Foreign Affairs Committee on April 4th, 2022

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Let us talk about the fact that countries received vaccine doses instead of the money to procure the vaccine. This was wasteful in some cases when some countries gave doses that were at the end of their useful cycle, that were practically expired and, once they arrived in the other countries, almost needed to be thrown out.

What needed to be improved to avoid all that?

[Dr. Robyn Waite]

COVAX is a new mechanism. It's the biggest mass deployment of vaccines around the world that we've ever seen on this scale, so it's learning as it evolves. Now we're also seeing COVAX starting to introduce minimum shelf lives for doses being donated, so that when they land in a country, they have at least a certain amount of time left to be able to turn that vaccine into a vaccination.

Those things are changing and happening in real time, because we're learning as we go.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Previous witnesses have told us that there were vaccine procurement issues at first, but that at some point there were problems with demand. In reality, the demand for vaccines in some countries was less than the number of vaccines they were sent.

In order to avoid losses, should we review the vaccine distribution algorithms in the different countries?

[Dr. Shehzad Ali]

I'm not sure we need very complicated distribution algorithms. There is significant demand in most countries. I think Dr. Waite or one of the earlier speakers said that vaccine demand is significantly high. Vaccine hesitancy, as it has been presented in the western world, is low, so I think it's that willingness.

Frankly, if we are considering donating only surplus doses or doses that are close to expiry—only on some occasions, I should emphasize—that does not send a good message to the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Ms. Normandin.

Thank you to the witnesses as well.

Next is Ms. McPherson, please, for six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us today for this important study.

As a member of the opposition, my role is to look at the government's response and to try to find ways to improve that response going forward. What I'm hearing from the testimony in this panel and the previous panel is that the Canadian government in effect undermined COVAX by agreeing to or by negotiating bilateral agreements with pharmaceutical companies.

In addition, the Canadian government failed to secure that intellectual property protection through the TRIPS waiver, so that other countries could produce their own vaccines.

The final piece of this is that we are seeing that the Canadian government has a system, in the form of the Canada's access to medicines regime, that does not work. It has not worked in the past, and it is certainly not up to the task of working right now. I've heard from organizations that have said the websites are down; the phones don't.... Nothing in that entire process is working.

As an opposition member, what I look at is the potential for us to have a different response if a future pandemic or a variant of COVID-19 were to happen.

I'd like to ask both our witnesses how confident they feel that the global response, particularly from a Canadian government perspective, would be different if we were to be in this situation again in the near or distant future.

Perhaps I could start with you, Dr. Ali.

[Dr. Shehzad Ali]

Thank you.

Vaccine nationalism is something we have seen across the globe. Canada is not the only country. The U.S. and most European countries have taken a very similar route, which is, in some ways, understandable. There is public pressure on the government, but at the same time, I hope this is really a time when we learn from the way we responded to things. We all understand that this is not the last pandemic. There will be future pandemics.

Also, I think it's important to think about global efforts. Currently, our thinking has been primarily driven by donations and by finding different mechanisms within our system to allow the manufacturing of vaccines here and then sending them abroad.

I particularly applaud the WHO's mRNA hub, which I think is an excellent mechanism to produce and propagate capacity within developing countries. This is where Canada should take a lead and really stand with the WHO because, obviously, these things will continue to happen. This, I think, is a historic moment when we really should contribute.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Dr. Waite.

[Dr. Robyn Waite]

Yes. I would hope that we would do things differently, because I have faith in the Government of Canada, humanity and multilateral institutions, so I'd hope that we would be learning the lessons from this experience and adapting, making the necessary changes. I know that will happen, because I'm seeing it happen in real time already. COVAX is learning in real time and adapting in real time. The Government of Canada is doing the same; the World Health Organization is doing the same.

We're starting to do studies just like this, to reflect on what worked, what didn't work, and what we need to do to make sure we are prepared for future threats, which are inevitable.

I agree with all of the oppositional remarks that you started this question off with, but I want to say that Canada is leading in some respects, too. We are one of only four countries covering the ancillary costs for every dose that we're donating through COVAX. We were one of the first G20s to invest our fair share in the ACT-Accelerator. We took a leading role in creating the COVAX donation mechanism, and Minister Karina Gould, when she was with International Development, was a co-chair of the AMC engagement group.

It's a nuanced, complex issue. In some areas we're doing well, and in some areas we're underperforming.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

As much as I have other questions I'd like to ask, I have to take this time that I've been allotted to move a motion that I brought forward that has to do with this topic.

Could I, Mr. Chair, move the motion that I tabled last week? Would you like me to read it, or can I just move it right now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

It's at your discretion, Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would like to read it, if possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

You're free to do that. Please go ahead.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you so much. It is very short.

The motion is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order that all briefing notes, memos and emails regarding lobby meetings between the government and pharmaceutical companies where vaccine equity was discussed since March 2020 be provided to the committee no later than April 21, 2022; that matters of cabinet confidence be excluded from the request; and that redactions for commercially sensitive information be applied only where strictly necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would ask for a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much. I will now invite colleagues to intervene on the motion that's before the committee. It's properly before the committee. It was put on notice before, and it relates directly to the substance we're discussing today.

I'm going to work with our clerk to make sure that we develop an integrated list of intervenors. I can see hands raised virtually, and there may well be colleagues on the floor who also wish to intervene.

Madame Bendayan, please lead us off in the discussion of this motion.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I am a bit disappointed. I thought we were unanimous on the importance of this study. We are taking 20 minutes out of this meeting to deal with my colleague's motion.

That being said, I see that you have already started the debate. I will not get in the way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

Are there other interventions from colleagues on the motion that is before us? I don't see anybody virtually.

Madam Clerk, does anybody wish to intervene from the floor? I'm going to be cautious here just in case people are still formulating thoughts.

Seeing no further debate, are colleagues prepared to vote on the motion as presented? I seem to have a consensus on taking it to a vote.

Colleagues, is there any opposition to the motion as presented by Ms. McPherson?

Ms. McPherson, I do not see any opposition to the motion. I want again to be sure that I have the reactions from the room and virtually.

(Motion agreed to)

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you so much.

I will cede the remainder of my time. I don't think there was much left anyway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Actually, we have gone a bit over. Thank you very much for that.

We will now go into what I propose to be a very compressed second round of questions to the panel.

If colleagues are okay to do what we did last time, which was three minutes and one and a half minutes, I will ask Mr. Genuis to please lead us off for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, being remote. If any of my Conservative colleagues want to speak, maybe they can message me in the appropriate chat.

I have questions, so I'm happy to use the time until I hear from another colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Sure. It's at your discretion, and you're free to share the time as you wish.

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

Sure. I will wait for those notifications.

We were talking about a perception of different kinds of vaccines. Could either of the witnesses speak to Chinese state vaccine diplomacy? How are the vaccines manufactured in China perceived?

How does it affect international coordination around access to vaccines and intellectual property, when other actors with other strategic interests are in some sense saying they are offering vaccines, but they have another agenda or perhaps the vaccines are not of the same level of efficacy?

[Dr. Robyn Waite]

I apologize. I'm not informed enough to speak to that issue.

[Dr. Shehzad Ali]

Neither am I. I'm not in a good position to answer that question.

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

Okay. That's no problem. We can follow it up with some other witnesses.

Dr. Waite, you didn't have a chance to answer my final question. I wonder if you could speak about your reflections on that one as well.