Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right, we will vote on that.

It's a tie. I vote to keep this meeting in public.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

With that, I'm going to turn to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will try to be brief, as I know we have only 16 minutes left in this meeting.

First of all, it is within the mandate of our committee to get to the bottom of the Auditor General's reports. As the Auditor General states in her letter sent on February 8, 2023, under subsection 13(3) of the Auditor General Act, including the requirements related to documents, she cannot publicly provide us with information on said contracts with pharmaceutical companies. That is why it is up to the committee to question the nature of the contracts and purchase options between the government and the companies. The reasons were mentioned to all members of the committee.

These are commercial agreements. There are no more lives at risk in this case. Also, we know full well that the statute of limitations has expired on these commercial agreements. So, competitive reasons can no longer be cited. The pandemic—we wish it and we know it—is behind us. Those doses will not be used anyway. A certain amount of time has passed and it is only right that now, having turned the page and learned from the pandemic, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts have access to those contracts.

I will just conclude by saying that this process was undertaken in good faith. That's why we're going to look at these documents in camera, under certain constraints that have been described in the motion. We will also do so in an in camera meeting with representatives of Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Once again, we have acted in good faith, and we wholeheartedly hope that the government and its representatives will act in good faith, as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, I will recognize you, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It is true that Madame Sinclair-Desgagné discussed this motion with us. It's not a topic that is unimportant. It was one that was the subject of a full meeting on an Auditor General's report. The Auditor General came back basically saying the job was done and she could not provide any further details to us. That's not out of the ordinary. The Auditor General, in her verification work, is often in a position where she's examining contracts and secure documents. That is why we have an independent Auditor General. She has access to those documents. She does the analysis and then she reports back to us.

Our role here in public accounts is to look at the reports of the Auditor General. My concern—and why I would have liked to have this meeting in camera, because I think it merits a full and frank discussion among the members here—is whether we are in the process now of undermining the role of the Auditor General. There is that issue.

The second thing is that we have a full calendar. We have a schedule already before us. We are expecting new reports to come in.

Our role is to study the work of the Auditor General. I know we have a minister coming in on indigenous affairs. Actually, if we are going to be stepping out of the box, I think that's the box I would like to be stepping out of. For all intents and purposes—and I disagree that lives are no longer at stake—we don't know the next thing that is coming. To undermine the ability to work in a commercially sensitive area, that's a discussion that may be appropriate to government operations. We have the good fortune to have Mr. McCauley here, who is the chair of OGGO and is certainly well versed in those kinds of discussions when we're talking about ongoing work.

I believe we had a fulsome discussion last week when the Auditor General and Health Canada and so on were here. For me, I think it's time to move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

Unfortunately, I see that good faith has remained on only one side of this committee.

It is precisely because we believe in the work of the Auditor General that we want to get to the bottom of her report and fully understand her findings.

When she talks about wasted doses, did that happen because pharmaceutical companies took advantage of the situation to make commercial agreements with the government at the expense of taxpayer dollars?

The Auditor General could not have disclosed that kind of information in her report, as purchase options cannot be publicly disclosed. So in this case, it's simply because we want to get to the bottom of the Auditor General's report and support her work that we want access to the same contracts that she was able to see.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will first recognize Mr. McCauley.

Go ahead, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I support the comments of my colleague from the Bloc on this. I think we owe it to taxpayers, not just to their unelected lords and masters in the bureaucracy, to at least give them access to their elected officials.

This information has been made public by other governments around the world, in America and Europe. I'm concerned about what the Information Commissioner calls a culture of secrecy within government, where everything that taxpayers or parliamentarians should be able to get answers for is blocked.

This is not information that's going to be shared outside of this room. The motion has been very specific that there be no phones, etc. We have seen this before with other committees, where we have accessed information in a private room, overseen by the department and the clerk. I see absolutely no reason why elected members by themselves cannot be given access to what seems to be public in other countries, though not yet in Canada.

I fully support the motion as presented and hope we can move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I will return to Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to respond to my colleague.

I understand that there may be times when not all members are present at all meetings.

We can ask the analysts to confirm this, but we did hear that the waste was in the distribution. This was done in the 48 hours after we received the vaccines. It was in the hands of the provinces afterwards.

My colleague seems to want to say that we bought too much. We were in the middle of a pandemic and people's lives were at stake.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Shanahan.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just to be clear, I think originally when we wanted to have this conversation in camera, it was simply in response to the motion itself, which calls for an in camera meeting. That's why we moved in that direction. However, that's a moot point now.

I think we have to keep in mind the work plan. Meetings have been scheduled, and I know members across the aisle, not just on this side, are very much looking forward to those meetings.

This issue is not to be dismissed. I'm certainly not saying that it's unimportant to my colleague in the Bloc who has put it forward, but I think we have to keep in mind the work plan itself.

It can be taken up at other committees as well. This is something that can be looked at in the government operations committee or the health committee. In fact, the member does have the ability to call on those committees to study this.

For these reasons.... Let's also keep in mind, Mr. Chair, and you know this very well, that just a few days ago, on February 8, you received a letter from the Auditor General. Let me quote from it:

After having consulted internally within my office, I would like to reaffirm my answer given during the hearing. Due to the restrictive confidentiality clauses in the agreements, I am unable to disclose information about the agreements and related confidential information to the Committee. The in-camera nature of a meeting would not affect the obligation to respect the confidentiality provisions in the agreements with the vaccine companies.

In effect, what the Auditor General is obviously saying here is that she still could not answer our questions in an in camera meeting. She's not able to do so.

The public accounts committee has, at its core, engagement with the Auditor General. If the Auditor General is telling us that she cannot engage with us, then the idea of having this particular meeting is itself moot. I think that's something we have to keep in mind, because the result would be that we go ahead with this and it's just us looking at documents. Some of us might be well versed in contracts and contract law and the like, but I'm not sure how far we would get.

This is something that can be taken up at other committees that have more of a mandate to carry out that work. I think we should stick with our work plan and continue with that agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Before I turn to Mr. Dong, I have just a couple of comments so we're all clear.

The motion is not calling on the Auditor General to break her contract with the government; it's calling on Public Services and Procurement Canada to release this information and to come in and address that. The Auditor General is not the target of this motion, nor should she be. I would have ruled such a motion out of order, because she has a contractual obligation not to release a document. The government, of course, is answerable to Parliament and this committee.

I will make one last comment. The calendar is far from full, and if we don't resolve this today, this debate will then begin to impact our calendar.

Mr. Dong, you have the floor.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, for clarifying that.

I voted to move the meeting in camera so we could have straightforward discussions about this and frank comments, but it's not going to stop me now that we are in public.

This committee is a highly non-partisan committee. We were able to do that, in my mind, because we studied the Auditor General's report. She is non-partisan and has already formed an opinion and done her investigation very professionally. She is not taking any sides. That's how the system is built, and that's how Canadians trust this institution.

To say that we got her report and that we agree with her but we want to understand how she came to that conclusion and we want to agree with her more doesn't make any sense to me. She wasn't praising the government. She had criticisms about bits and pieces throughout, and that's how she formed her recommendations.

When we are talking about sensitive information like a contract that the government signed with vaccine companies—and there are only a few proponents out there—we know very well that, going forward, we still have to deal with these proponents on the procurement side. Now, all of a sudden, to breach the contract and open it up for us to take a look, and everything is in public.... I don't believe for one second that what we discuss even in camera does not make its way to public. There are so many examples I could use of discussions we've had at the committee level, maybe not in camera, that get mentioned in question period.

We're politicians. It's very easy for us to look at something, see it from a different perspective and use it in a partisan way. That's our job. To critique the government is our job. I understand that, but when it comes to running the risk of opening something that is confidential, that the proponents signed confidentially with the government.... That contract has been looked at and reported on by an independent officer of Parliament, the Auditor General, and we still want to say let's open it up, let's take a look. We're over the line.

Of course, I support my colleague Peter's comment that if you want to look at the procurement details, this is not the committee. This is the committee to look at the AG's report.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I will just take some exception. Committees, as well as parliamentarians, see documents all the time in this building. There is a requirement not to divulge that. I recognize that we are politicians, but if an obligation is made, we are duty-bound to uphold it.

Mr. Desjarlais—

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Chair, can I just respond to that, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll recognize you after Mr. Desjarlais.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

No, that's not my point. I just want to respond to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Dong, I have time here. I will recognize you. You're back on the list, but I'm going to turn to Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also take exception to the fact that any of us would breach our requirements for in camera sessions. There are laws that ensure that. Just from a parliamentary position, I don't think we should cast doubt on that procedure, because it's an important procedure of Parliament. It's an important procedure for all of us. Not just on this committee, but in Canada and in any western democracy, that is an institution we need to value no matter which party you represent, no matter what evidence you need to see. In camera is a very important forum that even the government benches acknowledged the importance of just a minute ago by moving to go in camera.

If we didn't believe in those principles and how valuable they are, then we wouldn't be utilizing it as a tool of measure, but beyond that, which is in some ways offensive.... I know, Han, that you weren't meaning it to be offensive to any one member here or accusing any one member here, but I would like to recommend caution on that.

I am torn on two items of this motion. One is the issue of the calendar. We did, in fact, have a lot of calendar space, Chair, just to repeat what you said. Do we have enough time to satisfy this request without amending or changing the existing action plan, in particular in consideration of some of the meetings we have with the minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It's my sense that we do.

For Mr. Fragiskatos, and this is déjà vu all over again, given the timelines required for the department to get back to us, we have very little scheduled in March and nothing in April and May, so we can accommodate this without disrupting what we have scheduled currently.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you for that.

The second portion I have is in relation to what Mr. Fragiskatos was saying and what Madame Sinclair-Desgagné was mentioning in regard to the Auditor General's requirement of confidentiality. I'm wondering if we could maybe get a bit of a note from the clerk about what the requirement is for the Auditor General, especially if she is in camera, and what she can divulge in that setting.

Is the letter saying that she can't divulge any new information, or is she saying that in relation to the contracts we would be able to investigate them without her maybe mentioning them?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

She can't divulge information, period.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Can she be present while the contracts are present? We can ask—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

From reading the motion, she would not be present.