Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Members, don't be shy about putting your hand up until you catch my eye.

We'll go to Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, then Ms. Shanahan and Mr. Desjarlais.

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

I'd like to thank my colleague Ms. Bradford for her question, because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate what I said when I introduced the motion.

It's a fairly simple concept. The Auditor General was supposed to audit a lot of things, but then under the legislation governing what she does, the Auditor General Act, which specifically applies to the Office of the Auditor General, she's required to censor the content of commercial agreements. So it's up to us as parliamentarians, and particularly us as members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, to obtain that information and better understand the findings in her report.

Some findings, particularly those dealing with wasted doses, could be explained in the contracts. For example, pharmaceutical companies may have prohibited the Government of Canada from reselling vaccine doses. If such provisions were included in the contract with pharmaceutical companies, this would explain why many doses were wasted. In that case, it would be up to us as parliamentarians to find out why the pharmaceutical companies abused their position of power to get the government to agree to provisions like that.

I hope I've been clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.

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

Mr. Chair, this is very difficult, because we'd like to get to the bottom of this. We'd like to understand what happened during the pandemic in terms of vaccine research—vaccines hadn't been created yet at the time—and contracts and so forth. That's precisely why we have the Office of the Auditor General.

In her report and testimony, the Auditor General very clearly said that she had observed—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mrs. Shanahan.

Mr. Desjarlais and Mr. Housefather, can you take your conversation back a bit?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, of course. I'm sorry about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

We'll go over to Ms. Shanahan.

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

As it happens, Mr. Desjarlais talked about how important this oversight work is. It's very important that it remain in the hands of the Office of the Auditor General. The Auditor General had access to the information and at our February 6 meeting she answered questions from committee members about why the wastage was occurring. She said it was a distribution issue, and we heard that from several government officials as well. The details of this testimony are available. They said there was always wastage, first because it's a very fragile product, and second because it was delivered in 48 hours and there were issues with logistics, distribution and data sharing.

That's what we heard in the Auditor General's testimony on the issues encountered. She never indicated that the problem was the contracts and that she could not disclose those because of the confidentiality agreement. In fact, I can't believe that if there were problem provisions in the contract, she wouldn't have been able to tell us. That's not what she concluded at all. She felt that the departments had worked well together to get enough doses of vaccine so that 82% of Canadians would receive at least two doses. In terms of the wastage that occurred afterwards, I remember Mr. Desjarlais asking some very good questions about that, and some lessons were certainly learned from that.

The agreement the government is negotiating with the provinces focuses on better data sharing and greater health care cooperation. I believe everyone knows that if another pandemic comes along, we should be ready and we shouldn't just wait until it happens. It's urgent. So I can't underestimate the work of the Office of the Auditor General, although I also understand that parliamentary privilege exists.

I've said it before, and I want to say it again: It really bothers me when people talk about the work of the public service with apprehension or directly or indirectly suggest that it has not acted with integrity. What I really like about this committee is we ask questions respectfully, but we always rely on the work of the Office of the Auditor General. We can trust their data and their findings. We can dig into them and work to do things better in the future.

In that respect, I think about what this committee has already accomplished. We do studies, for example, a study on the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. I was delighted to work on that with Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné. We have worked together on other projects to advance the work of this committee.

I am pretty much always ready to compromise. I follow the committee's mandate by the book. I feel we should stick to the mandate to the letter. On the other hand, I agree with the argument that has been and is being expressed. It's very important that this committee ensure that these contracts have been properly entered into. Despite our confidence in the Auditor General, this is an issue that we should at least look at. I have some experience in this area—I used to be a commercial banker—but I have to say I'm far from being an expert.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Shanahan. You are certainly a progressive conservative.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm returning to the result of my question. It was a reasonable and straightforward one.

It was to establish a great enough risk present to the government that would be able in some way, shape or form to convince members of this committee that extraordinary safeguards are necessary. I am not necessarily convinced that the evidence provided today can establish that risk. Risk to the government is different from risk to Parliament. This risk is present to the government.

The role of Parliament in this case is to ensure that we protect Canada's and regular Canadians' abilities to have trust in our institutions. It's part of why our committee is present here today. I believe the perceived risk would have to be greater than the principle of oversight in this case—which I say in agreement with our chair—for us to suspend aspects of our privilege in order to do this work.

I perceive the actions and advice being offered by our Liberal colleagues today. I respect them. I want you to know, first and foremost, that I understand the role you're taking right now. You need to protect your government's ability to come to contracts regarding, in this case, pharmaceuticals for a better outcome in some instances, as you believe, for Canadians. However, you must be able to see the need of the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party to provide oversight on behalf of Canadians.

I hope we can come to a consensus. That's my greatest hope today. That consensus could be worked on in building a foundation of our core principle, which is that this is in the interests of Canadians. That's number one. We share that. Every member here shares the belief that commercial contracts entered into by the government require a level of oversight, in particular the oversight that this committee has asked for.

The second aspect of this is an NDA or a time limitation, which is a request from our colleagues to this committee. That is the request we need to contemplate. My goal of getting to a consensus on this is important to that process.

However, I'm beginning to see that it's unlikely we'll get consensus today. I would like to give the government one last opportunity to read into the Bloc Québécois motion. I believe it is made with good intent. I believe that the intention is to ensure there's oversight for Canadians.

My last point is that none of us, not any one of us as members of this committee or Parliament, should or ought to breach our ability to represent not only our constituents but our role here. I don't think they would in the case of going in camera. The institutions that built this country and the institution that we're in right now have built safeguards to ensure that a thing like this could very well be done in a secure place like Parliament and in a secure way like at committee and done in camera. I think that is a reasonable request by the Bloc Québécois.

That is the part you can see I'm trying to get to. They have a reasonable request to view documents on behalf of Canadians. They understand—which I agree with—that there need to be sensitivity safeguards to this information. We agree with that. That's why the motion is the way it is. I agree that we should be able to do that.

What I'm seeing is that the government—at least those whose job it is to protect the government from liability—thinks that we, in some way, shape or form, may in fact breach that confidence. That is an accusation that I believe to be an insult. I don't believe that's what we're saying, but I believe if we move forward without a good reason that establishes greater risk, it would be perceived that way.

I believe that our institutions are strong. For our institutions to work properly, we need to ensure that we follow regulations and the nature of in camera meetings. They are built to protect this country and built to protect committee members. They are built, in this case, to protect the government.

I don't see how I could disagree with the advice that our members opposite are receiving in relation to risk. I believe the risk is negated—not entirely, of course, but that shouldn't be the goal of our opposition colleagues here. The goal should be to limit risks the best we can.

The enemy of the perfect is the imperfect. In this case we have an imperfect motion that I agree with, because in this case we're never going to get to a perfect motion that gets to the position the government would like to see, which is immunity from this Parliament.

I believe this committee should take up the charge of having this information released in an in camera setting, a setting that can safeguard the information in a way we can see, but also in a way that doesn't breach these members' or any member's privilege. Some suggest that an in camera setting or the requirements and safeguards built into the motion as read by the Bloc Québécois would in fact do that, but I don't believe that is a sustained claim. I don't think we can say that the Bloc Québécois motion will bring risk to the government. I believe it was built in good faith. The Bloc consulted me. Our party consulted everyone else in advance, and we walked through some of those steps. I'm just a bit confused as to those two points. I request that my colleagues across the way see that what's built into the existing motion is sufficient for the purposes of our viewing information.

Your opinion is that it is insufficient, if I understand correctly. It is insufficient to negating the legal risk present to the government. If that's your claim, then we as parliamentarians can't make a decision that would otherwise be the mandate of this committee, which is to see that information, while also satisfying your requirement to have no risk. I see mutually exclusive positions here, which I'm not a fan of. I would rather us come to a consensus that this is important for all Canadians. Every Canadian and all parties believe that it's important we see these contracts. We all agree there's risk, and that's why we have safeguards.

The safeguards that are being imposed by the amendment are onerous, I believe, and, to the chair's statement, could breach privilege. Any one of us members could then take this to the House and have these documents ordered there. However, I believe we can do this in committee. We have reasonable members at this committee who have come to a reasonable conclusion to see these documents, which are in the interests of Canadians and have existing safeguards. That seems to be a very reasonable path forward.

I agree with the members opposite that it doesn't negate all the risks, but I'm saying that most of the risks are negated this way. I believe and have faith in our institutions and that when we go in camera in a closed setting, we will not breach that confidence. To suggest otherwise would be to attack our integrity and our institutions. The in camera setting is built to protect from the exact situation the government is afraid of. I acknowledge that, which is why I agree with the safeguards put in place.

I hope those facts are clear enough to establish that we have a common interest—all of us here. The safeguards are proper and important, and they are there. I believe that a consensus on this is also important. For us not to divide Canadians on this important issue, the government and the opposition should come to a consensus. Madam Shanahan often speaks about the requirement and need for consensus on these items, and I'd ask that the government see this request for what it is. It's an important and honest request to public accounts and members of Parliament to see the contracts that were entered into—commercial contracts by the government—while also offering the government safeguards.

I believe those are entirely reasonable. They don't negate the complete risk; I accept that point. I thank all the members opposite for doing their best and their due diligence to protect the government and the dealings of their ministers in this work. That's honourable and commendable. I'm sure anybody here, if they formed government, would be in the same position you are. However, the reality is that this is Parliament. This is not the government. The Parliament is requesting that this information be presented to us, and safeguards are in place.

I believe this may be my final statement before we go to a vote. I will give the government one more opportunity to look at some of what I've said and attempt honestly and earnestly to come to a consensus position to ensure that Canadians have the advantage of knowing that we are working to provide oversight of these documents properly and together.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'll be very brief, Chair. Has the committee—you or the clerk—been contacted by any of the pharmas in question about this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I have not. I'll double-check with the clerk.

One company did contact the clerk about the motion, but because of our privilege, he didn't get into a discussion about the motion, which is available for the public to see. There was at least one inquiry regarding the motion.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thank you very much.

I'll be very brief. I think a lot of this has been covered so far.

I wish to reiterate that I find requesting an NDA—and I'll be polite here—offensive. If you look around the room, we have clerks, we have interpreters and we have other people assisting us in every committee meeting throughout government and in camera. We place a great deal of trust in all these people assisting us, and that makes Parliament work. Again, we have seen zero leaks. We've placed such trust in them that we can discuss anything in front of everyone here today, and now some say all of a sudden that because it's a government contract, it cannot be revealed to parliamentarians.

We had the same request from McKinsey and the same veiled threat: You cannot release this because of confidentiality agreements. But the operations committee did send for them, and we are receiving them. We had further requests from McKinsey, as Mr. Housefather knows, saying that the government had asked them to redact information before they gave it back to the government, and the committee said, no, the MPs will take a look at that. Without casting doubt upon my colleagues across the way, it sounds almost like they're trying to protect the government, not the taxpayers. The government seems to be the one putting up the fight, as opposed to the pharmas.

I understand the concerns. I think Mr. Desjarlais has commented very well on them. However, the reality is that we cannot allow something like this to stop parliamentarians from doing their jobs.

It makes you ask what's next. Does McKinsey get a pass because they have confidentiality agreements? Do we go to Finance and say they cannot look at budgets because of other issues? It sets a horrible precedent, because you know that the second an NDA is forced upon us, it will be at other committees, whether it's OGGO or another committee. As soon as it becomes a precedent that we're depriving parliamentarians of their rights and obligations to pursue issues, we'll stop functioning as we should, which is representing people and representing taxpayers in holding government to account.

I'll leave it at that. I believe the motion put through by our colleague is well written. Nothing is perfect in this world, but I think it covers everything. It allows us access but protects the government and protects contracts. Let's be frank. If I sign an NDA—or Mr. Housefather or anyone else—and then step into the chamber, I can speak about it.

As to requiring or requesting an NDA, again, I'll be polite and say that it's offensive, at the very minimum. I'll leave it at that.

I think we should get to a vote and be done with this so we can continue with the other important studies we have coming up.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few things to say.

Number one is that the Government of Canada is not the Liberal government. It's the Government of Canada. The government represents all Canadians, not just the Liberals. That's number one.

Number two is that with parliamentarians on the committee, it's not just the opposition that exercises oversight. It's also MPs on the Liberal side. Kelly will tell you that I voted in favour of the McKinsey contracts being released. I don't like when they try to make redactions. I don't believe that's appropriate. I don't think anything should be withheld from parliamentary committees. I find it very insulting when they say that employees of the civil service can access things and parliamentarians can't. I am very much of the school that the committee has a right to unredacted documents. We're all of the same mind on that issue.

With respect to the question of the NDA, in the same way that I trust the committee members absolutely, I also trust the high-level employees of the civil service. They have to sign NDAs because that's what it says in the contract. The contract itself requires that. It says—which the McKinsey contracts do not—that every individual accessing it needs to sign an NDA.

That is the reason this is on the floor. It's not the same as those other contracts. I didn't suggest that we have NDAs for McKinsey. I would never suggest NDAs unless I'm told that there's a legal reason to do so because of potential liability. That's the difference with this specific group of contracts. They were negotiated at a time of great need, with great urgency. That was what the suppliers—who had great leverage at the time—requested.

There is trade secret information in those contracts, I'm sure, in addition to pricing and other things that might have been confidential to them at the time. They probably told every country that they had to do that. Countries leapt to sign whatever they could to get vaccines for their people.

I get the parliamentary privilege. I get the idea that people don't want to sign NDAs. I've heard from my colleagues all across the opposition benches that it's an uncomfortable thing to be asked.

I'll give an alternative. I am willing to go back to the department to ask them to go to all these suppliers—the pharmaceutical companies that have agreements—and see if they can find a way to have these NDAs waived for members of this committee and parliamentarians. If you'll give me until the next meeting, I will go back and see if those companies will say that, despite what it says in the contract about NDAs, they agree that parliamentarians....

What Mr. McCauley said is absolutely true. They probably never thought of that. If he goes into the House of Commons and despite his NDA discloses the contract and what he remembers of it, he likely doesn't have any liability under the NDA because he did it under his parliamentary privilege. Perhaps if the companies are approached with that in mind, they will agree to say that the contracts are amended and they can provide it without....

Mr. Chambers suggested another option, which is to go to the companies. If you summon documents from the companies, there's no liability to the government because you've summoned them from the companies. I don't know that we need to go down that road at this point.

Based on what I've heard today, it's clear that most of my colleagues on that side do not want NDAs. It's clear that the chair felt uncomfortable about that for other reasons in terms of parliamentary privilege. If the committee would be willing to suspend this discussion until the next meeting, I would be willing to figure it out with the department and come back to you. Hopefully we can get those companies to waive the requirement, and then we don't have the legal risk and don't have to worry about it.

I can't assess that for you. I haven't even read the contracts. I'm almost one hundred per cent sure that this is not in the contract, but I entered into contracts in my life as a general counsel of a company, and there were fixed penalties for violating the terms of the agreement. I don't believe that is the case in these agreements. You could theoretically, just by a form failure, hit a fixed penalty. Again, I don't know what's in these contracts. I haven't seen them. I don't think that's there.

My real request would be for the committee to consider—because I don't think any of us wants to put liability on the Canadian taxpayers that does not need to be there—giving us until the next meeting. We'll go back and see if these suppliers can waive it. If not, then the committee can in full knowledge of that make the decision to go ahead anyway, without the NDAs. That would be my request.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I think we've said everything we possibly can. You could go back to the companies and hypothetically imagine that every single one of them says, “No problem. This is going to be great. We want you to waive it.” First of all, I doubt that. I don't think, considering our clerk is being harassed about this, that the companies are going to welcome the government's request to waive it. That is not in their interest, and it's not in the government's interest.

The interests of this are transparent. That's the problem with this, Mr. Housefather. It's very transparent why the government would want to have an NDA. We're saying that the requirement to protect those contracts does not establish a reasonable risk to mitigate the request from the Bloc's motion. If you presented evidence that could suggest something other than the idea of being sued or protecting the company, then maybe we'd have a better way to establish that.

You have to know that I fully respect what you folks are doing. I understand the interests you have, very clearly. It's written into a contract. You're talking about not breaching that contract. It's the government's position that you should not breach that contract. I understand that, and I have sympathy for each and every one of you having to carry that into this committee. However, I'm saying Parliament deserves.... You never know. There could be a Conservative government, New Democratic government or Bloc government. You never know what could happen in this place, and in case that happens, I'm saying I would expect the Liberals to come out and say that they expect to see this contract. I'd also expect them to be reasonable and say that they're going to put in safeguards. I believe that's what the motion does. They're only in there because those aspects seek to protect our colleagues and the government.

I do agree, though, that legal counsel from the government will likely be furious and say, “My goodness, what a breach.” But that should have been a perception when entering into that contract knowing that Parliament had this power. I know that each and every one of you agrees that the government cannot circumnavigate the will of Parliament, and the will of Parliament is asking that these documents be readily available in conditions that continue to keep them confidential.

It may not be the kind of confidentiality required for dealings between a company and the government, but it is a kind of offering that I hope you can see as important, because the alternative is worse. This committee can summon this information publicly in the House of Commons. That is a real potential here, and it's not far from happening in just a few minutes if it gets down to that. I'm encouraging the government to see how valuable the safeguards built into the motion are, and to utilize and exercise your role as MPs to see the value of your colleagues asking for this information.

It may not be the kind of safeguard the government would like to see, but it is the kind of safeguard that Parliament has established. We have processes here, including in camera sittings, that are confirmed by the law clerk as important.

I hope you can understand the position this committee is in and how important it is to see the existing motion as more valuable than a motion that would otherwise summon all of this information in a far worse manner and penalize the government directly rather than limit risk. That's the real decision here. The real decision isn't between whether there's risk or no risk. The decision is between establishing a breach of contract or minimizing risk. That's the real position you're in.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is in response to something that was raised by Mr. Desjarlais. He said something to the effect that we would want to understand as a committee more about the nature of these agreements, how certain decisions were made and a number of other things, obviously. Questions could be raised about NDAs and these kinds of things that Mr. Desjarlais was talking about.

Notice that the amendment concludes by saying, “Furthermore, the committee requests that PSPC officials be available for future in camera meetings to discuss the topic.” Built into the amendment is a provision that would allow us as parliamentarians to engage directly with public servants from PSPC to understand more about how these agreements came together. From there, I think we as a committee could formulate recommendations to the government on what to keep in mind as far as best future practices are concerned for these kinds of agreements.

Hanging in the balance, of course—and I don't think it's a small matter—is what Ms. Yip raised earlier. I was glad to hear the opposition acknowledge it. It's the matter about the future availability of vaccines. From a public health perspective, this is incredibly important. Yes, we do have engagements and relationships with pharmaceutical companies on a range of different vaccines, not just with respect to COVID-19. I think all of that has to be kept in mind, from a public health perspective, when we take this topic up. I think it's incumbent on all of us to understand the issue from that perspective.

The obligation of members of Parliament to live up to their responsibility to understand the business of the day is not just an idea. To be able to examine documents as part of that is sacrosanct in any parliamentary democracy. The government is the government. We as parliamentarians have an obligation, yes, but we also have the ability to decide on what's in front of us. Again, let's not lose sight of the fact that we can look at these documents unhindered. I'm not sure how our privilege would be violated.

Mr. McCauley spoke before. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I disagree. I disagree on the point about being insulted. I don't see how my parliamentary privilege as an MP would be breached here, but again, I emphasize that I speak for myself. Others clearly feel differently. I think all of these things must weigh on us when we're making this decision.

By the way, I think what Mr. Housefather just proposed is quite reasonable. It's not as though he's saying let's put this off for six months and give PSPC the ability to get back to us in six months' time or something like that. No, not at all; it would be a few days. In fact, if I remember correctly, his suggestion was that we look at this at the next meeting. What is wrong with that?

The Liberal side has moved very significantly in the past few days, going against what was originally proposed but thinking about it further and coming back to the table constructively with a compromise amendment that doesn't water down the substance of our Bloc colleague's desire at all. It doesn't in my humble view, at least. We still would be able to look at the documents unredacted.

This is not just about living up to our responsibility on this side. I think all of us would have a collective responsibility to do whatever due diligence is required to ensure that we've ticked all the boxes, so to speak, when it comes to understanding the question of risk. In that vein, what is wrong with going back and asking PSPC to examine this whole issue of the non-disclosure agreement more thoroughly, and to waive it in the way that was suggested, potentially, for this committee by Mr. Housefather, if I remember the exact wording of what he proposed? That is beyond reasonable, in my mind. Again, that could be put off for months and months and months. It's not being put off.

Humbly, I put it to colleagues again to really consider this and delve in. What we could do is continue to remain firmly in our corners, so to speak. I think the easiest thing to do would be to remain in our respective positions, stay in the corner and not want to compromise at all. This is my view and I'm not changing it.

We've taken a few steps forward here. I would ask that the opposition recognize this by entertaining, at a minimum, what was just proposed by the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Housefather. It would advance the dialogue in a constructive way. Let's see what PSPC says. It could be they come back with something we agree with collectively as a committee—or not.

Yes, the government is the government, but as I said before, we're all parliamentarians. I don't think it should be assumed that the Liberal side, if PSPC came back with something that... Whatever view they held, it's not automatic that our side would be forced to agree with it—not at all. We've disagreed before, every single one of us on this side. Mr. Housefather is an associate member of this committee, but the regular members, as a common practice, have asked very difficult questions.

I'm looking in that direction, because I'm used to the Auditor General being there with officials. Every one of us has asked very difficult questions of officials since this committee's inception. I'm a relatively new member of the committee and didn't know what it was all about when I joined. It's a different kind of committee. It's the audit committee of Parliament. It gives a great deal of freedom and leeway to all members of Parliament, including those on the Liberal side, to ask challenging questions of officials.

With that in mind, and thinking about our roles and responsibilities as parliamentarians, not Liberal members of Parliament in the first instance—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Wait one second, please.

Mr. McCauley, talk a little lower. Thank you.

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

That's fine. I don't think he interrupted me, Mr. Chair, but I appreciate you raising the point as a matter of respect. That's very kind of you. You're always kind.

I was talking about how we as members of Parliament have an ability to question the government and regularly put forward our points of view, because we are, in the first place, members of Parliament. Yes, we belong to parties, but we have our own minds, as Mr. Housefather raised today and as he's demonstrated in other committees. He's made reference to that. Frankly, he's not giving himself enough credit, because he is exactly that: He represents his constituents very well. He comes to the table regularly prepared, in all meetings. I've worked with him for seven years. He asks tough questions, not just of the opposition, public servants or deputy ministers, in particular, when they make a point he disagrees with, but also of members of the government.

We have a willingness, on our side, to go back to PSPC in this case and ask for their perspective on the entire issue of NDAs in just a few days. The obligation would be that they have to return with an answer to our question. We could then take that up as a committee.

I think one of my colleagues has something to say as well. It's Ms. Shanahan or Ms. Bradford.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I have a list, Mr. Fragiskatos. Are you done?

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

Yes, I am, for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor.