Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Pardon me. I meant your amendment to the motion.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I meant no.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Look, I'm going to, again, not go on too long. I'm just going to briefly respond.

Lots of accusations, I think, were almost thrown out about the motive of people on this side, which I don't take very kindly to. I didn't come here with any partisanship. I didn't say anything that was partisan at all. I didn't make any imputations of the motives of anybody. In fact, I acknowledge and agree that the committee has the right to the documents. I said it from the beginning. I have never taken the position that parliamentary committees don't have a right to documents. Parliamentary committees have an absolute right to documents.

The question, then, is this: When we say there is an absolute right to the unredacted documents, what is the responsible way to get that?

I agree with you as well that confidentiality is important. But it was also clear, from what I understand, that the easiest way to get the documents in an unredacted way without breaching the agreement is through this process that was said in the amendment.

We came here in good faith with an amendment. We didn't come and say, no, we don't want you to have unredacted documents. We agree that you should have them. We came with an amendment that would set out a different process, a slightly different process than the one in the original motion. Now, everybody has a right to agree or not agree with that amendment. But to say that that amendment somehow is seeking to protect X or X....

It's seeking to protect Canadian taxpayers from litigation for no reason, because there's a process to get the documents that doesn't involve that level of risk. Of course, we can all assess whether that risk is worth it or not. To say that our non-partisan civil service that enters into agreements and then provides advice as to what the scope of that agreement is and the way that parliamentarians should best access it, is somehow against Canadians, I don't think is fair either.

Tonight, I heard from my opposition colleagues, fairly, that they don't want the NDA. Okay. So, I came back with another proposal. I said let the department have until the next meeting to go to the suppliers and see if there's an alternative.

Sorry? You were talking.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You can continue.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay.

That's what I suggested. I didn't hear any other suggestion about anything. I suggested that.

Then, I suggested that, okay, we'll even bring the legal representatives of the department to the next meeting so they can actually explain to the committee directly what they feel the risk is. I think I'm actually the only person tonight who has actually presented any alternatives whatsoever and offered different suggestions to move forward.

I haven't heard anything about a suggestion, a concrete proposal to deal with the concerns that I legitimately have, not as a government person, but as a Liberal member of Parliament who doesn't want to go beyond what it is that we should do to avoid risk. I don't think it's unreasonable. I don't think I would be in a different position whatever side I was on. It's not unprecedented for a member of Parliament to sign an NDA, as Mr. Fragiskatos pointed out. Other committees have had NDAs. In fact, in my last job.... Every employer has their employees sign an NDA when they start work with the company. That's normal.

In this case, members of Parliament, because we're elected and we're in an unique position, don't sign NDAs. But what is the real harm of suggesting it?

Again, if there's a desire not to sign the NDA, okay, that's fine. What is the other alternative?

We don't know, because we haven't explored it with the suppliers or heard from the people who are the most knowledgeable and who have access to the agreement and can talk to us about the scale of risk.

I don't know what to say other than tonight, I don't feel that I'm in a position to suggest things other than what's there, because I have no new information to provide than I had when the meetings started. I do believe it's up to parliamentarians, even though they do have an absolute right to see documents, to consider whether or not there are ways to see them that mitigate risk or not. I don't think that's inappropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Order, please.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

In any case, again, I just want to come back to the premise that I do agree that transparency is important. I do agree that everybody should see the document. I do agree that it should be seen in the near future. I do agree that it should be seen in a secure location.

I do note that I have read the counsel's letter, which basically sets out what the motion was, what the powers of the committee are, which nobody disputes, what to do if there is a refusal regarding production, which nobody disputes. Then it goes on to say:

The motion proposes measures to protect the confidentiality—

There should be an “of” here.

—the requested records, namely that the documents only be consulted in the Committee clerk's office for one day.

I agree with that. That is one way to protect confidentiality, which in normal course would be absolutely acceptable.

Then, it says, “While such measures aren't mandatory, they would be a valid exercise of the Committee's power and that may address confidentiality concerns.”

They “may” or they “may not”...depending on what the contract actually says, which the person who wrote this doesn't have access to.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

[Inaudible—Editor].

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Well, right, because he doesn't have access to the agreement to give legal advice as to what the potential liability under the agreement is.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

It doesn't say NDA.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, could you not interrupt the speakers, please.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Again, this basically says, which is absolutely true, all of this would be a valid exercise of the committee's powers and that may address confidentiality concerns. They may or they may not.

And again there are people who have seen the agreement who understand what the scope of the risk is and they can come and advise the committee on that scope of risk, or alternatively, maybe now that they have the knowledge of the motion and where the committee wants to go, they can get an agreement with the suppliers to drop that or come up with an alternative.

I don't think any of these things are unreasonable. All that this would do is delay the discussion on this and a solution to the next committee meeting. Because I actually don't want to filibuster, I am stopping now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

I believe Ms. Shanahan is next.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to react to a couple of things. I think people here, colleagues, know what my preference for this entire exercise would be, but I am an example of a member who has been convinced by arguments to the contrary, and what my colleague is suggesting as an amendment is entirely reasonable to me. And I don't always agree with my colleague.

I don't always agree with Mr. Housefather, but I have enormous respect for his analysis, for his careful and objective reading certainly of legal documents, and also the way that he cares about the outcomes of what he does. That is what brought me to the position that one thing about these contracts is that they don't just belong to the government. They are assigned by other parties. That is what gives the additional level of concern here, and it wouldn't be expected that we as members of Parliament, because that's not our expertise, would know about it.

So on the suggestion of Mr. Housefather to have witnesses from the department, who by the way are public servants, I find it disturbing that a member here would question the integrity of our public service, especially, I'm sorry, Mr. Desjarlais, but someone who belongs to the New Democratic Party. It's not something that I'm accustomed to hearing. It's almost demonizing the work of these public servants—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No. You can be offended, but that's not a point of order, and I'll give you the right to return to it, but do you actually have a point of order?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Okay, sure, if I have a right to return to it, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Shanahan, what you're addressing now is actually not part of this motion. If Mr. Housefather or you wants to put forward another motion to bring them, you can do that, but I will say that the motion we're discussing actually does not involve inviting anyone to discuss it. It is the motion that's at hand.

Having said that, it's your time, but I just want to be judicious with our arguments.

Back to you.

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

Thank you, Chair,

Again, returning to the work that this committee does, the precedent that is being set here actually is that this committee is looking at original documents that have already been studied by the Auditor General and that the Auditor General has already given her analysis on. That's the precedent of the.... Mr. Desjarlais wanted to know from me as a long-time member if I ever signed a non-disclosure agreement in the context of this committee. No, I didn't because this committee never asked for original documents of this nature.

Why wouldn't we ask for them? Because we have the work of the Auditor General before us, because there are other committees that deal with actual contracts. This committee is a review committee. We review the work that has been done and we review that work through the lens of the Auditor General, who certainly has the resources and we can rightfully ask at different times if the Auditor General indeed has all the resources that they need to do their work. We've had that discussion when we look at the main estimates and when we look at the Auditor General's own annual report about the operations of her office.

But coming back to the Auditor General, this really would have been my preference, that we respect the work that the Auditor General did in this case.

I'd like to read the conclusion taken from the Auditor General's news release dated December 6, 2022:A report from Auditor General Karen Hogan tabled today in the House of Commons found that the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada, supported by Public Services and Procurement Canada, responded to the urgency of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 and secured COVID‑19 vaccine doses so that everyone in Canada who chose to be vaccinated could be. Vaccines were needed quickly to reduce Canadians’ risk of serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID‑19.

I feel I don't need to remind everyone that when the vaccines came in, MPs asked if we had talked to our constituents. This report was made public in the media and it was discussed in the public space. I can say that my constituents are very pleased with the work of our public service.

I went to a clinic in my constituency to get my fifth dose of vaccine, and the clinic was full. Some people were there with their children. It was overwhelming and from what the nurse told me, it's like that every day. Parents were very happy to be able to come in with their children, and there was a playground so the children could have a positive experience with the vaccines. It was really impressive. I know it was different elsewhere and other kinds of messages were conveyed.

In my region and in Quebec, people were happy that the vaccines had been developed, purchased and delivered. They were pleased to see that the vaccines worked well.

Of course, it is our role and the Auditor General's role to review the contracts in order to determine if abuse occurred.

The Auditor General's report states:

9.26 In order to protect the commercial confidential information contained in the advance purchase agreements, we used publicly available information and unclassified information to estimate that at 31 May 2022, the average cost of 1 dose was approximately $30, excluding taxes.

I'm going to stop here, for now. Earlier, it was said that elsewhere the cost of a dose might be $12 or $16, for example.

We might have expected the public to react strongly when they heard that the price of a dose was $30. They might have questioned why the price was set at $30 per dose. They might have suggested that we go to Colombia to get a better price per dose. However, that's not what we heard. I believe Canadians realized that was the price we had to pay to get access to the vaccines; they accepted that fact.

I asked the following question at the February 6 meeting:

If we're in a war and win that war, are we then looking at the number of bullets we used and saying, “Well, maybe we used too many bullets”?

Next time, we're going to have to look at how to prevent a situation like this. Actually, that was the role of the Auditor General's report.

I will now continue reading from the report:

The estimated cost per dose will vary over time based on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the effects of changes in foreign currency exchange rates and in market forces, such as supply and demand.

Firm contracts or other ways to monitor that come to mind.

I will continue:

As a result, at the end of our audit period, the Government of Canada had spent approximately $5 billion on vaccines for the 169 million doses paid for between December 2020 and May 2022…

Personally, I follow the media every day. That said, I've never heard people say that the government paid way too much for vaccines, which saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. If any other members have received complaints about this from the constituents they represent, I would ask them to let us know.

In any Auditor General's report, the recommendations are the most important thing.

Based on the information that the Auditor General was able to give us about the prices, terms and conditions of the contracts, one would have expected her to conclude, if that had been the case, that officials should do a better job negotiating future contracts, or following Colombia's standards, for example, or that they should look into other means.

The Auditor General could have said that the contract should be free of confidentiality provisions, but she didn't. Instead, her recommendations are along the lines of the one found in section 9.57, which reads as follows:9.57 Recommendation. To minimize further wastage, the Public Health Agency of Canada should draw on the lessons learned from its management of the COVID‑19 vaccine supply and work with other implicated federal organizations and stakeholders to adjust its management of COVID‑19 vaccine surpluses.

I agree wholeheartedly. The Public Health Agency also agrees. We asked questions about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Shanahan, it appears that you're now arguing against even Mr. Housefather's motion. Your argument sounds to me like you're not in favour of any disclosure because of the Auditor General's report. I'm just looking for relevance.

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

Mr. Chair, as I made clear at the beginning, I prefer that we rely on the work of the Auditor General. I hate redundancy, and I think others here feel the same way. We should manage our time effectively. We do have work to do.

Personally, I would tend to stick to the committee's mandate, consider the fact that there was no precedent for looking at contracts in their original form, and rely on the work of the Auditor General. That was my position.

My colleague is arguing that when committee members want to see contracts, is important to find ways to make that possible. The amendment being proposed constitutes one of those ways. It says that we still have to respect the fact that... It's not just up to us. It's not the type of document that would contain a policy developed by the government itself.

We are talking about documents that have an impact on the market. There is a way to communicate with stakeholders. It is actually quite normal to communicate with them. I have seen this before in other committees, for example, when a witness's testimony is sensitive or when the topics include sensitive issues. We have to find ways to do it properly and respectfully. I am thinking in particular of the public officials who have done this type of work, who are bound by confidentiality and may therefore be penalized for not fully complying with some of the terms and conditions of these contracts.

In his amendment, my colleague suggests a way of doing things. If someone wanted to propose a subamendment, I think there is some openness here and an opportunity to do so. For my part, given my preference, I can water things down a bit and say that I am here to work with all other committee members. I do believe in the importance of this committee and that we should reach consensus when we do these studies.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I will conclude my remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Vaccination is one of the world's public health achievements. For over 50 years, vaccines have helped prevent—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Yip, I'm going to ask you to get to the point. Thank you.

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

I'm going to get to my point.

I think I still have three minutes or so. Are we going to keep going? I can keep going.

All right. Where was I?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go from the top.