Health Committee on Nov. 8th, 2023

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

In support of what Dr. Ellis said, I think it's really important to have the minister here, because ultimately he was the person who had to sign off as the minister—he's been the minister for 34 months—on these contracts. Officials would have made the recommendations. He's ultimately accountable for the $150 million that's being paid out now to the contract. He's accountable for the $223 million that was committed to go in. While the Minister of Health has a role in the process of whether or not the vaccine works, the industry minister is the one who had to fund it.

Officials aren't accountable for the dollars. Ultimately, it's the minister. I would encourage members to please keep the industry minister there. We won't have a chance, as I said, to look at this in the industry committee. We're going to be dealing with PIPEDA and Bill C-27 until February or March.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Is there any further discussion on the subamendment to add the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development?

(Subamendment agreed to)

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're on the main motion as amended.

We have Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Between the original motion of Dr. Ellis and the amendment of Dr. Hanley and the various subamendments, there has been some movement in who we're calling. I noticed that in Dr. Hanley's amendment they added the Auditor General, and I don't think the Auditor General was in the original motion. I'm curious about what role or testimony the Auditor General may have in this.

Some of my colleagues could maybe advise on whether the Auditor General had any involvement in this matter. If they did, than it's fine, but if the Auditor General did not have any involvement, then I may end up moving that we remove the Auditor General.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I would first like to welcome MP Perkins. I think that was the first time we heard the evidence presented on this matter very clearly. I would like to thank you for the number of times you made a reference to the investment that was made, the results that it yielded and the money that was paid, which we don't understand why.

You talked about the patent ownership, protection for the taxpayer and walk-away clauses. We have PSPC reviewing these documents. We must have considered this with other vaccines. I'd like to know whether we entered into the same contract for other vaccine producers. You talked about the Philip Morris ownership and how potentially $173 million or $200 million got decreased to $14 million. I'd love to know that. You also discussed cancellation clauses. That was great.

That crystalized what I was trying to point out in our last meeting: that there is a preamble that, I think, if used, will diminish all the points you highlighted and that I have carefully noted here.

I'd like to move the motion that we delete “That given recent media reports that the Public Health Agency of Canada lost over $300 million dollars on an unfulfilled contract, the committee undertake a study of the Public Health Agency of Canada [losing] over $300 million in taxpayers' money for an unfulfilled contract” and replace it with “That the committee study the vaccine advance purchase agreement with Medicago, that the committee hold up to fours hours of meetings on the government's advance purchase agreement with Medicago and invite the Minister of Health” and then carry on with the rest of all these subamendments that we've done. I believe the preamble is not representing the evidence that was discussed. I don't want to talk about facts because we don't have facts, but the evidence that's before us—and you clearly pointed all of it out—is not fairly represented in the preamble.

I move that the preamble be removed and be replaced with “That the committee study the vaccine advance purchase agreement with Medicago,” and the rest is as it was amended.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

One moment, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

I'm sorry for that pause. I wanted to get straight just exactly where we stand in terms of the amended motion, because it seems to me that your proposed amendment arises from some confusion over what has already been amended.

What we are now debating is the amended motion. What we are now debating is this: “That given recent media reports that the Public Health Agency of Canada lost over $300 million dollars on an unfulfilled contract, the committee” hold up to four hours of meetings, and so on.

The preamble, to use your words, that is still retained, that is still before the committee and that is the subject of this debate is: “That given recent media reports that the Public Health Agency of Canada lost over $300 million dollars on an unfulfilled contract,”. Dr. Hanley's amendment basically changed all the words after “the committee”, two words later.

It strikes me that on the amendment that you just proposed, Mr. Jowhari, there's a bit of an overlap. I want to be clear on what the amendment is and that we're not amending something that's already been amended.

If you can perhaps repeat the nature of the amendment that you want to propose, we'll see if we can work through this.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm replacing, “That given recent media reports that the Public Health Agency of Canada lost over $300 million on an unfulfilled contract”. I believe what you're saying is that “the committee undertake a study of the Public Health Agency of Canada losing over $300 million in taxpayers' money”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's already gone.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That's already gone. Okay.

What I'm suggesting, then, is that I would replace, “That given recent media reports that the Public Health Agency of Canada lost over $300 million on an unfulfilled contract” with the following: “That the committee study the vaccine advance purchase agreement with Medicago”.

The rest would be as is, as amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Jowhari, here's the problem. If adopted, the amendment you have proposed would mean that this is what we will be considering: “That the committee study the vaccine advance purchase agreement with Medicago, the committee hold up to four hours of meetings on the government's advance purchase agreement for vaccines with Medicago and invite the Minister of Health”.

I guess what I'm saying to you is that what you are proposing to add for wording is already there. It was contained in Dr. Hanley's amendment.

I'm sure that's not your intention. I believe your intention is to remove the preamble. The words you want to replace it with are already included in Dr. Hanley's amendment. Therefore, that is the motion we are currently debating.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

You are 100% right, Mr. Chair.

At the time I made the amendment, I wasn't sure whether Mr. Hanley's amendment would go through.

I'm just asking for the preamble to be removed, because I think this is a very worthy study for us to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

To be clear, the amendment that is now being proposed is to delete the words, “That given recent media reports that the Public Health Agency of Canada lost over $300 million dollars on an unfulfilled contract”.

That leaves us with, “That the committee hold up to four hours of meetings on the government's advance purchase agreement for vaccines with Medicago”, and then it goes on to the witness list.

Is that the amendment, to take out the words?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I think our side would like about a two-minute suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I think that's a great idea. Let's have a huddle and get all this figured out. I think it may move more expeditiously once everyone knows what we're talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, could we also take the opportunity to obtain the wording in French?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call the meeting back to order.

An updated version on paper of the motion as amended has been circulated.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Jowhari is that the words “given recent media reports that the Public Health Agency of Canada lost over $300 million dollars on an unfulfilled contract” be deleted.

The debate is now on that amendment.

Go ahead, Dr. Ellis.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I think it's clear to everyone on this side that this is an attempt at a gross and negligent cover-up by our Liberal colleagues. We all know on this side that $300 million of taxpayers' money was wasted. Again, it was hidden deep in a document that I brought last time, which was about four inches thick. It was somewhere around three-quarters of the way through it in a font of about six or eight. This smells of exactly the same ilk.

Canadian taxpayers can no longer stand for this. The sunny ways and transparency of this Liberal government have gone long and far and deep into some dark, dank cave. The sadness that brings to taxpayers who, today, suffer with the inability to feed themselves, keep a roof over their heads and pay for home heating fuel is evident to everyone here. Everyone who has constituents living in some part of this country will soon be very cold. They'll be colder in some places than others. Perhaps except for Mr. Davies, we know the rest of us will be very cold this winter.

That being said, losing $300 million and then trying to hide $150 million of that, and now trying to limit the study such that the scope of it would be incredibly narrow once again is just a method to lose transparency, which is the spirit of what we were trying to get to here in this committee. That is something that we are all here to do, as representatives of Canadians.

I know every Liberal member on that side of the House is faced with constituents having affordability problems. How do I know that? It's mostly because we hear that when we're not sitting here in public meetings. We hear that their constituents are suffering, whether they want to admit that in public or not. We know that the potential for a flip-flop with respect to that from our Liberal colleagues is very significant.

We on this side will not stand for the deletion and limitation of this study. Once again, as I made the plea to our committee members before, there is a significant amount of work that the committee needs to get to. We know that Mr. Davies has a women's study which he's made very clear has not been studied in this committee for decades. It is something we need to get to.

These tactics that we now see, trying to cover up $150 million and trying to limit the scope of this study on where the money went and how it was lost in such an incredible fashion, again, are intolerable over here. Hearing that our colleagues want to once again limit this study is intolerable. It's also impeding the work of this committee to move forward on important topics, as I said, such as the women's health study and the opioid study, and finishing the study on breast implants and the children's health study, etc.

I would invite my Liberal colleague to withdraw his motion. We can then vote on this and get to the important work of the committee, which we know we have to get to as soon as possible.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Hanley.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted perhaps for the record to correct a couple of misconceptions that may be relayed from Dr. Ellis's intervention.

First of all, we're talking about a preamble here, so nothing has changed in the scope of the study.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

So just leave it the way it is—

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Excuse me—I think I have the floor.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

You do indeed.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

The scope has not changed at all. I just want to correct any misleading interpretation that people may have had from listening to Dr. Ellis.

This is all about the preamble. To set the context right, no one is questioning the need for some accountability here and proceeding with the study as it is clearly written out in the amended motion.

The reason that we have concern over leaving the preamble as it is is that it implies that there is $300 million that was lost, which is not true. There's a conflation there between two different figures. I must say that Mr. Perkins described the case I think quite clearly, as he has obviously studied this well, and perhaps Dr. Ellis can learn from that.

Therefore, the $300 million as written in the preamble is misleading. That's the reason for just clarifying and simplifying this motion.