Public Accounts Committee on March 23rd, 2023

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Your confidentiality has been blown by other countries. In your own contract in the States—and you can quote 11.9.3—it states that you have to provide the information if it's required by law, and it would be required by law.

[Najah Sampson]

We would comply with that law.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Canada hasn't leaked anything. We would have zero ability to leak anything, yet again you're spinning this narrative that it's a business thing and that you'll lose lives, lose jobs in Canada, lose investment. However, that doesn't reflect the facts around the world.

Again, what is the push-back?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you you very much. That is the time, Mr. McCauley.

I am going to watch the clock closely now.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much.

With regard to the concerns you're expressing, again, I guess I want you to try to think.... I have tried to put myself into the context of what I would feel if I were the general counsel at one of these companies. I'd like you to put yourself in the context of what you would think if you were a member of the committee.

There seems to be, from the position you're taking.... I'm feeling here, at least, that there is a distrust of the members of the committee in a way that you didn't distrust the public servants.

As Mr. McCauley said, there are many public servants who have access to this contract, whether in the legal department or the procurement department, etc., and this would be a motion where a limited number of parliamentarians would view this document in a room without the aid of any equipment to take pictures of it or to copy it. The civil servants actually would have the contract and who knows...?

I am pleading with you to reconsider.

Let me first ask you a question. Is the concern you have that, if you allow or say you would allow parliamentarians in one country to see the document, then parliamentarians in other countries would mimic this exercise and would somehow see the documents in different ways where they wouldn't be as equally protected as they are in Canada? That might be a good reason. Can you let me understand if that is one of the issues?

That is directed to any of you.

[Najah Sampson]

I think it's a very good point, and it's the reason that Pfizer has a policy in general about these contracts. We do everything possible to uphold the confidentiality, and that includes not providing them unredacted.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I understand, but we're the Government of Canada. We're your client.

The Parliament of Canada is an organ that ties to the Government of Canada. The Parliament of Canada Act says that parliamentary committees can require documents.

When you signed the contract, whether or not you had knowledge of that, if it says in the confidentiality clause, which, again, I have not read because I haven't seen the agreement.... It would seem to me.... Every clause on confidentiality that I have ever drafted in my life would make an exception when the law required one of the two parties to divulge the contract, and it would then give remedial measures to the other party to seek protective orders or whatever.

I think you're putting the government here in a difficult position, where you're insisting that somehow a breach would occur. I don't necessarily think a breach would occur. You're also not explaining well why this committee, in the method described, would be likely to breach.

Let's go in a different direction. Look at Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné's motion and tell us what changes you would like to that motion to make you feel more protected if the committee passes the motion. For example, would you like to be in the room when they look at your contract? Would you like to have representatives there to watch the process? What could you suggest concretely that would be a change to the motion that the committee should consider?

Do any of you wish to respond?

Madam Gauthier.

[Patricia Gauthier]

I'll start.

I think your question around the precedent is a really good one and one not to take lightly, because there is Canada and there are many other countries in the world. Leaks have happened.

Again, the precedent you just raised is a very valid concern globally, so I think that's one piece.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Concretely, if you assume the committee will vote yes, what changes would you like to see in this motion to make you feel more secure?

I know you've come here hamstrung by positions that you can't change necessarily at the table, but this is not one of those questions. This is a question of, if the committee goes ahead, what in there is making you feel insecure that you would like changed?

[Patricia Gauthier]

Again, not to negotiate here—I think we have teams who are more capable of doing that than us here tonight—but considering terms and conditions to uphold the safeguards around confidentiality would be really important, such as non-disclosure commitments, as an example.

Non-disclosure agreements and things like that could potentially.... I'm talking very hypothetically and not making any commitments. I think we need to uphold the confidentiality of these agreements. We need to respect the terms and conditions without breaching them. Thinking about another legal mechanism that allows us to do that, such as a non-disclosure agreement, could potentially, hypothetically, be something that is discussed between our teams if that was something.

Again, that's very hypothetical. I'm just trying to be solution-oriented.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather. That is your time.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Bédard.

As briefly as possible, given that I don't have much time, can you remember the confidentiality conditions in the motion and how robust they are?

[Michel Bédard]

Your motion basically says that these documents are given to the clerk of the committee, that committee members can consult them under the supervision of the clerk, without any personal mobile or electronic devices permitted in the room.

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

Can you comment on how robust they are?

[Michel Bédard]

In terms of confidentiality, because the committee feels that it's an in camera document, any leak of the wording of the motion could constitute a breach of privilege, and hence contempt of Parliament. Any member doing so could be severely sanctioned.

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

Okay, so there are serious sanctions. Our existing confidentiality measures should generally suffice.

Mr. Bédard, I'm going to ask another very direct question, to which I would prefer a yes or no answer. On the basis of the arguments heard here, which were mainly commercial or competitive in nature, can you tell us whether there are any reasons why the House of Commons would decide that parliamentarians in committee are not entitled to see unredacted documents?

According to you, on the basis of what you've heard here today, are there sufficient grounds to say that we on the committee are not entitled to have access to these documents?

[Michel Bédard]

It's really in committee, and then in the House of Commons…

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

What about the legal basis, or precedents?

[Michel Bédard]

From a legal standpoint, it's a power that can be exercised by the House of Commons, a power that entitles it to examine unredacted documents.

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

So the short answer is no, there are no sufficient grounds. Good. Thank you.

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

The more or less ultimate argument, which you have just heard, rests on a legal basis and precedents. We discussed the confidentiality provisions that were already established, and the confidentiality of trade information contained in the contracts. We've tried our best to be open.

I'd like you to reconsider your approach. I understand the reasons why you wouldn't want us to have access to this information. Nevertheless, the information will either be consulted in camera by this committee in a confidential and secure manner, or it will be disclosed under the Access to Information Act and made public.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have your final two and a half minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Housefather for his attempt to ensure these corporations have an opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians why it's so important for these aspects of confidentiality to be met.

Of course, you can tell I'm not satisfied, nor are the members. I'm certain they're now going to have to deal with an unfortunate circumstance—an unwilling partner—while ensuring the government is actually protected. I sympathize, in many ways, with my Liberal colleagues.

It's more disappointing to know that we entered into contracts with such companies, which do not understand, first, the supremacy of Parliament and, second, that any contracts in deals with a country like Canada are subject to the Parliament of Canada Act. That is an important lesson, I think.

I hope you learned that today. It's something that is incredibly important for corporations working in any setting to understand: You do not have the right to circumvent democratic institutions or treat members Canadians' representatives the way you did today.

I believe it was an obfuscation of the truth, in many aspects. We're left with the same amount of information as when we began. We have no more information than what we began this meeting with, so it's almost now incumbent upon this committee to ensure this motion is adopted. I question why the government would vote against it, considering the facts we heard today.

You learned nothing more than we have. You should also be concerned that these corporations are of the opinion that they can do what they're doing and in fact try to conceal documents from Parliament, knowing that the law clerk has given a clear statement to these corporations on the present realities, their liability to Canadians and the ability of Parliament to second these documents, even without the protections we spoke about.

I hope you can see that Madame Sinclair-Desgagné's offer to ensure your contracts are protected is a generous one. It doesn't seem to have been seen like that. It's a great offer to your corporations, in order to protect the things you're talking about, or not talking about.

I'm going to be very interested in entering into debate on this motion.

We have no further information. In the same vein as Mr. Housefather, I'll give you each 10 seconds, one last time, to see whether or not there's any more information as to what's so confidential about these documents you don't want us to see.

I'll start with Ms. Gauthier and—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm afraid you're out of time, Mr. Desjarlais. I'm sure Mr. Housefather will pick up on this in his final round.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You have one last chance.