Public Accounts Committee on April 17th, 2023

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

I just want to say that I think we're talking about two different things. We're talking about the Auditor General being asked to look at the issue when we're talking about this—

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, when a member moves a dilatory motion, there should not be any time for debate.

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

We're not debating a dilatory motion. He didn't have the floor, Mr. Sidhu. Thanks for paying attention.

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

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Fragiskatos, I did come back to you out of courtesy. I'd like to hear from Mr. Genuis, and then I'm going to come right back to you and you can move it very quickly, all right?

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

We're talking about two different things. We're talking about this committee doing a study, and we're talking about asking the Auditor General to do an audit of the Trudeau Foundation.

Now, we are in favour of both of those things happening. We think that the role of the Auditor General in pursuing it is very important. Unfortunately, the Auditor General's office, in our view, hasn't been sufficiently resourced. There are many issues that the Auditor General has been asked to study, and there's an urgency to confront this issue now. We would support passing this motion, as well as passing a separate motion.

In terms of the idea of a motion that asks the Auditor General to do that investigation, I think that would be a separate motion. We would vote in favour of that motion.

However, what we're asking today is for this committee to conduct a study on an urgent basis, in a timeline that will allow the public to have some degree of satisfaction in terms of what's going on. That's why we think it's important to adopt this motion as well as to consider a separate motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

I move that we adjourn debate on Mr. Genuis's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Clerk, could you call that, please?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. That is put aside for now. I'm sure members will come back....

Mr. Genuis, I'm going to move on to another issue. This is done for now. You're welcome to bring it forward to another committee.

Again, I apologize to the witnesses, but I want to bring committee members up to speed on the COVID-19 contracts. This is a matter of business that is before us.

The committee received, from Public Services and Procurement Canada, two of the seven contracts on Thursday, April 13, 2023. They were from Johnson & Johnson and Medicago.

We have correspondence, which you've all received, from the assistant deputy minister of policy, planning and communications on behalf of Public Services and Procurement Canada on Thursday, April 13. This correspondence was distributed to members on Friday, April 14.

I won't summarize.... Actually, I will. The summary is as follows:

on behalf of Public Services and Procurement Canada...regarding the Committee's March 23...motion to request access to contracts entered into between the Government of Canada and manufacturers for COVID-19 vaccines.

Based on the measures taken by the Committee, through its motion, to limit public disclosure and safeguard the confidentiality of information, PSPC, following consultations completed with two companies, is providing [the] first tranche....

I'm just summarizing the letter.

The letter referenced the fact that we had taken steps to keep these documents confidential and the department would hopefully—there are no assurances—endeavour to deliver the remainder of the contracts this week: “a second and final tranche of documents in response to the motion.”

I, as chair, sent correspondence back to PSPC, requesting the documents without further delay. That was done on Friday, April 14.

I want to just raise this. We will not deal with any vote on this, because that will require a motion, but I want to get a sense of the room on this issue.

I'm going to turn first to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, as the motion's sponsor, to address this question. I'll then turn to others if they have comments, and we can pick this up, as I'm sure a motion will be coming for Thursday.

Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an extremely important issue. Frankly, I am outraged at Public Services and Procurement Canada's lack of cooperation on a motion passed unanimously by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It's outrageous that after the 15‑day deadline, the department, whose offices are next door, has only sent us two of the seven contracts.

This is not normal. We are supposed to be a democracy. It's up to the government to show that. I therefore ask the members opposite to remind the department of the motion, which they voted for, and to make sure that the committee is respected so that we can do our work. If we're going to make this the fight of a generation, then so be it. Transparency and accountability are important, and we're going to fight to the end to get these contracts and just do our job.

I call on all my colleagues to push for copies of these contracts. The department is already lagging behind on this. Normally, points are docked when you're late, every teacher knows that. It's going to be a little harder to have a calm debate if cooperation is already an issue. Therefore, let's get those contracts sent to us so we can look at them next week as scheduled. It's going to be very important.

I remind Public Services and Procurement Canada that it still has a few days to provide the contracts, as per the motion passed unanimously by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I completely agree with my Bloc colleague. This committee has been seeking the vaccine contracts in unredacted form so that we can understand what was in those contracts and what kinds of deals were made between the government and vaccine manufacturers. The government didn't want those contracts brought forward.

We agreed to hear from vaccine manufacturers. We tried to get an explanation from them about what exactly they wanted to hide from members of Parliament in these contracts. They did not provide any credible explanation for what they wanted to hide. In the wake of that testimony, the committee agreed unanimously to a motion ordering the production of those unredacted documents within a certain timeline.

We provided a reasonable timeline to provide those documents, but clearly the government knew this was coming. They had a lot of time to prep and to hand over these documents. These are documents that they have. They provided them in redacted form, but we need them in unredacted form. We're still waiting.

Again, it begs the question: What is in these vaccine contracts that the government is so desperate to hide from 10 members of Parliament who will look at these contracts in camera? The committee unanimously ordered the production of these documents. It's outrageous that the government is continuing to try to bury them. We need these contracts forthwith, and I think the committee should prepare the necessary steps so that we can move forward on Thursday with this. I hope there's a consensus to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

We don't need a consensus today.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor.

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

The department is working as hard as it can to get these letters. The letter also says that the documents will be coming this week.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

Mr. McCauley, you have a comment. I would ask you to keep it brief. Go ahead.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I will be very brief.

We're going through this exact same issue in the operations committee with a very direct committee motion that the government has repeatedly ignored despite escalating requests. This is a pattern now with this government. I think we need to figuratively put our foot down and assert the supremacy of Parliament, not the supremacy of bureaucrats over this committee and Parliament.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We can hear from members, or I can end it now if you'd like.

Ms. Yip, you would like to make a comment.

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

I'd also like to point out that two of those days were statutory holidays.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais is next.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I believe that the timeliness of the production of these documents is a really important piece of how this committee functions. This isn't to cast any kind of shame against the government or the bureaucrats who are in charge of this, but it is a concern that I think should be followed up on.

At the very least, I think this committee should note its displeasure by a letter at least, Mr. Chair, if you would be so willing as to find a way to express our displeasure with this fact, because it is delaying our work. If it's a matter of timing, if it's a matter of an innocent mistake or if it's a matter of just not having enough time, that's okay too, but we expect a response. I think it's only appropriate that this committee have a response in writing from those responsible, to help us understand why this delay exists and so that we don't just cast judgment as to why we think it is not present with us today.

I think a response from the department is in order for this, because, as Mr. McCauley mentioned, it is becoming a pattern in other committees as well, and it's of concern to the duties and operations of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

To respond to Ms. Yip, there may have been two days off, but the documents were supposed to be sent to us on April 7. However, it's now April 17. It only takes a quick calculation to realize that they are very late.

You can also ask your assistants how long it takes to send documents. However, two weeks is quite a long time.

At the moment, the documents we're expecting are very late. Those who are supposed to send them know very well what they're doing. Is this another attempt to prevent us from doing our job? We will see if it is.

If the documents arrive in an appropriate fashion this week, that will be fine and we won't bring it up again. However, if the situation unfortunately goes on and we're unable to review the documents as scheduled next week, I believe we will have some serious issues to address.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

We'll end it, if you want to let me, or I'll turn it over to you.

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

I'm very short, as you know.

Your comments, Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, are noted, and, as the letter mentioned, the documents are coming this week. I believe you said until the end of this week. We will see, and then we can progress from there, but I think that sending a letter or more inquiries is not warranted at this point, because the letter said the documents will be coming this week.