Health Committee on June 21st, 2021

[Philippe Dufresne]

I do.

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

—okay, perfect—refers to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel inquiring about whether or not the contracts of the seven vaccine agreements have been provided. However, as we just concluded, vaccine contracts were never part of the October 26 motion, so that first paragraph, in my mind, is void. You can't ask for something.... You can't amend a motion by another motion in this manner without its being part of the House.

Let's move, then, to the second paragraph, which talks about how, if you, as the law clerk, have those documents, you would move forward in providing them.

Then let's get to that third paragraph, which I think is the important piece because it's clear that you weren't provided with those documents because that wasn't part of the October 26 order. Therefore, it goes to the third paragraph, which says, “If the law clerk does not have such documents, that the committee request from the government the contracts for Canada's seven vaccine agreements with suppliers”, and it goes on.

If the contracts were never part of the October 26 motion, they were not, therefore, required to be sent to you directly. Then this motion, the Barlow motion, says that those contracts were requested—not ordered but requested—to be sent to the committee directly, which would allow the government to make the redactions because there was no requirement to send them to you directly. Is that accurate?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Well, I think, again, it depends on the interpretation that the committee, or ultimately the House, would give.

Are the vaccine contract agreements included in this [Technical difficulty—Editor]? That's the first issue. The second issue is that, in the second motion—

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

Sorry. I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. I'm just limited in time.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Sorry, yes.

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

My question, though, is not about the committee. You're the witness, and it's your opinion that is being debated here. If the vaccine contracts were never part of the October 26 motion, you're right that committees can, at a later date, make a determination. However, they haven't done so, so we're just dealing with the four corners of these two motions. If the committee has not taken any further action to date, it means that the October 26 motion does not require that vaccine contracts be sent to you. Therefore, the Barlow motion has a clause in there that the government can send the vaccine contracts directly to the committee, which would mean that they would be responsible for the redactions because there's no requirement to send them to the law clerk.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Well, again, I think it's up to the committee to interpret the Barlow motion in terms of the language “that the documents be vetted in accordance with the parameters set out in the house motion”. It's really the interaction of those.

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

Sorry. I'm just limited on time. I don't mean to be rude.

If you go back, it refers back to the October 26 motion, which we've already determined doesn't refer to vaccine contracts. You can't put a clause in a motion about another motion where it doesn't exist. Therefore, the vetting process would be done by the government as per that third clause, which would mean that the government's in complete compliance.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Again, all I can say is that, really, it's for this committee to make those interpretations. You have an order of the House. You have an order of the committee, and the order of the committee—

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

That's fair, but it's not your interpretation. As of today, there is no motion before you that your interpretation that the vaccine contracts were not in the October 26 motion.... Therefore, there was no requirement for those documents to be sent to you first to be vetted. As of today, if the committee changes its mind, that's its prerogative. As of today, your position is in the four corners of the document.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

If the witness wishes to answer, please do so.

[Philippe Dufresne]

I just want to reiterate that it's up to the committee to interpret the reference in the House order to documents relating to the vaccine task force and how broad that would be, and then to interpret the Barlow motion that is making reference to the House order and the parameters for vetting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We continue with Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Lemire, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suggest that Mr. Davies go before me, if he wants to. I could then wrap up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Davies, go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That's fine.

Mr. Dufresne, I'll just pick up where Ms. O'Connell left off. I'll read Mr. Barlow's motion to you: “If the law clerk does not have such documents, that the committee request from the government the contracts for Canada's seven vaccine agreements” and we'll stop there.

Mr. Dufresne, why would you potentially have such documents—or not—if not by virtue of the October 26 order of the House? Was there any other order you're aware of that would have served as the grounds for you having the vaccine contracts?

[Philippe Dufresne]

No.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Second, I'm going to read to you a passage from our federal procurement minister, Liberal Anita Anand. This is what she said on October 26, 2020, when speaking to the motion:

The difficulty with the current motion, and in particular, the very reason I am here today as Minister of Procurement is because I have been involved in and have led the signing of hundreds of contracts for PPE, for vaccines and for rapid test kits for the benefit of Canadians' health and safety, and if this motion passes, it is my grave concern that those contracts are at risk, [these] negotiations are at risk and suppliers will then [if the contracts are disclosed] as a result be hesitant to contract with the federal government.

Mr. Dufresne, you'd agree with me that clearly it was in Madam Anand's mind on October 26 that the motion contemplated the production of vaccine contracts. Would that be a fair interpretation of those remarks?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Well, I don't want to interpret the intentions. I think the statement is there and stands for itself and—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Because—

I'm sorry.

[Philippe Dufresne]

The order of the House, I would just add, makes reference to the issue of the vaccine task force and tasked my office to consider if the information, the disclosure, could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations. There's language there as well referencing contractual negotiations.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Well, of course. I'm not going to waste any more time on this because the position of Ms. O'Connell is so preposterous. Obviously, the vaccine contracts are at issue. They've always been at issue.

Has the government, to this day, ever told you that vaccine contracts are not subject to the October 26, 2020, order? Have they ever taken that position?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I don't believe they have. No.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

No.

Now, how many documents have been delivered to your office of those millions of documents that Mr. Shugart told this committee the government had in its possession?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I think it was millions of pages that was the reference, not millions of documents—