Public Accounts Committee on March 23rd, 2023

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mrs. Gauthier, you mentioned in your last remarks that you co-created this with Canadians, but apparently Canadians can't co-own it. This is a perspective of the issue that you can see is a problem when we're dealing with public financing.

I don't have time now to speak to my question on how much public financing each of you received from Canadians, but that will be the question I will follow up with in my next round. I would hope you have that information present and, if you don't have it present, that you make it readily available in written format.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Desjarlais.

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

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the pharmaceutical companies for being here today.

Ms. Sampson, in your opening statement you said that you believed that parliamentary oversight has already occurred.

Could you explain how that's possible, given that parliamentarians haven't seen the contracts yet?

[Najah Sampson]

Thank you for the question.

I'll refer back to the Auditor General's report, which I thought was a thorough review. Taking into account the fact the Auditor General herself has been in front of the committee and questions have been asked, I do believe there has been a solid level of oversight provided into the vaccines process.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Why were you willing to provide the contracts to the Auditor General, but not to a parliamentary committee?

[Najah Sampson]

Speaking for Pfizer, we were not a part of the process that supported the Auditor General's report.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Did you or did you not provide the contracts to the Auditor General?

[Najah Sampson]

We did not.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Could you explain how the Auditor General came to the conclusion that everything was fine and good with the procurement process?

[Najah Sampson]

I believe the Auditor General did have a copy of the contract. It was not provided by Pfizer.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Kram, it came from the Government of Canada.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay, I understand.

Why is it okay for the Government of Canada to provide the contract, but not the pharmaceutical companies?

[Najah Sampson]

I'm here providing my perspective. If there was a question of whether I thought the contract should be provided, my answer would have been the same. I do not believe the unredacted contract should have been provided. I believe that providing it constitutes a potential breach of confidentiality, as laid out in the contract.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

If the contracts ever became the subject of a court case and there was a court order to provide the contracts, would you listen to the judge and provide the contracts or would you ignore the order from the judge?

[Najah Sampson]

I don't know if I can speak about legal consequences like that, but it would never be my option to ignore a judge's request.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Then why is it okay to ignore the request from a parliamentary committee?

[Najah Sampson]

I'm just here providing our perspective on the confidentiality of these contracts. We have not provided these contracts to parliaments anywhere around the world in an unredacted manner. We would want to maintain that level of confidentiality as much as possible.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Do you feel that pharmaceutical companies are above the law?

[Najah Sampson]

Absolutely not.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Then why can't you comply with the order to produce the documents?

[Najah Sampson]

This is just our perspective. At Pfizer, we have not provided an unredacted contract.

We do believe, however, looking at the Auditor General's report, that with the access they had, they have provided a solid overview of what happened during the pandemic with regard to vaccine providers. I think that level of oversight has happened.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay.

Parliamentary committees deal with sensitive matters all the time. During the war in Afghanistan, there were studies about the Afghan prisoner detainee situation. That dealt with movement of troops in Afghanistan during the procurement of the F-35 fighter jets. Parliamentarians had access to highly sensitive military documents.

What is it about the vaccine contracts that makes them so much more sensitive than troop movements in Afghanistan or new fighter jets?

[Najah Sampson]

I don't want to compare this contract with any other. In this particular case, we are still working with countries around the world to supply vaccine. There are commercially sensitive pieces within that document and within that contract as well as proprietary information.

I think what I'm saying is that Pfizer hasn't provided that contract unredacted anywhere around the world voluntarily, and it's not a precedent that we believe needs to be set here in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. That is time.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

In my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt, we have a lot of seniors in long-term care homes and families. I would just like to say thank you very much. We are most thankful. I also have a hospital, Birchmount Hospital, part of the Scarborough Health Network, where we have vaccine clinics. Just to be able to have choice and the available supply, I am very thankful.

What contract risks are there in disclosing intellectual property?

If each one of you could provide an answer, that would be great. Thank you.