Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you review the speaking order for us? How many speakers are on the list?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It's short. If folks want to speak, they can put their hands up.

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

We always had the convenience, when we were in hybrid meetings, of seeing the hands up.

Thank you for giving me the floor.

I have something to say, but following on my colleague Mr. Fragiskatos' indication that we have moved quite a long way on this—and I would put myself in that camp—I think this committee not only has the reputation of but has long prided itself in coming to unanimous decisions. That's what gives it its strength, because then it's not a partisan issue. It is an issue of getting to the root of the problem discovered in the Auditor General's reports. Otherwise, what are we doing here?

I'm sorry. I don't want to disparage OGGO, but it becomes a different kind of committee. Mr. McCauley is free to respond to me on that.

I have sat on OGGO. Those were tough sessions we had. There were ongoing negotiations and ongoing initiatives by the government, and risk was definitely.... Risk in procurement, risk in implementation and so on were definitely the issues on the table, as well as who was best to judge the best policy going forward.

As we know, we don't discuss policy here. The policy is rightly the function of government, and that means ministers. Ministers appear before committees, such as government operations, health, public safety or what have you to answer for their policy decisions. What we're concerned with here is implementation, and that is what the Auditor General brings us every time she deposits reports. I believe there are reports coming very shortly. In fact, there are a number of interesting reports. They're all interesting.

I know we were affected by the pandemic and by the ability of the Auditor General to deliver reports in recent months, but it certainly appears that the Auditor General is back on track. Those are reports that I am looking forward to getting to.

On this issue, we had our meeting with the Auditor General about procurement. We heard from the Auditor General. She distributed a news release, and we had testimony, which I'm going to get to in just a moment.

Again, I fail to see how augmenting, if you will, the motion by Madame Sinclair-Desgagné to ensure that PSPC officials who will appear before us are not individually penalized in their ability to answer our questions.... I think that's what the NDA is all about. They have signed these non-disclosure agreements. I worry—and this is a question I want to have answered—about putting those officials on the spot, if you will. They have signed those agreements. Even though it's in camera.... We heard from the Auditor General that being in camera would not even allow her to discuss those contracts with us, the part—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

[Inaudible—Editor] exclusively the Auditor General.

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

It's the Auditor General. Exactly.

That was actually the first discussion I had with Madame Sinclair-Desgagné. Let's have the Auditor General. She has seen the contracts. Let's have that in camera meeting with her, when she is able to. They've done all the work. She has 600 auditors.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

She can't do that. She's not in the government.

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

This is what we learned from the letter.

I'm sorry, but there's a bit of back-and-forth. Are people picking that up?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, I'd be happy to put you on the list, but I'd like to just proceed as we have been.

It's back to you, Ms. Shanahan.

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

For those watching at home, we're discussing this original idea that because it's in our mandate to review and report on all reports of the Auditor General of Canada, what I discussed with Madam Sinclair-Desgagné is to have the Auditor General come. She's already done the analysis work. That's what she could not show, and I have that from the testimony of February 6, when Mr. Perron asked the Auditor General about it:

Ms. Hogan, there is something I have a lot of trouble with: the confidentiality of vaccine supply agreements.

First, I would like to know if you obtained information during your evaluation to which we do not have access.

Ms. Karen Hogan: If I may, I would even add some information. Item 9.1 of our report provides the initial application date of each company and the subsequent approval date. That will probably be helpful for you.

Yes, we had access to all the contracts, all the information, all the corrections and all the amendments.

Mr. Yves Perron: So that was not a problem in your audit work.

Ms. Karen Hogan: No, not at all.

Mr. Yves Perron: As I understand it, you cannot provide that information to the committee. If the committee were to meet in camera—and I am asking the chair at the same time—, would you be able to provide that information to us then?

Ms. Karen Hogan: I have to maintain the confidentiality that the government assigns to a document. The information is confidential for reasons of competition. I would have to consult a lawyer. I can say though that I don't think I can provide that information to you.

Mr. Yves Perron: If that possibility could be explored, I would perhaps....

Then the chair had to interrupt Mr. Perron because his speaking time was up.

I think that was when we received the letter from the Auditor General saying that even the in camera nature of a meeting would not allow her to discuss the confidentiality of the information that she received.

What reassured me was her answer to the question, which was that she indeed saw everything. Her staff saw everything and they were able to conclude in their report that not only did the federal government secure COVID-19 vaccine doses to meet the needs of Canadians, but, as Ms. Hogan stated:

In 2020, Public Services and Procurement Canada established advance purchase agreements with seven companies that showed potential to develop viable vaccines.

Signing advance purchase agreements increased the chances that the government would obtain enough doses to meet Canada's needs, recognizing this approach brought the possibility that Canada would have a surplus of doses if all vaccines were eventually approved. That was the issue. It was that in the procurement, there could be a potential for a surplus. Those questions were asked.

I'm glad to see that Dr. Ellis has joined us, because Dr. Ellis asked some very pointed questions, although I still take exception to disparaging remarks that were made about the Auditor General's work. I think that is still something that every member of this committee needs to be concerned about, because as Mr. Desjarlais pointed out, our institutions, including the Office of the Auditor General, are such that Canadians need to have confidence in the work that her office does.

Once in a while, the Auditor General says that we did an okay job. I've sat on this committee long enough to have seen some very damning reports. When I first started on this committee in 2015 and 2016, it was, of course, with the previous government. I actually remember a case.... Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details, but it had something to do with the Auditor General at the time wanting to obtain cabinet confidences from the Stephen Harper government. It had something to do with energy pricing.

Maybe my colleagues on the Conservative side remember the circumstances of that more ably. At the time, the committee was very seized with that question, because it was the Auditor General that was asking for these cabinet confidences. Mr. Ferguson, at the time, felt he needed that to do his work fully, so we were very concerned that he should have that information.

In further deliberations and consultations with the law clerk and the analyst at the time—I think at least one analyst was here at that time—it was determined that in fact cabinet confidences had to be respected. It was the Liberal side that voted with the Conservatives to safeguard that. I don't believe the Bloc was with us at the time, but certainly Mr. Christopherson, the NDP member, put up a spirited argument. I think he said, “One day you're going to want to have access to those.”

There are always these different degrees of questions and risks. Will a government be able to function if everything is known to everybody at all times? We can agree, even in our own personal lives, that parents who are running a household do not tell their children everything that's happening every time, and so on. When I was in banking and in the business world, it was certainly my experience that there was an understanding that to be better able to safeguard intellectual property and encourage research and development and innovation, these things were appropriate at that time.

Much as I am conservative in this matter of what this committee is charged in doing, I want us to come to the consensus that we can look at these contracts. Quite frankly, I anticipate that it will be quite a heavy read and that the questions will be highly technical. There may be more than one of us who will regret that we have to put ourselves in that position.

I have no idea what the size of these contracts will be. I mean, I don't know. Are they going to be a pile this tall? I've seen some highly technical contracts in my time, but if that's the work we have ahead of us, I certainly want to participate in it with other members. It's the Office of the Auditor General, again, and public servants. These are people who have worked all their lives and developed an expertise. They're professionals. That they should be punished or penalized at the whim of.... I'm sorry to say that if we don't have consensus here, I can only think that there are partisan objectives at work, and I cannot agree with that.

We all remember previous occasions—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

I'm sorry; I have to disagree. We have come a long way on this question and we're open to it—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Order.

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

What I'm concerned about, again, is the protection of the Auditor General's role and of the public servants who would then come before us. I'm concerned that they would be at risk of being themselves criminally charged with disclosing information. That's in the immediate time. It's also the risk that if we're out there looking for more vaccines—God forbid—there will be companies that just don't want to do business with us anymore. That would be extremely unfortunate.

Chair, I'm going to leave it at that for now. I hope that my colleagues hear the fact that we do want to look at these documents now. I say “want”; I “will” look at them. I have confidence in what the Auditor General has told us, which is that these were done in good faith and to the best of the abilities of all those departments that work together. That is one of the conclusions that she comes to in report 9.

However, I would like that to be done on a consensus basis. If my colleague is offering a way to get to that consensus, I think it's something that I would ask my colleagues to consider.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. I am going to suspend for five minutes to give the audiovisual folks and everyone a quick little break.

I'll be back, and you should all be back too. The clock is going.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Beginning again, as they say in the old union hall, she's all for one until it's every man and woman for themselves.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

They don't say that at my union hall.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You should come down east and come to some of our union halls.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Solidarity forever, John.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

On that note, Mr. Desjarlais will be ordering dinner, then. Failing that, you're all on your own for dinner, I'm afraid. We also inadvertently left the company card back in the office, and that's only half a joke.

Before I return to the speaking list, I am going to come back to this motion. Because the motion was delivered quickly, I've talked this over with the clerk, and we are concerned about this motion. I'm not going to rule it out of order but I am concerned about NDAs and the conditions they set on this committee and about setting a precedent going forward. If I had had this motion overnight with the clerk, we might have consulted on it and gotten more feedback, but this debate is ongoing.

It's a good debate, so I'm not going to rule it out of order, but it does concern me, because what we decide to do here could have an impact on other committees if it becomes a request the government makes of all future committees when it comes to disclosing information.

With that, I'm going to turn back to the speaking list.

Go ahead, Ms. Bradford, please.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

It's actually been over three years since the COVID-19 epidemic was first discovered and broke out. We kind of forget what went on, so I think it's important that as part of this debate, we take a look back at where we were and where we are now today:

Vaccines typically take years of research and testing before getting into people’s arms. When the genetic sequences for COVID-19 were released in January 2020, researchers around the world raced to develop safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. The most optimistic scenario for the development of viable vaccines was thought to be late summer 2021, but many warned that it would take much longer.

Based on the advice of experts, Canada adopted a sweeping vaccine strategy to supply everyone in Canada with the most promising COVID-19 vaccines. At the time, it was unknown which vaccines would be successful or when.

Intense negotiations throughout the summer of 2020 resulted in Canada signing advance purchase agreements (APA) with 7 manufacturers of promising vaccine candidates.

Canada’s vaccine planning began in April 2020, when the government created the COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force. This team of experts provided medical and health insight based on a review of the emerging science and technology of the companies racing to develop vaccines to combat the coronavirus.

In June 2020, the task force began identifying the most promising vaccine candidates. It advised that the best approach for Canada was to diversify supply with different types of vaccines, based on ones that looked most likely to be effective and delivered the fastest.

Based on the recommendations of the task force, the Public Health Agency of Canada decided which vaccines to buy. A vaccine procurement team, led by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), was assembled in early July 2020 to initiate negotiations with vaccine suppliers.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

One second; I have a point of order.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I fail to see the relevance of this reading from what appears to be a propaganda forum when the motion we're debating is about releasing documents to us in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

While I agree, I think you can see the relevance as much as I can.

I'll continue to let Ms. Bradford make her point, but I hope she will come to her point quickly.