Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

But the ministry would be. The letter that she mentioned cited the fact that we'd have to hold the ministry accountable rather than ask her to do that work.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's correct. The Government of Canada, not the auditor, is the holder of this information. That's why she directed this back to the government, which is probably where the question should have been posed initially.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I see. Okay. That's why her letter mentioned the ministry.

In this case, our colleague from the Bloc is recommending that those ministry officials be present. In the instance where they themselves have to discuss the contract, would they also be subject to the same confidentiality clauses that the contract requires?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes. That would take place in camera. Like any department, they would be expected to answer questions from this committee in camera, as per this—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

And the ministry wouldn't breach the requirement of confidentiality if present in camera?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I don't know if I want to answer that question. I would think not, but the government might have a different position on that.

Again, for Mr. Fragiskatos and me, this is déjà vu all over again. We did this on the Canada-China committee. There could very well be objections from the government. I just can't speak to that.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I have one last question. Would we be putting Canadians at risk if these ministry officials divulged information that breached the contract with this company? Would we then be liable?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You're raising lots of questions here. I'll maybe nod to Mr. Fragiskatos, the parliamentary secretary. He might want to answer some of these. He is not obliged to.

Look, there are three routes if the committee adopts this motion here. I'll mention them, and then I'll turn to Mr. Dong before the time runs out.

The government can provide the information. That's obviously the easiest from the committee's point of view, should it pass this motion. It can refuse, which then returns it to this committee, at which point the committee can either let it go or elevate it. By elevating it, it would go to the House of Commons for review, at which point the House could then vote and order the government to release this information to this committee.

Mr. Desjarlais, can I turn it over to Mr. Dong and then come back to you? We're obviously not going to solve this now. I do plan to suspend this meeting when the time runs out. I do see speakers here, but we will definitely pick it up and I'll keep the list.

Mr. Dong, you have the floor. Then I believe it's Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Desjarlais, I wasn't trying to be offensive to anybody on this committee. We are quite collegial here at this committee.

My point is that we have the Auditor General responding to us in writing, saying that she is not in a position to divulge this information as pertaining to the confidentiality of these contracts, but we're okay to move beyond that point and ask the government officials whether or not they can divulge that information.

I know exactly how this is going to play out. We're going to put the government officials in a very awkward position. If they say they cannot, which is the same answer as the Auditor General, then they will be criticized. The government will be criticized for hiding information. As committee members, we cannot accuse or criticize the AG—I know the public wouldn't support that—for not divulging that information, but as politicians, it's our right, our job, to criticize the government for doing the same thing. I think it's a little unfair in this situation.

As to the sensitivity and the confidentiality clause and how tightly sealed the contracts were, I think maybe we should ask the law clerk. With this, are we knowingly entering a legal minefield in asking for details of these contracts to be looked at by politicians and their staff in their offices and so on? Maybe we should have a meeting with the law clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dong.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I understand you want to suspend this meeting.

I think there are a lot of questions, and I would like to have fulsome answers on the legal questions, because we cannot ask government officials to break a confidentiality agreement when that might be legally and criminally against them. I certainly don't want to be in that position.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will suspend right after my remarks.

The government is answerable to Parliament and this committee. If the committee requests documents, the government is duty-bound to provide them.

In my experience, the law clerk will have comments. I'll speak to our clerk about seeing, perhaps, what's been done in the past.

I can speak to other committees I was on. Given what Madame Sinclair-Desgagné has proposed, keeping this information private actually goes above and beyond what a parliamentary committee is required to do. In fact, as a committee, we could request that the government provide this information without any shield or cover.

What Madame Sinclair-Desgagné is proposing to do is the same process we saw with the Afghan detainee documents from the Government of Canada in the previous Conservative government, as well as what the Canada-China committee attempted to get from the Liberal government more recently. There is precedent for what Madame Sinclair-Desgagné is proposing.

In fact, she's put in place mechanisms that I think will ensure that sensitive information is protected. She did not have to do that. The committee could ask for this information and not concern itself with maintaining any confidentiality. The fact that she's done that goes a long way and I think answers the question of whether it safeguards the information. My view, from experience, is that it does, but we can check on that.

On that note, I'm going to merely suspend this meeting and we will pick it up on Thursday, February 16, at our committee time.

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

Mr. Chair, if everyone is ready, we could hold the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I have a call for a vote. I hadn't hit the gavel.

That is a debatable motion. I can see from the response that it's not going to be resolved quickly, so I will suspend this meeting.

[The meeting was suspended at 1:09 p.m., Monday, February 13]

[The meeting resumed at 3:30 p.m., Thursday, February 16]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We'll now resume meeting number 50, which was suspended on Monday, February 13, 2023.

We are debating Madame Sinclair-Desgagné's motion with regard to a contract by public service procurement for the supply of COVID-19 vaccines.

The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has prepared a note for the committee with regard to its power to send for papers and records. The note was sent by members. There are also copies in both official languages on your desk.

I will recognize Mr. Housefather, who caught my eye first—only, I think, because he's the new member—and then I will turn to Ms. Shanahan....

If you'd like to turn it over to Ms. Shanahan.... I didn't catch Mr. Housefather first...plus he was banging my ear.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

If she wants to go first and I'll go second, I'm okay with that too.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Let her go first. She's a lady.

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

Do you see that? Courtesy and good manners are certainly not lost here.

Chair, I wanted to review the speaking order with you, but to take up where we left off at the last meeting, I wanted to reiterate my support for the independent work of the Auditor General and for the quality of the work of that office. I was reading some of the testimony. I, for one, am very reassured. They were certainly tough questions that were asked, and with the quality of the answers that were received.... However, I am open to hearing views from other members.

With that, I cede the floor to Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here with so many familiar friends and faces. I really appreciate the committee for having me.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You're an associate, not a friend.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You are the greatest chair, and I think we are friends.

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

Chair, you can hear that now.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm sure this chair is also excellent. I just haven't had the pleasure of being in his company yet.

Mr. Chair, having the parliamentary secretaryship of PSPC, I heard about the motion and I wanted to present an amendment to the motion that I think will, hopefully, provide the committee with exactly what it would like to have, which is the unredacted versions of the contracts.

My friend Mr. McCauley will tell you I come at it from a principle that is somewhat unusual. I believe that committees don't exercise all the powers that they sometimes have a right to exercise, and I believe committees have a right to documents. There are a couple of other principles that I want to lay out as well.

Number two is that we want to make sure that confidentiality is respected with the documents. There are ways to do this that we have in our parliamentary precedent, which relate to looking at documents in a secure location like a SCIF. That is a way our friends in Congress in the U.S. look at confidential documents. It's a way our committee that deals with national security looks at documents. I think that would be a reasonable way for the committee members to look at the documents in a confidential manner, without anybody worrying that confidentiality will be breached.

The third thing that I was hoping the committee would consider is the fact that we—as the Government of Canada, not as members of Parliament—have confidentiality obligations vis-à-vis the suppliers. These were contracts that were signed at a highly unusual time, right at the beginning of a pandemic, when vaccines were very scarce and the suppliers had a great deal of leverage with respect to national governments as to what they could extract in terms in the contract. That is not unusual to Canada. It would be the same for other countries as well.

The contracts that we have with these suppliers require that an NDA be signed in order to access those contracts...in order for the Government of Canada, without breach, to give people the right to sign contracts.

I would like to read into the record, Mr. Chair, if it's okay, an amendment that I'm making to the motion that's on the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Do you have copies?