Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 18th, 2021

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

I just want to say that although I understand the sentiments of Ms. McPherson on this, I do have some remarks to add to some of the language of the motion. I think some of the language puts undue or unfair criticism on only this government.

It says that “due to failures by the government to ensure adequate supply of vaccines”. I don't think that the situation the government is finding itself in right now is due to a failure of the government to secure supplies.

We have secured five times the amount needed for our population in supplies. There has been a decrease in production or a temporary delay in production, and due to that we find ourselves in this situation. I think it's a global circumstance. Right now it's one that is impacting not only Canada but also many countries in the world. I don't believe that if any other party were in government right now the situation would be all that different.

I think we've all had discussions about the fact that we wish there were domestic capacity right now to manufacture vaccines, but we have done our level best to try to create that capacity once again, and that's well under way. That situation is not due to this government. That is due to many consecutive governments and it was under a Conservative government in which we lost our capacity to begin with.

I won't say that I would go all the way back just to blame that Conservative government or anything either; it's no one government. This is just the situation we find ourselves in. Canadians expect us to take responsible measures in order to make sure that Canada and the world can face this pandemic together.

Back in the fall we invested quite a lot into three different facilities in Canada. There was $173 million through the strategic innovation fund that was invested into Medicago to support Canada's response to COVID-19 and future preparedness. We're seeing the results of those investments right now. We invested $18.2 million in the Vancouver-based biotechnology company Precision NanoSystems, and we also invested $24.27 million in a project to help advance the development of a COVID-19 vaccine candidate through pre-clinical studies as well.

This is in addition to the $220 million that we have become leaders in investing into COVAX. We did that so that there would be a global supply. We've invested far more, of course, to make sure that those low-to-middle-income countries that Ms. McPherson has mentioned do have supply.

In fact, even in the agreement, or even in the statement when you look at it—and I think we had this discussion in one of our meetings previously as well—the intention was always there that Canada would have first access to these vaccines. It is stated that a core objective of the WHO global allocation framework is to promote fair and equitable access to all, and, in the first phase of vaccine availability, that the vaccines will be offered to all participating economies at the same rate to allow them to vaccinate the same percentage of their population.

This was stipulated in the agreement to begin with. Yes, I understand that you are pointing to the G7 factor, but Canada is not the only developed country going down this path. Around the world we're hearing that New Zealand's response to this pandemic has been exceptional, and I wouldn't argue with that, but New Zealand is also relying on the COVAX vaccine supply. So is South Korea. So is Singapore and so is Indonesia.

I just feel that some of the language could be amended.

My first comment would be that we remove the word “failure” and we put in “due to global circumstances”. “That the committee recognize that due to global circumstances, the government has had delays in the supply of vaccines for Canadians”. I think that would be more appropriate.

My second comment is that a lot of important work is happening in the House itself right now and a lot of legislation that is equally important to serving Canadians and this pandemic. I think that at the end of this, although there are some other comments I'd like to make, I don't want to reword the whole thing by any means, but I do think in the last sentence, where it says, “Finally, that the committee report this motion to the House”, I would request that be removed from the motion as well and that we deal with this issue at committee.

There are other ways that perhaps we can have that discussion here and look into investigating why we're having to use COVAX. I'll throw out that we should maybe invite the minister to talk about this issue in a public hearing, where we can ask the important questions as to why this decision has been made by the government, but I don't think it's in any Canadians' interest that we take up valuable House resources. Reporting this back to the House could possibly take a whole day when we could be debating something else. At a minimum, it would take at least four hours of House time. I know the NDP is looking forward to debating legislation and seeing it passed in the House as well.

Those would be my two big points, that this circumstance is one we find ourselves in, but it's not due to any fault of one particular government and then, second, that we remove the reporting to the House.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. Sahota, thank you very much. Are you formally moving those as amendments?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Could you forward the language of your amendments to what I believe is sentence one, the first passage you referred to, to the clerk, so she has that in front of her?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I don't have formal language drafted, but I think it's just two changes, striking out the final sentence and replacing some words in the first sentence so it states, “That the committee recognizes that, due to global circumstances, the government has faced delays in the supply of vaccines for Canadians through national manufacturing”, and the rest of it can be the same.

Was the clerk able to follow?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I'm getting a thumbs up. Thank you, Ms. Sahota.

Procedurally, Madam Clerk, we're now on a discussion on the amendment, but I see a number of colleagues who raised their hands previously. I would think they could probably redirect their comments to address the amendment you've put forward.

Mr. Morantz.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe I speak for myself and my Conservative colleagues on the committee that we support this motion in its present form. In any event, I'll wait to see how the amendments look, and I look forward to Ms. McPherson's response as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morantz.

Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We are now speaking to Ms. Sahota's amendments, so I will stick to Ms. Sahota's amendments. However, in my instance, the whole motion is a misinterpretation of things that I would have liked to discuss. I'll discuss that when we discuss the amended motion.

Now, to the amendments, from what I know, the issue of vaccines is this: Normally, a vaccine takes 10 to 24 years to develop. When it is developed it goes through the in vitro trials and it goes into clinical trials, and it takes a heck of a long time to get accepted by countries to be used. We saw how long it took when Salk brought in the polio vaccine. This is an extraordinary feat, for vaccines to be available and having to undergo clinical trials in only six months.

One of the things it also created was this need for everybody to jump on it and say, “Oh my gosh, let's all agree with these vaccines; let's all get moving on them”, only to find the global demand did not allow the vaccine manufacturers and producers to be able to produce the amount of vaccines to meet that demand. They had to pause and expand their facilities and their capability to be able to churn out the billions of vaccines they needed. That is not any one government's fault; that is a reality. That's a fact. This is the truth. They can't do it.

We're seeing that everybody is moving forward and working quickly. In terms of global circumstances, we should talk of not one government's fault, but instead about the fact that global circumstances and global capacity for vaccines have led to this issue. We now also see that it is not a government's fault that some countries are not using these vaccines because they do not act against the variants that we see coming up. Even South Africa is turning down the use of certain vaccines because they not able to protect against variants.

Again, clinical trials do not happen in two days. You don't suddenly find out how people react to something and what the downsides of it are. This is medicine. This is about people's needs and the ability to be effective and to be safe. Those are two important things in vaccines.

This is a real thing. We have a pandemic. This is not about Canada being the only country that doesn't have supply, so I want to speak to that. I want to speak also to the second part of the amendment, which is that the committee report this motion to the House.

If we are going to begin on standing committees to report to the House every single motion that should be debated by the committee and agreed on or disagreed on by the committee, we will begin a procedure or a set of procedures that will not allow Parliament to even be able to function. Therefore, I think we have to ask ourselves why we want to do this, unless it's just something that we feel would score political points or be partisan.

I also want to remind everyone of one thing: Canadians and people around the world are scared. We have seen a first wave. We have seen a second wave. We are now talking about a third wave. People are frightened, and if we feel that it is responsible of us to increase that anxiety and fear amongst our own citizens by discussing where governments have risen and governments have failed, without actually speaking to the facts of the issue, we are actually doing a disservice Canadians. I think it's mischievous, but I don't believe it's meant to mischievous. I think it's in good faith that this is brought up. However, let us remember that we need to look at reality; we need to look at facts; we need to look at this as more than just a government. We need to assure Canadians that we, all of us, every single political party in the House of Commons, have their backs and are prepared to do whatever we need to do to be able, within practical circumstances, to deliver for them in the way we do.

Later on, if we come back to the actual motion, I would like to speak to certain elements of the motion that I also think are not based in fact.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dr. Fry, thank you very much.

Next in sequence I have Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to talk a bit about the facts, because I do think that if you look at the facts, the government did not have a plan on vaccines until the Conservatives started calling for one. Then there was a scramble to get enough vaccines for a photo shoot. Consistently, we've seen that we need to get two million a week. We've been batting zero nearly all month. As well, the domestic production that other places such as the U.K. put plans in place to establish wasn't done until the opposition started calling for it.

I think the government has failed in terms of not having a plan and not being able to execute the plan, and people will die. Thousands of Canadians will die as a result of that, so I don't mind the language on failure.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gladu.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to begin by pointing out that, like other colleagues, I have to attend another committee meeting at 6:30 p.m. For my meeting, I have to go to another building. I'd like details like this to be taken into consideration, particularly when last-minute decision are made to call another meeting in the same time slot. It's very important for us to be able to sort out logistic issues like this.

As for the amendment itself, or even the motion, I generally agree with Ms. Gladu: when all is said and done, I don't really care about the wording. But I think it's important for us to say something. Why is it important for us to say something? Not to frighten people, as Ms. Fry mentioned in her intervention, but simply to recognize that we could have done better. Nor is it to blame anyone in any way, because there is no point in crying over spilt milk. It won't change anything about the fact that for weeks now we haven't been receiving the number of vaccines to which we're entitled, and that in the meantime, people are still being infected, variants are still spreading and people are still dying. That's what concerns me the most. While pharmaceutical companies and governments are playing politics, people are dying. In each of our ridings, our fellow citizens are dying and I find that completely unacceptable.

I' d like us to be able to acknowledge, one way or another, that we could have done better. It's not a matter of blaming anyone. No one is saying my dad is stronger than your dad and it's not like we're having a pissing contest. It's nothing like that. The goal is simply to say that we could have done better. Contrary to what Ms. Fry said, it's not simply a factual matter. If it were just a question of fact, the government would quickly tell us about whatever negotiations were held with the pharmaceutical companies. But it's not telling us.

All that we've been told is that there is an unbelievable number of vaccine doses that Canada will be obtaining at the end of a long process. As for vaccinating the population, we've dropped from the top of the list in December to the bottom today. How did we go from being among the best in December to being among the worst today? It's extremely worrisome. How did a country like Israel, whose population of seven or eight million is comparable to Quebec's, do so well in vaccinating so many of its citizens, rather than only the most vulnerable and the health workers. What was Israel able to do that we' ve been unable to do? What led to our being in this situation?

The aim, or at least my aim, is not to blame anyone at all, but simply to acknowledge that something didn't work very well. If we've been reduced to getting vaccines from India and COVAX, it's because something didn't work properly.

Meanwhile, as I've said before, people are still being infected, variants are still spreading and people are still dying. While it's true that we are concerned about our fellow citizens, it's not enough to simply say that the situation is how it is because that's the way it is around the world. We need to simply look at what's happening in other industrialized countries to realize that it isn't. Canada has clearly lost ground and is falling behind.

I haven't forgotten that the Prime Minister had blamed the provincial premiers for not vaccinating their populations quickly enough. The provinces are ready. They are simply waiting for the vaccines so that they can vaccinate their citizens. What are we waiting for? What happened in terms of supply that has led to our being in this situation?

For God's sake, let's agree on wording for a resolution on this state of affairs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

I want to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact raised by Mr. Bergeron that some members have other engagements. We had initially foreseen a period until six o'clock to discuss this, but I wanted to get a full airing of views and I have the sense there is further need for a discussion, particularly in light of the fact that we have an amendment.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

To start I want to say that this motion was not brought forward because I was wearing a partisan hat. This motion was brought forward because I was not wearing a partisan hat. I was wearing my international development human rights hat, and I am so appalled by what's happening around the world with regard to this.

I'm more than happy to get this moving forward, to get it passed. I'm more than happy to accept the wording of the first sentence, “That, due to global circumstances, the government has been unable to ensure an adequate supply of vaccinations for Canadians.”

That said, I am not willing to accept the committee not reporting this to the House. This is not just a foreign affairs issue. This is an issue that affects Canada's response and we need to talk about it. That is the job of the government and the opposition, so I would like to put this to a vote. We can talk in circles for another three hours. Goodness knows this committee has the capacity to do that.

I would think at this point that we have compromised. We have changed the wording of the first sentence to make it clear this is not something that was done just by the government but by 10 administrations and six prime ministers. Can we just accept this motion? Then Mr. Bergeron can get to his meeting and we can have this important, vital debate about vaccine procurement and manufacturing and international vaccines in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Mr. Fonseca.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Chair, we've had a great discussion here. I think more needs to be done.

I move to adjourn this meeting at this time. It's past 6 p.m.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

On a point of order, I already asked for the vote to be put. You didn't respond to that, Mr. Chair. You'll have to respond to that before you can respond to the other members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much for the point of order, Ms. McPherson.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

There are hands still up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Let me ask the clerk for advice on whether you can move to adjourn or move to call the vote, and which of these two statements, either yours, Ms. McPherson, or Mr. Fonseca's, is in order.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Erica Pereira]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A move for the previous question, to put the vote in committee, is not admissible as per page 1068 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

The motion to adjourn debate is admissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Madam Clerk, is it dilatory?

[The Clerk]

Yes, Mr. Chair, it is dilatory. There is no debate or amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I'm assuming it's probably best to proceed with the recorded division on this.

Just to make sure we're clear, the motion in front of the committee is that we now adjourn the debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)