Public Accounts Committee on March 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 30 seconds.

[Patricia Gauthier]

Thank you very much for your question.

I'll speak from the perspective of Moderna. We are about 13 years old today, which is preteen years, and we've been investing in research and development for 13 years. The investment we made in our mRNA platform enabled us to be able to respond very quickly during the pandemic and bring a vaccine to Canadians on December 24, 2020. Our vaccine was able to reach places like Scarborough but also Yukon, the Northwest Territories and other more remote areas to protect indigenous communities and other more remote communities.

This is the fruit of significant investment in research and development. This is the result of significant investment in innovation. We must protect that innovation so that we can actually continue protecting the lives of patients, like those in Canada. That's where protecting intellectual property is absolutely critical, so that we can continue investing in research and development—not just us investing but all other members and companies in the life sciences ecosystem—and create a really strong innovation and life sciences ecosystem.

This is really important. It's important in the academic setting and it's important in the pharma industry. IP, or intellectual property, is really the key piece that we create so that we can have significant benefits for patients and save the lives of people, as we did here in Canada during the pandemic.

[Najah Sampson]

I think any pharmaceutical manufacturer that has invested in R and D absolutely believes in the power of IP protections to ensure that innovation can continue.

I will speak just on behalf of Pfizer. We moved incredibly quickly during the pandemic to ensure that we were meeting the needs of people here in Canada and globally as quickly as possible. The IP protections that were provided helped us do that, without question. I think without those, we wouldn't have seen the level of co-operation between companies. It would have been impossible for a company like Pfizer to scale up to the level that we did. By working with so many other contractors and manufacturers around the world, we ensured that the global supply of vaccine required to meet the needs during the pandemic were met.

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

This would actually hurt collaboration with other companies.

[Najah Sampson]

Absolutely. I think one of the cornerstones of innovation is being able to not just look inside your company but also to see how best to research and develop and manufacture a vaccine or a medicine. Sometimes that IP exists with another partner. Having those protections protects the collaboration.

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

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Baylet, please.

[Jean-Pierre Baylet]

Protection for our intellectual property also allows us to continue to carry out our Canadian operations securely. It's very important to safeguard the future of jobs and investments. I believe that is where the core of the discussion lies, by which I mean continuing to ensure confidentiality.

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

You mentioned jobs.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Yip, I've stopped the clock. You have about 15 seconds left. Do you want to hear from Mr. Tada or...?

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

I'll go to Mr. Tada.

Thank you for that.

[Toshifumi Tada]

Thank you very much.

As my colleagues mentioned, R and D innovation is the fruit or central part of the pharmaceutical industry. It's a result of the many years and the many dollars of investment for innovation. This can be one of the most important assets of a pharmaceutical company.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

This is our third round starting.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So much about this situation, frankly, is just mind-boggling to me. One of the chief accountability committees in Parliament is asking for vaccine contracts related to the COVID-19 vaccine. We are not asking for it for public release. We are asking for it so that a small group of members of Parliament, who have been charged with holding the government accountable in these areas, can privately review these documents and provide recommendations to the government. That is all we're asking for.

The information that many public servants have should be available to this committee. Their function is the implementation of the government's directives, but our function as a committee is accountability. It is to review and provide those recommendations.

The government and pharmaceutical companies who are here today are happy to have the implementers—the public servants who don't have that same accountability challenge function—to have the documents, which is more people in sum, but you are not willing to let us have access to the documents.

It is important to just underline that, in our system, we have the supremacy of Parliament, which means that Parliament is the supreme law-making body. It doesn't seem to be understood by the witnesses very well that we have an unfettered, constitutionally protected right to request documents. This has been recognized for over 100 years by multiple Speakers, as recently as by Speaker Rota.

It's not a question of our engaging in some kind of negotiation, like we're going to ask really politely, we're going to let you eat some of the cookies at the back and then maybe you'll give us a little more information in the documents—

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

I have a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

We have a right to access this information, as a parliamentary committee. We have an obligation to use this information responsibly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, I appreciate it. I'm hearing a point of order.

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

I'm just thinking of technical issues and the interpreters. Mr. Genuis is speaking very loudly into the microphone.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, you can continue your line of questioning.

I recognize that you have two settings—sleep and awake.

In all seriousness, this is Mr. Genuis's time. He is welcome to ask these questions any way he sees fit, but given the fact that we do have translation and concerns about hearing, I would ask that he just be aware of that.

I ask you to proceed. I've stopped the clock. I'm going to start it again. You have three minutes and 22 seconds remaining.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

The situation is outrageous. We can have some levity in passing, but I'm extremely frustrated that we have witnesses who don't understand how the law works and who don't understand the fact that a parliamentary committee is unfettered in its right to access documents.

We should use that power responsibly. We will use that power responsibly. We are not seeking these documents for public release. We are saying that the members of this committee should be able to privately access this information so that we can provide information to the government, yet the government is unwilling to provide these contracts and you are opposing the provision of these contracts.

It makes me wonder what in it is so damaging to you or to the government that allowing members of Parliament to privately review them would be such a concern.

I want to particularly highlight that Speaker Anthony Rota made a ruling at the end of the last Parliament that reaffirmed 100 years of precedent, saying that parliamentary committees have an unfettered right to access documents. Do you recognize the authority of the Speaker to make that ruling, and do you believe that the government and that companies should comply with the law in this respect?

Now I'll take a short answer from all of the witnesses. Do you recognize the authority of the Speaker to make this ruling and the obligation of the government and of companies to comply with the law?

We'll start with Mr. Baylet.

[Jean-Pierre Baylet]

Mr. Chair, we recognize that we have to respect laws, and we respect laws wherever we operate.

As far as the competency of the committee to review an unredacted version of the contract of Sanofi is concerned, I cannot answer that question.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You don't think we're competent, but you accept the Speaker's ruling and the obligation to comply.

[Jean-Pierre Baylet]

I would not judge—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay, well....

Go ahead, Ms. Sampson.

[Jean-Pierre Baylet]

That's not what I said. Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I don't know what you said, but I have only so much time.

Ms. Sampson, do you recognize the Speaker's ruling and your obligation to comply with the law?