Foreign Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2022

[Joshua Tabah]

Thank you. I understand now.

That is the equivalent amount from the cash contribution. Over and above that, Canada has provided approximately 15 million in-kind doses, which have been delivered through COVAX to developing countries.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

That works out to roughly $6.20 a dose, Canadian. In other words, the $540 million that Canada has contributed to the COVAX facility is roughly equivalent to 87 million doses, which is roughly $6.20. Is that math accurate?

[Joshua Tabah]

That's correct. There might be a difference of cent or two if it was based on a U.S. equivalency, but yes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Okay. The working group for the OECD proposed valuating these dose equivalents at $6.72 U.S., which is $8.40 Canadian under the current exchange rate of roughly 80 U.S. cents per Canadian dollar. I take it that the G7 equivalency is different from the OECD working group equivalency. Is that correct?

[Joshua Tabah]

Yes, and sometimes, honourable member, I wish it wasn't. This was a G7 methodology put in place under U.K. leadership last June—

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Sure.

[Joshua Tabah]

—and you're right. The discussions at OECD are ongoing about that new one. They're in the same ballpark, but there are differences and we're trying to streamline that.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

On this $540 million that we have contributed, will Canada be considering that as part of its annual official development assistance goals? Will that be included in the ODA calculations for last year, this year and upcoming years?

[Joshua Tabah]

That's where that OECD valuation is really important, because any in-kind support provided directly to developing countries, like these dose donations, will be reported as official development assistance.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Okay.

[Joshua Tabah]

We may donate doses through COVAX that go to middle-income countries, so we'll have to look at whether those are also reported, but certainly all those to low-income and low-middle-income countries will be reported as such.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Those are all the questions I have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Chong, thank you very much.

Mr. Gaheer, welcome back to the committee.

You have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the ambassador and the witnesses for their time.

My first question is about COVAX and the fair allocation framework. The criterion is equality of coverage. That's a primary criterion. Could the witnesses please speak about how COVAX doses are directed to specific countries? Who manages the delivery and the handover to the countries, and who is responsible for the domestic rollout? We've had conversations about how COVAX gets the doses, but what happens once they have them?

[Joshua Tabah]

Thank you. It's an excellent question and is something that we're all placing a great deal of attention on right now.

In terms of the allocation framework, there is a hands-off independent scientific process led by the WHO to ensure that as soon as doses are made available through COVAX, they are allocated to countries on the basis, yes, of need and coverage, but also on the ability to use and other criteria, like vaccine dose preference. If a certain vaccine becomes available, but it's not what a country is looking for, it will go to someone else. That's part of the algorithm and the calculations I mentioned that go into each allocation round as new doses become available.

On the specific partners inside COVAX, Gavi is the organization that leads on the negotiation and determination of which vaccines to procure, but then UNICEF is the logistics agent that in general manages the delivery of vaccines from manufacturer to country.

In-country, the doses are traditionally handed over to the domestic health authority—the minister of health and her team, for example—and they then take responsibility for national rollout and administration. They have support from Gavi, from UNICEF and from the WHO in managing those national vaccines, but ultimately, the international community is here to support national authorities in managing their immunization campaigns.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Tabah. That was very informative.

I'd like to jump to the TRIPS waiver proposal, which we've spoken about a bit. There seems to be significant support amongst WTO members for the TRIPS waiver proposal led by India and South Africa.

Several members, though, including the EU, Norway and the U.K., have opposed it. The U.K., on December 16, 2021, issued a statement to the WTO TRIPS council and voiced its concerns that the proposed TRIPS waiver “would not increase the number of vaccines reaching people's arms” and that it carried “risks”.

Could you speak to why WTO members like the EU, Norway and the U.K. are opposed to the TRIPS waiver proposal led by South Africa and India?

[Stephen de Boer]

First of all, you're asking me to divine what the U.K. or Norway are thinking, for example. I think those are the two countries you mentioned.

Let me say this. There have been criticisms of the waiver proposal because it may not actually achieve the result, which is to increase vaccine production for a variety of reasons; but no WTO member has said that they do not wish to discuss this issue.

This goes before the TRIPS council, which is a council of the WTO, and there is a 90-day period for proposals to be discussed. Every time the 90 days has come up, the membership has unanimously agreed to continue those discussions.

What I hear from the members you have mentioned is that there is some suggestion that the proposal will not actually address what it is intended to address.

Honestly, the best people to answer that question would be those members themselves.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Great. Thank you.

Do you then share the U.K.'s pessimism with respect to reaching a consensus based on the TRIPS waiver proposal, led by India and South Africa?

[Stephen de Boer]

It's not at all clear, as I said earlier, that the India and South Africa proposal will continue to be viable, because we have heard that the quadrilateral discussions with the U.S., EU, India and South Africa may have reached another result. It's too early to tell, because we don't know what's in that particular proposal.

I would say that Canada is more than willing to engage in that discussion and would support a consensus with the membership, going forward.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gaheer.

We'll now go into our third round of questions.

Leading us off is Mr. Genuis, please, for five minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

What proportion of the vaccine—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Excuse me, there is a problem with the sound.

Stand by one second, please. I'll put a pause on your time.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I can speak in French if that's easier.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

It's working in French, at least.