going into debate and a decision has been made. Please—

Mr. Don Davies :

I will wrap it up. I'll wrap it up this way. Every single member of this committee knows that, at this meeting today, we were supposed to hear from the law clerk and the Clerk of the Privy Council on documents. Everybody in this committee knows that the Liberals filibustered this meeting because they don't want to hear from them. For that meeting to proceed, it would once again completely reveal that this government is in square violation and in contempt of Parliament. We talk about democracy.

Parliament validly passed by majority, by democratic majority—the Liberals may not like it, but it was by democratic majority—to have unredacted documents delivered to the law clerk, who would redact according to prescribed criteria and then give that to the health committee. The Liberals refused to do that. They have withheld 990,000 documents out of a million. They have refused to send those documents to the law clerk. They have refused to translate them, in violation of official languages legislation. They are redacting those documents themselves instead of having the law clerk do it.

They are also redacting according to criteria beyond the order of the House. That is contempt. The Liberal members of this committee are showing contempt for the members of this committee as well.

(1245) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Chair...?

The Chair :

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

My hand was already up, but it's still up for this. On a point of order, I think it's important that we respond to the baseless claims that were just made by Mr. Davies. Number one, Mr. Chair, how dare any member of this committee suggest that this is fake outrage? I lost over 70 residents in my community. I'm representing my community, those who died in long-term care and those who passed across this country. We can disagree on politics, but how dare any member suggest that this is fake outrage? We have been horrified by this.

I and other members, Liberal members on this committee, have spoken at length about this. To Mr. Davies' suggestion that he knows what's in our heads and that he speaks for me, how dare he? I am absolutely offended that he would suggest that this is fake. I have been speaking on the record, as have my colleagues, for over a year—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

On a point of order, Chair, I'm not sure what the point of order is or what the—

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Excuse me. I'm responding to the diatribe that went on and that questioned our intentions.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

This is a matter of debate, so....

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Chair, in addition to that—

The Chair :

Ms. Rempel Garner, please hold up. I gave Mr. Davies extraordinary leeway. I think it's appropriate that we match that with Ms. O'Connell. Go ahead.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I challenge your ruling.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Chair—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I challenge your ruling. We need to get to the witnesses. I challenge your ruling.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Chair, just to be clear, now members can't be recognized on a point of order if Ms. Rempel Garner doesn't agree. That's what she's saying here, that members can't raise a point of order. Only members that the Conservatives and their buddies being propped up by the NDP against—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

No. I want to move on to witnesses. We're using procedure to do that—

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Chair, we brought forward motions—

Mr. Larry Maguire :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Even before I was on this committee—

Mr. Larry Maguire :

This is debate. We've voted on this. It's time to move forward.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

—HESA members brought forward motions on long-term care. We did again on May 28.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

This is debate.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

We did it again today, because this is our last chance.

Mr. Chris d'Entremont :

On a point of order, this is debate.

The Chair :

Ms. O'Connell has the floor. I gave her the latitude—

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

I have an opportunity to raise that as a point of order because misinformation has been put forward.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I challenge your ruling on relevancy.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell. Mr. Maguire and—

Mr. Larry Maguire :

Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling. Obviously, you may be allowing this debate to go on as points of order until we run out of time so that we can't get the law clerk here, who is ready and waiting for us. Thank you.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

The chair controls Mr. Davies speaking...? Mr. Maguire, that's ridiculous.

The Chair :

Thank you, all.

Mr. Larry Maguire :

It may be the truth, though.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Your ruling has been challenged, Chair.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

How the chair is ruling.... Mr. Davies only spoke because of the chair...? Please, give me a break. These insults need to stop.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

The members didn't want to deal with long-term care and now they want to create something that doesn't exist—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I have a point of order on decorum.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

It's absolutely ridiculous. I'm embarrassed for you.

The Chair :

Ms. Rempel Garner, did you have another point of order?

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I just challenged your ruling that this is not debate so that we can proceed with getting the witnesses.

The Chair :

I didn't rule that it's not debate. I said that, in point of fairness, because I gave Mr. Davies ample opportunity to make his points—and I know that he's very passionate about those points—it seemed appropriate to let Ms. O'Connell match them. I haven't made a ruling to be overruled. However, I would respond to Mr. Davies' point. He said that I took it upon myself to

schedule this meeting somewhat in defiance of the committee's decision. I should point out that the chair is obligated to call a meeting within five days, with two days' notice. It's not a matter of taking anything upon myself. It's a matter I'm obligated to act on with Standing Order 106(4). This being the only time slot that we know about, I had no real choice but to

schedule it for this time. I'm quite happy to check into the

schedule and see what we can arrange for subsequent meetings. I would note that the resources of the House are extraordinarily tight right now, so I couldn't count on having another slot for this meeting for the 106(4). That's why I had to do this now.

(1250) Mr. Don Davies :

Mr. Chair, with respect, when would we have the meeting that was supposed to happen today then? Where was your concern about that?

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Now we have to have it.

The Chair :

My obligation as chair is to fulfill the 106(4). Certainly I shall do my best to try to find another slot for that meeting.

Mr. Don Davies :

Mr. Chair, it's also to implement the will of the committee as expressed in the previous motion.

The Chair :

Absolutely, but—

Mr. Don Davies :

You made the choice to bump the previously scheduled meeting for the 106(4) meeting. That was your choice.

The Chair :

It's not a choice. It's an obligation. The Standing Order 106(4) meeting takes precedence. Be that as it may, this is what happened.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Chair....

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Who's interrupting now?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

It's me again. I'm sorry. I just wanted to get your attention.

The Chair :

Ms. O'Connell, go ahead.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

I just wanted, on the record, all the times that some Liberal members brought forward the suggestion to study long-term care. In particular, the last time was May 28. There would have been six meetings left. We could have easily done these four meetings—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

On a point of order, Chair, this is not a point of order. This is debate and the law clerk is waiting.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Again, I just—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

This is not a point of order. I appreciate Ms. O'Connell's trying to waste time so that the law clerk can't come, but this is not a point of order. A decision has been made by the committee and we need to move on. The law clerk is waiting. Thank you.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

No, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that the Conservatives don't want to talk about long-term care, but we have and continue to.... It is beyond frustrating to sit here and listen to the fact that 106(4) motions only matter if it comes from the other members. That they should only be acted on.... Frankly, Mr. Chair, I am frustrated to sit here and let them attack you for acting on a 106(4) that came from us on a topic that we care about.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

On point of order, Mr. Chair, this is debate.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

When it's a 106(4) on a topic they care about, somehow there are two classes of MPs on this committee.

Mr. Larry Maguire :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. There is opposition and there is government. The opposition moved and won the vote and needs to hear the law clerk.

The Chair :

Thank you, everybody. We have everyone talking at once. The interpreters will not be able to translate, of course. Ms. Rempel Garner's motion was to resume the meeting as formally described. It was not to proceed to that in this meeting and, frankly, we are out of time. We have a hard stop. I'm going to adjourn the meeting and I will get with the clerk to find another time slot where we can

schedule that meeting so that everybody has the notice they require and so that all the witnesses we want to see—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. You cannot unilaterally adjourn the meeting without consent, and there is time left in this meeting for the law clerk to come.

Mr. Tony Van Bynen :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order as well. Everyone should be entitled to their specified time period, and there isn't sufficient time for everyone to ask their own questions. How can this realistically be done? It can't be accomplished.

The Chair :

The motion that Ms. Rempel Garner moved and that was passed by the committee is that we resume our meetings as formerly decided. It was not, in fact, to try to incorporate some semblance of those meetings within the current meeting, which was not called for that purpose. This is not—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Actually, on a point of order, sir, you are wrong.

The Chair :

Excuse me, but I am speaking.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

You're factually wrong.

The Chair :

I am speaking.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

You're factually wrong. That's not what the motion was.

The Chair :

Ms. Rempel Garner, I am speaking. I will ask the clerk to reread the motion that we just passed. Mr. Clerk.

The Clerk :

I cannot find it. I'm sorry about that.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I can read it, Mr. Chair. I have it. It reads as follows:

That the Committee proceed to resume the agreed upon meetings in accordance with the motion passed on June 2, 2021.

That meant now. That's a dilatory motion for this committee meeting. I get that the Liberals want to waste time, but you are wrong. You are wrong. You are procedurally, factually wrong.

The Chair :

That is not what it said. It said to resume the meetings as previously described.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Mr. Chair, I can't help that you don't know procedure, but you are wrong. If you are going to rule on this, I will challenge your ruling, and then we will move on again, after wasting half an hour.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

That's so rude.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

You are wrong.

(1255) Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

There should be some level of decorum. You can disagree, but the personal insults are not needed.

The Chair :

Listen. I am trying to adhere to the motion as passed. The motion as passed requires that the meetings be continued as formerly decided, so that is not this meeting. That is not adding business to this meeting—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I challenge your ruling.

The Chair :

—in four minutes left to go. That is what it is all about.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I challenge your ruling.

The Chair :

Go ahead. The question is whether the decision of the chair in regard to Ms. Rempel Garner's motion requiring that we resume the meetings, which is not this meeting, should be sustained. If you say yes, then you support the chair. If you say no, then I'm not sure what will happen. (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

The Chair: I am at a loss to figure out how we're going to actually accomplish this. We are out of time. There is no time to bring in the witnesses. Therefore, I will suspend this meeting and we will resume it in due course. The meeting is suspended until we can arrange an appropriate time. Thank you. [ The meeting was suspended at 1:00 p.m., Monday, June 21 ] [ The meeting resumed at 3:41 p.m., Wednesday, June 23 ]

(1540) The Chair :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. The committee is meeting to resume meeting number 46. Pursuant to the motion adopted on June 21 and the motion adopted on June 2, we are resuming our study on the emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. I would like to welcome our witnesses today. We have, from the House of Commons, Mr. Philippe Dufresne, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel; and Michel Bédard, deputy law clerk. From the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, we have Mr.

Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada; and Mr. Gregory Smolynec, deputy commissioner, policy and promotion. From the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, we have Ms. Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada. I understand that Mr. Therrien has to leave somewhat early, so we will start our opening statements with him just in case. I will invite the witnesses to make a five-minute statement. I will indicate when the time is roughly up with the yellow card and when it's actually up with the red card. When you see the red card, do, please, try to wrap up.

You don't have to stop instantly, but do try to wrap up. With that, I will invite Mr. Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, to make a five-minute statement. Thank you.

Mr. Don Davies :

Mr. Chair, before we begin, as a matter of procedure, did we not invite someone from the Privy Council Office to appear today?

The Chair :

We did, but they were unable to attend due to a lack of notice. We'll carry on with Mr. Therrien. Mr. Therrien, please, go ahead if you have a statement.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Daniel Therrien (Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada) :

Thank you to the Chair and members of the committee for your invitation to share our views on your current study. As you said, I am accompanied by Gregory Smolynec, the Deputy Commissioner. Due to a prior engagement, I cannot be here for the entire meeting, but Mr. Smolynec will remain afterwards to address any questions that you may wish to ask. I am here to speak to you today about what the Privacy Act does and does not allow with respect to the production of documents under provisions of the Act related to disclosures of personal information.

Let me begin by stating that the role of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is to oversee compliance with the duties and obligations in both the Privacy Act (the public sector law) and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the private sector law). The public sector law, the Privacy Act, enacted in 1983, applies to the personal information handling practices of federal government departments and agencies. The act defines personal information as information about an identifiable individual that has been recorded in any form.

The act states that personal information collected by federal institutions can only be used for the purpose for which it was collected, for uses consistent with that purpose, or for purposes specifically provided for under subsection 8(2) of the Act. I believe this to be the provision most relevant to this discussion. (1545) [ English ] According to the Privacy Act, personal information cannot be disclosed without consent unless exceptions delineated in subsection 8(2) of the Privacy Act apply, two of which are most relevant for this discussion. The first I would highlight is paragraph 8(2)(m).

This provision allows for the disclosure of personal information where, “in the opinion of the head of the institution...the public interest...clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or” if the “disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates”. Fundamental to this exercise of discretion is that there must be a clear public interest in the disclosure. The discretion to disclose or not to disclose personal information lies with the institutional head. The second relevant provision is paragraph 8(2)(

c) of the Privacy Act, which allows for the disclosure of personal information to “a court, person or body with jurisdiction” and the power “to compel the production of information” through the issuance of an order, subpoena or warrant. In relation to this provision, we recognize Parliament's authority to compel the production of documents that may contain personal information and acknowledge that the Privacy Act therefore allows for the disclosure of personal information to a committee.

In previous instances where this issue has arisen, we have recommended that committees explore a range of options to ensure that the authority of committees is exercised in ways that do not unduly invade on privacy. For example, mechanisms that might be considered include having committees come to an agreement that they will limit the personal information sought to only those cases that are clearly necessary to resolve the public interest at issue.

Another possibility would be to hold meetings in camera where personal information is to be examined and discussed, or ensuring that there are proper procedures for securing that information once it is in the possession of both the committee as a whole as well as individual members. These are examples of privacy protective measures. We hope—

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry to the witness, but I believe the bells are ringing.

The Chair :

Very well. Also, my apologies to the witness. We do require unanimous consent to continue. Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr. Chris d'Entremont :

There are 15 minutes, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

I propose that we continue at least until the end of Mr. Therrien's statement. Actually, his time is almost up, but let's give him another couple of minutes to finish and then revisit the matter at that time. Is that acceptable? I think so. Very well. Go ahead. I'm sorry for the interruption, Mr. Therrien. [ Translation ] Please go ahead.

[ English ]

Mr. Daniel Therrien :

No concern—I had essentially finished. Our point is that even though a parliamentary committee can compel the production of personal information under its authority, and that there would be authority under the Privacy Act for the disclosure to a committee, in the circumstances we suggest that the committee take privacy protective measures to minimize privacy risks in that exercise. That's the end of my statement. As indicated, Mr. Smolynec will be able to take questions if I have to leave shortly.

The Chair :

Thank you very much for your statement and thank you for being able to attend. Do we have unanimous consent to carry on any further?

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

No.

The Chair :

No, we do not. Therefore, we will suspend, and we will resume after the votes are done. Please do try to get back here as soon as possible after the votes. Thanks to all of you. We are suspended.

(1545) (1655) The Chair :

We are resuming meeting number 46, and we've heard from the Privacy Commissioner and we will carry on with witness statements. I will invite Mr. Dufresne, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, to make his statement. Please go ahead, sir, for five minutes.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Philippe Dufresne (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons) :

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. (1700) [ 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.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Dufresne. We go now to Ms. Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada. Ms. Maynard, you have five minutes.

Ms. Caroline Maynard (Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada) :

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. (1705) [ 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.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Maynard. We will start our questioning now with Ms. Rempel Garner for six minutes, please.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Thank you, Chair. My line of questions will be directed to Mr. Dufresne in trying to ascertain what the committee should do with regard to next steps in trying to obtain the documents that we have not received yet. Just for clarity, approximately how many documents did you receive under the House order from October of last year?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

We have received approximately 6,307 documents.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Have those all been released to the committee so far?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

They have. Excuse me, some that have been received have not been released to the committee because they have not been translated, so 6,307 have been tabled—

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

It is not a million.

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

No.

The Chair :

Pardon me, Ms. Rempel Garner, I've stopped your time. Your microphone is not connected properly.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

It's going to be what it's going to be, Chair.

The Chair :

It's the interpreters who have the deepest concern about this. If you could just make sure that the sound is as good as we can make it for them, that would be good. Have you verified that?

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I'd just like to proceed if possible.

The Chair :

Okay, we are trying to look after the interpreters as well, but I will resume your time now. Go ahead, please.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Dufresne, in terms of possible next options for recourse of the committee, I am looking at the matters that were disclosed this afternoon with regard to the fact that the government has apparently.... The Attorney General has filed an application in Federal Court requesting an order to seal documents related to the National Microbiology Laboratory on the transfer of Ebola. Are you aware of this filing by the Attorney General ?

(1710) Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

I am, yes.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

How unusual is this?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

From time to time there are proceedings in court. The role of my office in these proceedings is to represent the interests of the institution, the Speaker, and defending the privileges of the House. That's been done by my predecessors. It's been done by myself.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Thank you. Has this ever happened before?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

In the specific context in terms of an order to produce documents, to my knowledge it has not.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Has the government taken the House to court over [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] documents [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] this Parliament?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

By this current Parliament, no.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Thank you. What about previous sessions of this Parliament, such as the Speakers' Spotlight documents, for example?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

To my knowledge, no. This is something that we can look into and confirm in terms of precedence. There have been precedents where privilege has been raised and determined in court.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

My understanding is that Parliament is immune from judicial intervention. Is that correct?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

If a matter falls under parliamentary privilege, then the House will have exclusive authority. That's the position I will be taking.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Thank you. Can you assure the members of the committee that the rights of Parliament will be defended against this court application from the government?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

I can confirm that I've been instructed by the Speaker of the House of Commons to challenge the jurisdiction of the court in this matter [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Tony Van Bynen :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Mr. Van Bynen, go ahead on a point of order. Ms. Rempel Garner, your time is stopped.

Mr. Tony Van Bynen :

My point is with respect to relevance, Mr. Chair. The issue we're discussing is not relative to HESA.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I would argue that it is directly material, Chair. It is directly related to the item at hand, but I understand—

Mr. Tony Van Bynen :

Mr. Chair, how are the documents relative to the Canada-China relationship?

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen. We do allow a certain latitude. I'm certain that the question of admissibility of documents and the process is relevant. In any case, I will start Ms. Rempel Garner's time again. Please carry on, but do bear in mind relevance, if you can.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

I would argue it was directly relevant, but with that I will be sharing my time with Mr. Davies.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Davies, go ahead for two and a half minutes.

Mr. Don Davies :

Thank you. Mr. Dufresne, you, on March 20, 2020, sent a letter to the clerk of this committee in which you said this: “the House’s and its committees’ powers to order the production of records is absolute and unfettered as it constitutes a constitutional parliamentary privilege that supersedes statutory obligations.” Do you stand by those words, Mr. Dufresne?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

Absolutely.

Mr. Don Davies :

Last week, Mr. Iain Stewart, who is the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada, came to this committee and stated that he would refuse to turn over those documents that were ordered by this committee because he felt that he was bound by other statutes, that he worried that he would break the law of those other statutes if he complied. Is he correct or incorrect in that view, in your assessment?

Mr. Philippe Dufresne :

The view that I've shared with this committee and other committees is that the power of committees and the House to send for persons and papers is part of parliamentary privilege. It's a constitutional power and right, and it supersedes statutory provisions that would otherwise limit production of information. So the House and committees have the authority, and in the situation where it is not done then the committee can report the matter to the House and the House can take the appropriate steps, as it has.

Mr. Don Da