Scott Reid on Questions Passed as Orders for Return

With regard to the agreements entered into by the government signatories for procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, or vaccine candidates, that were provided to the Standing Committee on Health in June 2021: (a) did the government delay or defer its provision of the agreements to the committee for the purpose of providing a copy of each agreement to the committee simultaneously; (b) why were the provisions of the Access to Information Act used as the basis for determining which pieces of information to withhold from the committee; (c) which other standards were considered and rejected as the basis for determining which pieces of information to withhold from the committee; (d) did feedback from any of the counterparties influence which standards were used or rejected as the basis for determining which pieces of information to withhold from the committee, and, if so, which counterparties provided such feedback and what was the feedback in summary; (e) for each agreement, after the effective date, (i) how many, on what dates, and under what authorities has the government received requests or orders for disclosure of the agreement, in whole or in part, (ii) on what date did the government signatory first engage the counterparty relating to the disclosure of the agreement to the committee, (iii) on what date was the final agreement between the government signatory and the counterparty reached relating to the disclosure of the agreement to the committee, (iv) what were the actions taken by the government, pursuant to the agreement, in order to disclose the agreement to the committee, (v) which sections of the agreement were engaged for the purpose of disclosing the agreement to the committee; and (f) with regard to the sections of the agreements relating to confidentiality and disclosure, including but not limited to section 16 through 16B (Sanofi), section 22 through 22.4 (Medicago), section 16 through 16.8 (AstraZeneca), section 7 through 7.6 (Moderna), section 10 through 10.4 (Pfizer), section 13 through 13.6 (Novavax), and section 17 through 17.8 (Janssen), (i) is Parliament, including any of its powers or constituent or subsidiary parts, explicitly included, or should be reasonably understood to be included, in any exclusions to the sections and, if so, to what extent or, if not, why not, (ii) did the government signatory seek or receive legal advice on the applicability of the sections with respect to orders or powers of Parliament, including any of its constituent or subsidiary parts and, if so, what were the conclusions and recommendations of that advice in summary or, if not, why not, (iii) did the government signatory seek or receive legal advice with respect to a potential conflict between the rights and powers of Parliament, or its committees, and the requirements of the sections and, if so, what were the conclusions and recommendations of that advice in summary or, if not, why not, (iv) were the terms of the sections initially proposed by the government signatory and, if so, from what document, policy, or other source did the terms of the sections originate, (v) in the course of negotiating the contract or agreement, did the government signatory propose or seek agreement for less stringent terms in the sections and, if so, what was the response of the counterparty in summary, (vi) were the Governor in Council, the designated minister, or the head of the institution consulted on the terms of, or agreement to, the sections, (vii) was agreement to the sections approved by the Governor in Council, the designated minister, or the head of the institution, (viii) what are the reasons the government signatories agreed to the terms of the sections, (ix) was the government signatory aware, at or before the effective date, of the text or terms of analogous sections agreed to by foreign governments in analogous contracts or agreements and, if so, to what extent?