For those watching at home, we're discussing this original idea that because it's in our mandate to review and report on all reports of the Auditor General of Canada, what I discussed with Madam Sinclair-Desgagné is to have the Auditor General come. She's already done the analysis work. That's what she could not show, and I have that from the testimony of February 6, when Mr. Perron asked the Auditor General about it:
Ms. Hogan, there is something I have a lot of trouble with: the confidentiality of vaccine supply agreements.
First, I would like to know if you obtained information during your evaluation to which we do not have access.
Ms. Karen Hogan: If I may, I would even add some information. Item 9.1 of our report provides the initial application date of each company and the subsequent approval date. That will probably be helpful for you.
Yes, we had access to all the contracts, all the information, all the corrections and all the amendments.
Mr. Yves Perron: So that was not a problem in your audit work.
Ms. Karen Hogan: No, not at all.
Mr. Yves Perron: As I understand it, you cannot provide that information to the committee. If the committee were to meet in camera—and I am asking the chair at the same time—, would you be able to provide that information to us then?
Ms. Karen Hogan: I have to maintain the confidentiality that the government assigns to a document. The information is confidential for reasons of competition. I would have to consult a lawyer. I can say though that I don't think I can provide that information to you.
Mr. Yves Perron: If that possibility could be explored, I would perhaps....
Then the chair had to interrupt Mr. Perron because his speaking time was up.
I think that was when we received the letter from the Auditor General saying that even the in camera nature of a meeting would not allow her to discuss the confidentiality of the information that she received.
What reassured me was her answer to the question, which was that she indeed saw everything. Her staff saw everything and they were able to conclude in their report that not only did the federal government secure COVID-19 vaccine doses to meet the needs of Canadians, but, as Ms. Hogan stated:
In 2020, Public Services and Procurement Canada established advance purchase agreements with seven companies that showed potential to develop viable vaccines.
Signing advance purchase agreements increased the chances that the government would obtain enough doses to meet Canada's needs, recognizing this approach brought the possibility that Canada would have a surplus of doses if all vaccines were eventually approved. That was the issue. It was that in the procurement, there could be a potential for a surplus. Those questions were asked.
I'm glad to see that Dr. Ellis has joined us, because Dr. Ellis asked some very pointed questions, although I still take exception to disparaging remarks that were made about the Auditor General's work. I think that is still something that every member of this committee needs to be concerned about, because as Mr. Desjarlais pointed out, our institutions, including the Office of the Auditor General, are such that Canadians need to have confidence in the work that her office does.
Once in a while, the Auditor General says that we did an okay job. I've sat on this committee long enough to have seen some very damning reports. When I first started on this committee in 2015 and 2016, it was, of course, with the previous government. I actually remember a case.... Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details, but it had something to do with the Auditor General at the time wanting to obtain cabinet confidences from the Stephen Harper government. It had something to do with energy pricing.
Maybe my colleagues on the Conservative side remember the circumstances of that more ably. At the time, the committee was very seized with that question, because it was the Auditor General that was asking for these cabinet confidences. Mr. Ferguson, at the time, felt he needed that to do his work fully, so we were very concerned that he should have that information.
In further deliberations and consultations with the law clerk and the analyst at the time—I think at least one analyst was here at that time—it was determined that in fact cabinet confidences had to be respected. It was the Liberal side that voted with the Conservatives to safeguard that. I don't believe the Bloc was with us at the time, but certainly Mr. Christopherson, the NDP member, put up a spirited argument. I think he said, “One day you're going to want to have access to those.”
There are always these different degrees of questions and risks. Will a government be able to function if everything is known to everybody at all times? We can agree, even in our own personal lives, that parents who are running a household do not tell their children everything that's happening every time, and so on. When I was in banking and in the business world, it was certainly my experience that there was an understanding that to be better able to safeguard intellectual property and encourage research and development and innovation, these things were appropriate at that time.
Much as I am conservative in this matter of what this committee is charged in doing, I want us to come to the consensus that we can look at these contracts. Quite frankly, I anticipate that it will be quite a heavy read and that the questions will be highly technical. There may be more than one of us who will regret that we have to put ourselves in that position.
I have no idea what the size of these contracts will be. I mean, I don't know. Are they going to be a pile this tall? I've seen some highly technical contracts in my time, but if that's the work we have ahead of us, I certainly want to participate in it with other members. It's the Office of the Auditor General, again, and public servants. These are people who have worked all their lives and developed an expertise. They're professionals. That they should be punished or penalized at the whim of.... I'm sorry to say that if we don't have consensus here, I can only think that there are partisan objectives at work, and I cannot agree with that.
We all remember previous occasions—