Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's good to see colleagues again.

Mr. Housefather did this in the introduction, but I think it's good to keep in mind not just what's been presented but also the fact that we have come, I would say, a long way in the past few days, since the original motion was presented. When the original motion was presented, there was debate back and forth on a number of things, but substantively, I think what's been suggested here is quite reasonable. I'll go through a few points.

The desire to fulfill our obligation to Canadians and ensure that we do so as parliamentarians, as elected representatives, is fulfilled. I commend Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné for proposing it in the first place.

We will see the contracts unredacted. I think that bears a lot of emphasis. Yes, it will be in a secure location and not together, but still, that is a very good step forward and, again, completely in line with the idea of ensuring that the rights of parliamentarians are respected.

If we're going to get hung up on the point about the NDA, then let me suggest that, going forward, perhaps this committee can make a recommendation, thinking about the future, on how we collectively feel about NDAs and future contracts. That could be something we consider.

Mr. Housefather has ably, not just as a parliamentary secretary responsible for the file but also as a lawyer who's worked on these things in the past.... He brings that knowledge to the table to look at it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. McCauley says that in sarcasm, I'm sure. He's made a good point about an NDA.

I don't think there's a problem here. As I said at the outset of my comments, we've seen movement in a good direction. I consider this to be a compromise. If the documents were redacted, that would be one thing, but they're unredacted. We can go in, take a close look, understand more about the nature of these contractual arrangements and then move from there, I hope. I think what's on the table here is, as I said, quite reasonable for colleagues to consider.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll turn now to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné again.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The argument that the pharmaceutical companies could sue the Government of Canada and that Canadians and Quebecers would pay the price in the end sounds a lot like misinformation.

First, if the Government of Canada has entered into agreements so clumsily, the Government of Canada should take responsibility and pay for its mistakes, not Canadians and Quebecers.

So, first of all, we need to correct the government's mistakes, as we do every day in opposition. If you want to include provisions for Canada to sign more thoughtful contracts, they would be welcome.

Second, and this is very important, none of the countries that disclosed the price of vaccines were sued. Whether it's Colombia, South Africa or some countries in the European Union, like Belgium and France, no countries that disclosed their prices were sued.

I feel that having this type of conversation creates confusion, and I find it totally inappropriate. It even insults our intelligence.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Chambers, thank you for joining us today.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

It's always a pleasure to be at public accounts.

I wanted to touch on a couple of points. When we were talking about leverage, I'm wondering whether the government is more concerned about what it negotiated as opposed to protecting what's in there on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, because the difference, it seems to me, is one of leverage. At the time we negotiated these contracts, the government had zero leverage, because it had spent some time negotiating an unfruitful contract with CanSino. At the time we came to the table, we actually had less than little leverage, and I think the pharmaceutical companies likely saw this.

With respect to liability, I would be open to a legal opinion from the government or from members of that side who suggest there's a liability potential for the government. I also suspect there are other opportunities for us to receive these documents, and that rather than compelling them from the government, we could get them directly from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. At that point, it's not the government that's providing the documents, it's the pharmaceutical companies.

I think the motion itself is reasonable. I think in the interests of transparency—and Madame Sinclair-Desgagné referenced the international principles of transparency—Canadians have a right to understand or at least know that their members of Parliament have seen the documents.

I don't believe it's a compromise that we get to see unredacted documents. That is something that parliamentarians are allowed to see anyway, so if the sense or the implication is that it's a compromise that unredacted documents would be provided when they are able to be summoned in any event, that isn't really a compromise on the part of the government, in my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I think members heard me very clearly when this motion was first introduced. Again, my initial objection had to do with the Office of the Auditor General, how important it is to safeguard the work that office does, and to recognize that working with the Auditor General is the work that we do in this committee.

I was persuaded by the arguments of other members. Indeed, I heard from Mr. Desjarlais here today about how important it is for this committee to assert its rights to see documents, because there could be a time in the future that the committee would want to see contracts, be they commercial...including defence contracts, any kind of contracts, and that perhaps there would be a different context at that time. It could be a future government. Who knows? Times do change.

I agree, therefore, that this committee needs to safeguard the right to view contracts, at the same time recognizing that the work that we oversee is ongoing work and we certainly don't want to impede the work of our public servants.

I don't think anyone here is saying that our public servants were in any way responsible for not negotiating contracts to the best of their ability, but I want to reiterate that it's important for us to recognize that in any commercial dealing, but especially in an emergency when we're dealing with people's lives, our public servants need to have the tools to do the best job possible.

The amendment brought forward by Mr. Housefather reassures me that we're not going to be unduly penalizing public servants who are doing their job, because they would be, if I understand correctly, personally responsible, even criminally responsible, if they were to divulge information that they had contracted not to divulge.

We heard something to that effect from the Auditor General. She was contractually, by oath, not able to provide those documents to us. I think that's something this committee needs to weigh in the balance.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, the letter we received from the Office of the Law Clerk talks a bit about some of the aspects in instances of refusal regarding the production of documents. It outlines what would otherwise protect the government in these types of contracts. I understand that Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné's motion reads, in many parts, in direct relationship to these aspects.

My proposal would be for evidence, from the government or the members of the Liberal Party present here today, as to the necessity. Why do you feel these qualifiers aren't enough? I think that's a reasonable.... At least, that's what I read from the amendment you're tabling: The existing safeguards that are tabled aren't enough. Therefore, I think it's reasonable for Canadians to ask why an amendment like this, from your perspective, is important. I believe the Bloc's motion creates safeguards that are reasonable and in, I'd say, nearly direct citation of some of the language used by the law clerk.

I understand there may be a difference between absolute risk and minimizing risk. I feel that in this approach, the amendment may be attempting to dissolve all risk of the government's divulging information that is the right of these members to see. That second portion is important to note, because, if there is risk present for the government, we have to determine whether or not it outweighs the benefit of Canadians getting transparency for this work.

You need to establish that the motion presents a reasonable risk to the government, other than, “We think they might sue us.” I don't think that's a compelling enough reason for this committee to engage in an amendment that would otherwise seek to do the same thing the original motion does. The difference between the two is important for me to understand. Is this difference trying to ensure all possible legal risk to the Government of Canada is negated, or is it far deeper than that? I think that's the important question for Canadians.

I'm satisfied with everyone's co-operation on the fact that we've established that this is an important piece of information we all need to see. I'm happy with that. We can get to that point. On the rights of Parliament.... We can obviously agree we all have, as parliamentarians, rights established there.

The last question remains, what is the risk? Why are you presenting an amendment that would otherwise create such a closed, tight seal, in some ways to limit the government's liability, but also asking that these members give up, in some aspect, a piece of their rights? It would have to be a reasonable exchange for risk...in order to establish why we would vote in favour of signing an NDA, for example, as opposed to agreeing to the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I have the speaking list.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor next.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I was going to suggest we pause for five minutes, Mr. Chair, in order to have a conversation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm sorry. You—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Taking into account everything that's been said, I suggest just a five-minute pause. It's not unprecedented. We've done that before. It's just a five-minute break. Then we can come back.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Again, I'm not clear on why that is. There's a discussion going on. I will look for unanimous consent on that.

Give me one second.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Five minutes....

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to canvass the opposition to see if there's any will to suspend.

I'm seeing none, so...yes or no?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Yes, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right, we'll suspend for five minutes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I want to raise a concern that was just brought to my attention about the NDAs.

It is possible and perhaps likely—particularly if this motion isn't passed with unanimity—that a member could take this before the House as a question of privilege. They could say their parliamentary privileges are being clipped or curtailed by being required to sign an NDA in order to fulfill their parliamentary functions on this committee. This is something members need to consider.

I'm also going to highlight that in Westminster, a member of the House of Lords broke an NDA, but because he had parliamentary immunity there were no repercussions for him.

One question I have not yet had to address, but which I'm going to ask the clerk to look into, is about the review of these pre-determined Government of Canada locations. My question is simply, what's wrong with Parliament?

I will now return to the speaking order.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

That's right. My hand was up, but I believe Ms. Yip wants to—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay, it's Ms. Yip, then.

I'm sorry. I thought you wanted to speak, but okay. That's very generous of you.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Desjarlais talked about risk. I feel there could be a risk to our international reputation, as a government and as a country, to secure contracts and not be in breach. It's not just about the cost of vaccines but also about proprietary information, such as manufacturing technology and related supply chains.

COVID is not yet over. We are still purchasing vaccines, so I feel that breaching our commitments will impact not just our current agreements but also future access to vaccines. Companies may not want to do business with us. They may not want to come to Canada if they don't feel the trust is there.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.