Public Accounts Committee on March 23rd, 2023

[Najah Sampson]

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Pfizer was not a part of the process. Again, we would have expressed our concerns if we had known that the unredacted contract would be provided to the AG.

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

The government just provided the unredacted documents to the Auditor General without your knowledge. After you found out it had happened, you then voiced your concerns. Am I understanding you correctly?

[Najah Sampson]

We would have voiced our concerns at that time.

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

You haven't voiced the concerns about the documents being given to the Auditor General, because what's past is past and it's water under the bridge. Is that correct?

[Najah Sampson]

That's correct.

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

Okay.

Did you communicate your concerns to the government about providing the unredacted documents to this committee?

That's to both of you.

[Najah Sampson]

Yes. We have discussed this in the past. I think both sides have agreed that the confidentiality clauses should be upheld in the contracts. I know that the government isn't here today to share its opinion, but it is worthwhile to understand its perspective.

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

Mr. Baylet.

[Jean-Pierre Baylet]

I confirm that we requested that the unredacted version not be provided to this committee.

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

Who in particular did you talk with? Was it politicians? Was it civil servants? Could you elaborate, please?

[Najah Sampson]

I don't have those names, but I can come back to the committee with those names.

[Jean-Pierre Baylet]

I don't have the names of the government staff members, but it was the Public Services and Procurement Canada team.

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

You can confirm that it was staff and not elected officials. Is that accurate?

[Jean-Pierre Baylet]

That's right.

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

Okay. I see that Ms. Sampson is nodding.

Let's shift gears a bit to Bill C-290, which is the public sector integrity act. This is a bill that is before Parliament. It's about strengthening whistle-blower legislation.

Do any of the witnesses have any position on this particular bill?

[Patricia Gauthier]

I just heard of the bill today. I have not had time to read it, but I can say that, in terms of governance, whistle-blowers and protecting people raising issues is very much aligned with the values of Moderna. I look forward to reading the bill and having further conversations.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That is the time, Mr. Kram.

I'll now turn to Mr. Housefather for five minutes.

You have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to where we were. To start with, I think it's really important to have all of you here to convey what your position is and to get clarity on what that position is. We're talking in vague generalities—we want to protect this and we want to protect that—and I think it's important to get to very specifically what you want to protect and why, and the fear that you have. The fear that you have is clearly somehow that this committee will leak the document, because you would have suffered no damages in the event that the committee didn't breach confidentiality and it was only the members of the committee who had it.

I struggle a little bit to understand why you would trust the public servants more than the members of the committee, particularly when they would be in a room with the law clerk and wouldn't have access to any phone or any device to actually take a picture of the agreement or anything like that. It would be only their unaided memory that they could leave the room with, and then they would be in breach of the rules of Parliament if they actually divulged.

I want to come back then, to cut to the chase, to the agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Housefather, I have a small point of clarification—I've stopped the clock—the law clerk is not part of the motion, just so you know.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I thought it was in his office.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It's the clerk's office, I believe.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

The clerk's office...? Excuse me: It's the clerk, not the law clerk. Got it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Exactly, yes.

Starting again, the time is yours.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can I come back to it again? I really do want to understand, because I think where you have the concern is important. The concern is obviously only if somebody breaches.

Price, I understand. Price is a question and a competitive issue, and you don't want other countries to know what price you gave Canada. Also, some of my colleagues have talked about intellectual property. Again, I have very rarely, although on occasion.... I think, in the European Union leaked documents, there actually was some trade secret information that related to a process to manufacture the vaccine, but I would assume that wouldn't likely be in this contract. If it were, I could understand.

Again, if you had trade secret information related to the composition of the vaccine, how you process and manufacture the vaccine—although, again, I don't know why the government would need to know that—that would be information that would be very important not to have disclosed to competitors unless it was patented, in which case it would be public.

For Pfizer, please, other than that—other than price and trade secret information—what other clauses would be confidential?

[Najah Sampson]

Thank you for the question.

I think we're talking about protecting the entire agreement and the confidentiality of the entire agreement.