Health Committee on June 21st, 2021

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, because it is the national holiday in Quebec and the festivities have begun, I would like to wish all the Quebeckers here a happy National Holiday. Unfortunately, there are not many of them.

We can still take an interest in issues such as the provinces' sole jurisdiction over long‑term care centres. However, that is not what we are talking about right now. It is about the hierarchy of law.

Does constitutional law trump statutory law? Why are the government and some officials pitting the prerogatives of Parliament against those of personal information? That's what I'm wondering about.

Let me also refer to section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867:

The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.

I would also like to mention Standing Order 108(1)(a), which refers to the powers of standing committees:

Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to sit jointly with other standing committees, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House.

Mr. Chair, I thought it is helpful to share this with you, especially as it relates to the study that we should be doing now. For me, it is really of national interest to know how much Canadians are paying for vaccines. We are talking about supply and demand, an issue that has an impact on the world.

We know that Canada's first problem was that we didn't have a domestic vaccine production capability. So we found ourselves completely dependent on the international market. If supply and demand cause prices to fluctuate, will the price of a vaccine purchased when it first became available in December, and the price of a vaccine purchased this summer be the same? Consequently, did the vaccine cost more at the beginning because the government wanted to put on a show for the cameras? Can we have the exact information?

What we have learned from the budget is that $9 billion was apparently allocated for the purchase of vaccines. If we can compare supply and demand, would we be able to have more information?

This is a public policy issue. The difficulty in being able to analyze the actual price of the vaccines—because the documents were redacted by the department instead of being sent to a law clerk who would have redacted them, according to the rules of the motion—is really interesting. According to a February 5 article, Canada paid more to be at the top of Pfizer's and Moderna's delivery lists in December, paying an average of $37.70 per vaccine, according to data released by Statistics Canada.

At a committee meeting, I asked Mr. Pinnow, the president of Pfizer Canada, just how the supply and demand factor influences the price of a vaccine. He replied, “Pfizer has been on record from the beginning to say that traditional supply and demand economics do not factor into our pricing decision.”

I then asked him whether the price of a vaccine purchased by the Government of Canada or any other country in the last quarter of 2020, in December, would be higher or lower than if the vaccine were purchased in summer 2021, when there's less demand. Mr. Pinnow answered: “Again, I appreciate the question, but we will not be discussing pricing publicly.”

So we are really in a position where parliamentary privilege does not apply. This is about the best interests of the public, the public interest in knowing how much the whole COVID‑19 pandemic will have cost. We are given no answers, but I think that knowing the data is absolutely essential.

Statistics Canada, in an analysis of international merchandise trade for the month of December 2020, tells us the following: “Based on a preliminary analysis, it is estimated that Canada's imports of COVID‑​19 vaccines totalled approximately $16 million in December.” Is this number good or bad? Could we find out?

As of December 30, Ottawa had received 424,150 doses from Pfizer and Moderna. The government declined to say how much it had paid for each one, but Statistics Canada's analysis put us back at $37.70.

However, Canada also received its first vials in time for Christmas, shortly after the U.K., but before the European Union. It made for great television in Canada and other countries to see seniors finally getting the vaccine.

However, according to figures released by a Belgian MP last month, the European Union paid far less for those doses than Canada—$22.91 for Moderna and $18.47 for Pfizer. The U.S. also paid less than us, $24.80 for Pfizer doses and $35 for Moderna doses, according to data published by Washington and Forbes magazine. The Europeans and Americans are vaccine producers.

Canada is not because we have given up our ability to produce vaccines. Fortunately, we may take some symbolic steps towards producing vaccines, but that will probably be after all Canadians have been vaccinated. The Americans and Europeans have ordered more vials than Canada and they have production facilities at home. These two factors influence prices. In this regard, I would like to know whether we, as taxpayers, have paid the right price for what we received, and especially whether the government will remember that depending on other vaccine‑producing countries has put us in a weak position. The same is true for personal protective equipment.

We are entering another phase with the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), where we are still totally dependent on the prices in other countries. Is there anything we can do about it?

Transparency, meaning not having redacted documents, would allow us to make informed decisions in the best interests of the people we represent.

My hypothesis is that we have paid far too much and that the pharmaceutical companies have made a lot of money on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. Of course, we are in a pandemic and the debt is over $1 trillion. The amount of money is very relative, but I think it is essential to have responsible management. Perhaps that is what we do not have.

I remind you of the urgency of making sure that Canada's plants can be used and that our researchers can do research by applying basic science. We need to fund the entire vaccine chain, the ecosystem, as Mr. Lamarre said to the committee last week. We have missed the boat in many ways, and ultimately, we should ask whether the money we overpaid for vaccines could have been invested in producing our own vaccines.

I think those questions answer themselves. However, I'm not a scientist, I'm a parliamentarian. I would like to be able to rely on very tangible data to have these things clear in my head. But the government is not allowing us to have the data at this time. It seems to me that it would be irresponsible to run an election campaign on such a fundamental issue: have we paid too much for vaccines?

In that sense, I support the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

We will now go to Mr. Morantz, please.

Go ahead.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the committee for having me today. It's been a very interesting meeting.

First off, I want to say to you, Mr. Chair, regarding the initial comments of the parliamentary secretary, that I do not drone and I do not engage in conspiracy theories. When I say something, I mean it.

It's clear that transparency is paramount to the proper functioning of democracy in Parliament. If the government were really sincere about its claims of national security, it would have engaged in meaningful conversations with all opposition parties to come out with a way to have these documents provided. But that, simply, has not been the case. It's hard to draw any other conclusion than that there are problems in these documents that the government does not want made public.

It's important that, as parliamentarians, we work together, and that's not what's happening here. It's time to stop suing the Speaker. That's just sheer desperation on the part of the government.

I want to turn to the excellent cross-examination by Mr. Davies today. I think at one point he touched on the United States court case, the United States versus Richard Nixon, regarding the release of the Watergate tapes, which was a seminal decision by the United States Supreme Court. Of course, I recognize that it's not jurisprudence here, but it's a very important case.

More important than that, it reminded me of a widely known, reported conversation that took place between former White House counsel John Dean and former president Richard Nixon. John Dean said to the president that there was a cancer upon the presidency.

Mr. Chair, I want to say to you today that it's time to turn over these documents, because there is a cancer on this Prime Minister and on this government.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Morantz.

We go now to Ms. O'Connell.

Go ahead, please.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really sincerely hope that the members of the opposition don't start charging rent for how much I am living in their heads right now.

I find it particularly interesting that when you have a very weak argument you instead go to personal attacks. That's all we've heard in these last ramblings.

Let me do a bit of a recap here.

What we heard today was that thousands of pages or documents—however you want to define them—were provided to the law clerk. They are continuing to be provided in unredacted form when appropriate. The law clerk confirmed that. He also confirmed that the government has never indicated that they are withholding anything. In fact, he confirmed that the documents are still being produced. In fact, he also didn't argue in any way—and didn't take the bait from the opposition—to say that the government was in any way in breach. He clearly said that he is continuing to do his job. He is receiving the documents that are being provided.

I think the Conservative and NDP coalition's big day today was to try to get some gotcha moment that just didn't happen, because it's not happening because the government is providing the documents.

That's a quick recap.

What has happened here since then is this whole kind of like throwing of spaghetti to see what sticks. Mr. Morantz spoke about national security. Nobody in the motion before us is talking about national security. He perhaps is at the wrong committee. The reference to national security was simply on some of the parameters in the House motion for redactions, but the law clerk never suggested that any of the documents from the October 26 motion were not being complied with. In fact, he said he's still receiving them, and that work is still ongoing.

Then what did the Conservatives do? They called this a dictatorship. They referred to Watergate, Richard Nixon.... I mean, has there been a substantial argument on the facts before us? No. It's nothing but name-calling. This is the Conservatives' big moment.

Documents are being presented. In fact, I think the clerk said that over 6,000 documents have been provided to the clerk. I received notification of them, and guess what? Not a single member of the opposition has called to have a meeting to review any of those documents. We haven't had a meeting talking about them. The Conservatives just received them. The conspiracy theory that I'm referring to is the fact that there's this conspiracy theory that there's some big set of documents not being provided, and they don't receive anything. In fact, they've received the documents, and what they're not telling Canadians is that there is no scandal in them, so “let's pretend that there's some big thing here that's missing”. It reminds me of the U.S.—the big lie. There's no scandal in the documents that they've received, the thousands of documents that they've received, so now it's about innuendo of what else is out there.

Well, Mr. Chair, let me move on, then, to the next part that was brought up. Mr. Lawrence and I forget who else mentioned it, but they talked about the contracts. The contracts are the base of this issue. Mr. Maguire said that: the contracts are at the base of this issue. Mr. Lawrence said it's “simple”. Well, Mr. Chair, I have the October 26 motion in my hands right now. It is four pages long. There are 30 clauses in this motion. The opposition even included an amendment through the process—30 clauses, four pages, and not a single mention of vaccine contracts. How simple is that?

I think what has happened here is that the Conservatives went on a fishing expedition with the NDP, and nothing came up. Then they get into revisionist history with what I keep referring to as “the Barlow motion”, because again, Mr. Chair: four pages, 30 clauses, and not a single mention of the vaccine contracts that the Conservatives say are at the heart of this. They have a funny way of showing what's at the heart of something.

There's been more mention of personal attacks on me than vaccine contracts by the opposition today. I think Canadians can see through the games.

After the October 26 motion was put in place—30 clauses, four pages and no mention of vaccine contracts—the Conservatives realized that, oops, they didn't mention that, so in walks the Barlow motion on February 5.

In this motion they actually acknowledge in the third paragraph—I kept referring to it today—that, “If the Law Clerk does not have such documents”. Well, if it was so simple and in the October motion or order of the House, why would you put in a provision like that? It's because it didn't exist, so the Conservatives are trying to rewrite history.

But, when you take the Barlow motion, it clearly says that if the law clerk doesn't have these documents—because the law clerk was never required to have those documents—it sets out parameters of how these documents should be shared with the committee.

Here's the big thing that Conservatives don't want Canadians to understand, Mr. Chair. It asks for the vaccine agreements with the suppliers, that they be tabled with the committee in both official languages and that the documents be vetted in accordance with the parameters set out in the House motion.

The law clerk confirmed that was done. The documents were provided to the members of this committee. They were provided in both official languages and they were set out with the parameters of the motion. The vetting was done based on the parameters of the main motion.

The difference is, and what the Conservatives are trying to argue, that the law clerk should have done the vetting. If the members of the opposition wanted that, why didn't they include it in their motion? It is not the government's fault that the Conservatives create this web of lies, confusion and procedure upon amendments, motions and orders that don't actually make sense, and then come back and say that government never did the thing they never asked it to do.

No Canadian would see this as a logical way to do business. Instead, the government, in an attempt to be as transparent as possible said that here are the documents in both official languages and that the government had vetted them based on the parameters of the October motion. The government complied. The Conservatives are so unused to the government because when they were in government.... These members are so not used to committees actually receiving this information that I think their heads exploded and they didn't know what to do.

I guess to conclude, Mr. Chair, I'm pretty animated on this because I feel like it's such a misuse of this House. The insults that have been said, that this is somehow a dining club and why are we here....

If the members want something to do, why don't they go through the thousands of documents that have been provided to them? Why don't they speak to Canadians about those documents?

It's because there's no scandal. The only things Conservatives know how to do is make up conspiracy theories and suggest that there is some horrible thing happening and Canadians just need to know about it.

When you actually look at the facts in front of you, I think it says a lot that the Conservatives and the NDP actually tried to filibuster their own motion today because they know they don't have legs to stand on. Instead they resort to personal attacks, name-calling, referring to this as a dictatorship—a dictatorship that provided all the documents. I think they have a pretty messed-up view of what a dictatorship looks like because we complied with the motion.

It's not the government's fault that their motion doesn't make sense. It's not the government's fault that the October order didn't include vaccine contracts. The government complied with it. It's not the government's fault that after 30 clauses, four pages and not a single reference to vaccine contracts, now the Conservatives, propped up by the NDP, are crying conspiracy theory and crying that there is some horrible thing happening here.

This is my last point, Mr. Chair. I think it's pretty horrible that.... I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Lemire's comments about vaccines being too expensive. I'd be super curious to know what he thinks the price of one of his constituent's lives is. He wanted us to wait and not purchase vaccines, but I would say, Mr. Chair, that we worked to save lives, to procure vaccines for the saving of those lives. I think his constituents would be very interested to know that he felt we spent too much money trying to save their lives.

I think what we have here is a classic case of the Conservatives really not having any facts to back up their accusations. Instead, they turn to innuendo and name-calling. That's fine, Mr. Chair. I think Canadians can see right through it because we have the documents right in front of us. The committee has been provided thousands of pages and not a single thing has been raised by these committee members. I think that says it all.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

I'm obliged to inform the committee that our time is up. We committed to two hours and we're well over that time. I see there's a whole list of people left to speak. Being at the end of the session, I would like to thank the clerk and the interpreters for their steadfast patience in being with us this whole time, throughout many months, if not years.

I would also certainly like to thank the House administration and all the people behind the scenes who make this place function.

I would like to give a big shout-out as well to the interpreters, to thank them all.

I do have four speakers left, but we have no time. We will not get to a vote on this matter today. I would ask if there's consensus to adjourn at this time, and we can deal with this another time. Is there anyone who opposes?

Seeing none, therefore, we are adjourned. Thank you all for all your hard work.