Public Accounts Committee on March 9th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 52 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

We're meeting today to discuss committee business. On Thursday, February 16, we were debating the motion of Madame Sinclair-Desgagné in regard to the contracts by Public Service and Procurement for a supply of COVID-19 vaccines and the amendment by Mr. Housefather. That amendment now belongs to the committee, because I see that Mr. Housefather is not here today, which is fine.

I will note that we have House resources until 4:15.

The order will be Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, and then we will go over to Mr. Fragiskatos.

Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start with the motion I put on notice a few weeks ago. I think everyone agrees it's time to come back to that very important motion.

After that, I will let the Liberals have the floor because they indicated that they were going to seek unanimous consent to withdraw their amendment. The idea is to then move that the committee invite the pharmaceutical company representatives to appear at a special meeting. They will have a chance to make their case as to why the contracts should stay confidential and why we, as parliamentarians, should not be allowed to review the contracts in camera. Keep in mind that the motion already includes safeguards to not only keep the contracts confidential, but also steer clear of any intellectual property-related issues. I want to make something crystal clear: the purchase agreements with the pharmaceutical companies do not contain any intellectual property information about vaccine manufacturing whatsoever. It's important to set the record straight.

I also want to set the record straight about something else. A number of countries have disclosed their purchase agreements. Just so everyone knows, I repeat: those agreements have been disclosed elsewhere in the world.

I will leave it there, so my fellow member can have the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the spirit of co‑operation, I have a solution to put forward.

I'm going to ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, for the Liberal side to withdraw its amendment to Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné's motion that we were recently discussing and debating and propose that we would meet next week to have suppliers from various pharmaceuticals—I think it's only fair that we invite them to appear—in addition to trade associations that have also expressed concern in written form, as you know, Mr. Chair, to this committee. I am asking for unanimous consent for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

There are two ways to proceed here.

There's one that I think will work. I'm going to break it in two, but I'm going to look for your agreement on this—and this is on the advice of the clerk—that we pass quickly a unanimous consent motion to withdraw the amendment and then return immediately to the date and the witnesses as the next step. That way it just kind of clears the table: We reset it and we deal with that. Is that...?

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

That's in line with what we're hoping for. I decided to bundle everything up, but if that makes sense for the clerk, then I will defer to the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to ask for that UC vote. Then, with Mr. McCauley's approval, I'll go back to Mr. Fragiskatos, because he still has the floor. Is that okay? I want to move this along and be as friendly as we can.

Could I look for unanimous consent to have the amendment attached to the motion withdrawn, please?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That amendment is now off the table and removed from committee business.

I have a brief remark for the record.

I am pleased this has happened. Over the recess week, I gave this a lot of research and time. I came to the conclusion that the amendment was very problematic, because it bound members. I'm not saying this to chastise anyone, but I want to get this on the record because it might be something that future committees will have to deal with. Based on the research I looked at, with the assistance of the clerk, no committee we could find has ever agreed to a non-disclosure agreement. They have been used for ad hoc committees—either the committees agreed to that, or Parliament. That is outside the scope of Parliament, because privilege does not apply.

Importantly, the reason for my thinking is that the vote was not just a vote that members were taking for themselves. It wouldn't just impact them. For example, if a member wasn't here or voted against it, it could potentially put them in a position where, if they were not in agreement and were unwilling to sign the NDA, they could not perform their Parliamentary duties. They would not have been able to move ahead and conduct committee business. I made that point quickly when we last met.

When I thought about it further, it put me in a very tough bind, because as committee chair, I would have been bound by the decision of the non-disclosure agreement, which is an issue I had a problem with. Many of you expressed that in this committee, so I won't relitigate it. Potentially, it meant that if the chair had not agreed to the NDA, I would have had to recuse myself, which would have put the committee in an awkward position.

I'm pleased this has happened. I'm pleased we can move on from this.

On that note, I will turn things back over to Mr. Fragiskatos for the next bit. I will try to summarize it: It's looking for a meeting next week or as soon as possible. It's looking for the seven manufacturers, as well as two trade associations. You're welcome to add to that if you like, and after that, I will turn it over to Mr. McCauley.

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

You've taken the words out of my mouth, Mr. Chair, but that's fine. You have it exactly.

I'll reiterate the point I made at the outset: On a simple fairness principle, we allow the various pharmaceutical companies to come and present their perspective, in addition to the trade associations that have also shared a view, naturally, as they have with the committee.

I should add that after the testimony is complete, we would move to a vote on our colleague's motion.

That's what we have to share, on our side.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks for that. I appreciate that.

The only thing I would add is this: Frankly, I am not keen on having trade associations or either chamber here. I just want to have the pharmaceuticals. After chatting with my colleagues, I think they feel the same. I would ask that we stick to those.

Otherwise, thanks for bringing that forward, Peter.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I have the same comment as my colleague Mr. McCauley in relation to the trade organizations. The pharmaceutical companies are sufficient for our purposes and for what we need to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will add to that.

I believe the committee members have already received two letters, which have been translated. A third one is coming. A fourth one has already been received but is being translated. It is expected. I raise this not to say these letters aren't welcome but that they open up a bit of a concern. I don't think we're suggesting that anyone who writes a letter should be in a position to come to that meeting. We have their written testimony. I want to flag that. It doesn't end with the first two we've received. Others are coming as well.

I'm not breaking any confidence if I say this: The contact I had today was looking to offer another opinion—the case for disclosure. It might be best to focus on the pharmaceuticals. Of course, that is a question for the committee.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

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

I have no view. If that's the will of our colleagues, we're not going to fight that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That seems to be resolved. Thank you.

Can we talk about the date? I'd be curious to get—

I'm sorry; you're up, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I was going to start the discussion on a date, but you go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

The proposal from the government bench is next week, which of course is a recess week. Note that I didn't call it a break week, because we're all going to be home in our ridings, working exceptionally hard.

I want to talk to you. We can endeavour to put a meeting together. The earliest would be a week from now or a week from tomorrow. I want you to think about what is fair in order in terms of notification. What is a fair notification?

We also need to talk about who we're inviting. We don't just want, obviously, the communications person to come in. I would think we would want the country representative for each of these pharmaceutical companies to come to the committee. We want this committee to hear from senior mandarins, top officials, so some thought has to be given to the people we are inviting to come to address this.

Is it the country representative? For heaven's sake, I hope it's not someone from the legal department, because we will never get through this committee work. Give that some thought. My recommendation is that we maintain the status we have, which is to ask for a very senior executive.

To go back to the timing, a week is the soonest. Not to disagree with my colleague, we do have the calendar open on March 23, which is two weeks from now. That would give sufficient time for notification. It would give sufficient time to have people make travel arrangements to come in if they choose, or for the clerk to send out the headsets if people don't come here, because we want to take that responsibility seriously.

I throw that back to the members, both the date and the officials.

We'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos first, and then to Mr. Genuis.

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

I suggested next week. I could also have phrased it as “at the earliest opportunity”. We don't want to play games with it. Let's meet when our clerk can book the times for the companies to come.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We now go to Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I agree with next week and senior people. Let's trust the chair to have latitude in terms of the specific names so that we don't have to come back and mechanically go through it piece by piece. Chair, it's the most senior people, so using your good judgment, let's do it next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné.

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

Given what we are trying to do, that is, give the pharmaceutical companies an opportunity to have their say—I think we can simply ask for senior executives and let the companies decide who to send. Obviously, if they send their legal department heads, we will know that we are dealing with a legal issue, and we can debate what's more important: the constitutional conditions of transparency and democracy or purchase agreements. It would be quite the debate, I'm sure.

As far as scheduling goes, I just want to say that my preference is to hold the meeting as soon as possible, ideally next week. However, if the committee wishes to schedule the meeting on Thursday, March 23, I will go along with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good. Thank you.

Over to you, Mr. Desjarlais.