Evidence of meeting #44 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was doses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
That's not a point of order, Mr. Chair. That's a matter of debate.
Ms. Sidhu can pursue this line of questioning, if she wishes, later on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Davies.
I have stopped your time. I will resume it now.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Carrying on, it says that the vetting will be done “by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel within seven days of receipt”.
I think you have already confirmed, Mr. Matthews, that the vetting was done by the department, not by obviously the law clerk and parliamentary counsel. Is that correct?
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
That's correct, Mr. Chair. The vetting was done by the department.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Can you tell me why the department chose to violate the order of the House by vetting the documents, when the order clearly said that the vetting would be done by the law clerk and parliamentary counsel?
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I have a point of order.
I'm sorry, Mr. Davies.
I believe Mr. Davies is reading the wrong motion. It wasn't in relation to the House order. It was in relation to Mr. Barlow's motion. Before he reads into the record the wrong motion, I just want to make that clear.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
Mr. Davies, go ahead.
I shall resume your time.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
Once again, the witness has already confirmed that they provided the vaccine contracts, pursuant to the order of the House in October, so....
Can you tell me again why that was done? Why were the documents not sent in unredacted form to the law clerk for vetting, as the order of the House required?
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
I think there are two things, Mr. Chair.
In relation to which motion, I believe there was a motion at this committee that said if we couldn't get the documents to the law clerk in time to send them to committee. If I erred in sending them here, I apologize.
In terms of the redaction, it's the Department of PSPC, as the contracting arm of government, that knows what's sensitive and what's not. We have an obligation to consult with our vaccine suppliers in making those determinations. It was felt that the department was best placed to make those judgments to protect the integrity of the contracts.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Matthews, were the criteria that the department used the exact same criteria listed in the order of the House of October 26?
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
The criteria used by the department in making the redaction determinations were around privacy, commercially sensitive, as well as [Technical difficulty—Editor] deliveries under the current contracts and Canada's negotiating position going forward.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Okay. I'm going to switch here.
The federal government previously claimed that it would donate up to 100 million vaccine doses to low-income countries. However, yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed that Canada will donate only 13 million of Canada's surplus doses. The other 87 million are accounted for through money.
Given that it's virtually impossible for low-income countries to buy doses, given the severe global supply shortage, why isn't the Government of Canada willing to make a larger donation of surplus doses?
Mr. Matthews, this is not necessarily to you, but whomever would be best placed to answer that.
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
The government did make the commitment, through the Prime Minister at the G-7, to donate both the actual doses, as the honourable member indicated, but also through its significant financial commitment to COVAX, which has as its core intention and commitment to further the COVAX process to purchase doses from suppliers to distribute to low-income and middle-income countries.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Are you confident, Dr. Lucas, that those countries will be able to purchase those doses? From where would they purchase those doses with the money that Canada's given them?
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
The money is provided to COVAX. COVAX purchases the doses and distributes them.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Okay.
I want to break down those 13 million doses. More than seven million of the doses are being donated from Novavax, whose vaccine is currently in clinical trials and has not even been approved in Canada. The remaining six million doses are the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson that Canada bought from COVAX. It seems to me that of the hundred million doses promised, what Canada's really going to do is deliver seven million doses that have not even been approved yet and may never be approved, and six million doses that we already were going to take from COVAX, which I would argue we never should have taken from COVAX.
Do I have that correct? That sort of seems, in terms of actual doses going to—
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
What's the breakout on the 13 million?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I think I know the breakout. I guess what I'm asking for is your comment on the breakout. It looks like it's less than six million of doses that we never had but were going to take from COVAX. That seems to be the net sum of it.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair and honourable member. I had my mike on. I apologize for bursting out with that question.
President, Public Health Agency of Canada
I was trying to remind myself out loud.
On the breakout that you mentioned for Novavax, Novavax is, as you say, a forward-leaning product, but it is a product that is in the process of being lined up for manufacturing. Its clinical trial results are beginning to come out, and it's looking like an extremely promising vaccine. With respect to AstraZeneca, as you know, these doses are in fact in production. Those kinds of doses are therefore available doses.
Over time, we're going to need to get everybody in the world vaccinated. We're going to [Technical difficulty—Editor], so yes, some right away, as you're pointing out, and others over the coming months will be actually extremely valuable as well.
