Foreign Affairs Committee on April 4th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dear colleagues, welcome to meeting No. 4 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Pursuant to the motion adopted on January 31, the committee is meeting on its study of vaccine equity and intellectual property rights.

As always, interpretation is available at this meeting. To listen to the interpretation, just click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen.

I would ask members participating in person to keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask wearing and health protocols.

I'd like to take the opportunity to remind all participants that screenshots and taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mic should be on mute.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the Chair.

Colleagues, I would like to now welcome our first panel of witnesses before the committee and thank them for agreeing to spend time with us this morning.

As usual, when you have 30 seconds remaining in your testimony or questioning time, I will signal you with this yellow piece of paper, so please keep an eye on your screens.

I would now like to welcome this morning's first panel of witnesses.

First, we welcome France‑Isabelle Langlois, Executive Director of Amnistie internationale Canada francophone.

From Oxfam Canada, we have Diana Sarosi, director, policy and campaigns; and Brittany Lambert, women's rights policy and advocacy specialist.

You'll each have five minutes for your opening statements.

I propose that we start with Ms. Langlois.

Ms. Langlois, you have five minutes for your opening statement.

[France-Isabelle Langlois, Executive Director, Amnistie internationale Canada francophone]

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Thank you for this invitation.

Amnesty International, as an organization that defends human rights, became involved from the very beginning of the pandemic in order to call for unwavering international solidarity by all states, including Canada. Along with many other stakeholders, we have been calling for vaccine equity and the temporary patent waiver at the World Trade Organization, or the WTO, for more than two years. This is the third time that I have personally appeared before a parliamentary committee on this issue. In the meantime, Canada's position has not changed, COVID‑19 is still present and continues to result in deaths, although we talk about this less and less. The gap between rich and poor countries is growing, and pharmaceutical companies continue to reap huge profits.

Amnesty International wants to remind everyone that under international human rights law, governments have an obligation to provide the financial and technical support necessary to implement the right to health, particularly in light of the international spread of a disease.

Therefore, we call on Canada once again to provide strong support for the temporary waiver on intellectual property rights for health technologies related to COVID‑19 proposed by South Africa and India in October 2020 at the WTO.

However we are deeply concerned about a draft text, which was leaked to the media in late March, proposing a compromise for this waiver between the European Union, the United States, India and South Africa. As written, this text will never ensure the supply and transfer of technologies necessary for equal access to health tools to combat COVID‑19 and the protection of the right to life and health. We urge Canada not to endorse this text.

Initially, India and South Africa called for a waiver to the WTO's TRIPS Agreement—specifically provisions relating to intellectual property rights and trade—to democratize the production of products that combat COVID‑19 until global herd immunity is achieved.

The World Health Assembly recognized the “role of extensive immunization against COVID‑19 as a global public good for health in preventing, containing and stopping transmission in order to bring the pandemic to an end”.

Yet, pharmaceutical companies around the world continue to pursue a business-as-usual approach, limiting production and supply capacity.

We will have tolive with COVID‑19 for years to come. Everyone must have access to vaccines, and also to treatments. We must democratize production, especially now that new treatments are becoming available.

By supporting the removal of intellectual property protections for vaccines and other products to combat COVID‑19, Canada would be putting the lives of people around the world, including Canadian lives, before the profits of a few pharmaceutical giants and their shareholders.

The only way to end the pandemic is to end it globally, and the only way to end it globally is to put people before profits.

The international standards of human rights to which Canada subscribes and the regulations governing international trade clearly stipulate that the protection of intellectual property must never come at the expense of public health.

The COVID‑19 crisis is also a human rights crisis. It cannot be overcome without true commitment to one of the Sustainable Development Goals: to leave no one behind. Based on the premise that “none of us will be safe until everyone is safe”, Canada has an opportunity today to make a decision that will make that goal a reality.

Amnesty International is reiterating the specific request it made to the Canadian government to support a waiver not just for vaccines but also for all necessary medical technologies, and not just for certain countries but for all those with the means to contribute to vaccine production. Nor should other discussions about other waivers be postponed for six months or more.

We are asking Canada to show exemplary leadership on international solidarity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much for your opening statement, Ms. Langlois.

We will now turn the floor over to Ms. Sarosi from Oxfam Canada for opening remarks.

Please go ahead.

[Diana Sarosi, Director, Policy and Campaigns, Oxfam Canada]

Thank you, Chair. It is my pleasure to be here before the committee.

Oxfam supports long-term development, advocacy and emergency response programs in more than 90 countries around the world. The low- and lower middle-income countries we work in have suffered tremendously from the pandemic. COVID-19 has shattered the world's weakest economies, destroying livelihoods and making global hunger skyrocket. In 2021, 163 million people were pushed into poverty because of the pandemic.

These same countries have struggled to access vaccines. In 2021, more than 80% of all vaccines went to G20 countries, while less than 1% reached low-income countries. Vaccine inequality has prolonged the pandemic, and poorer countries have paid the price of vaccine inequality in economic terms and in lives. For every life lost to COVID-19 in a rich country, four were lost in lower- and middle-income countries. Globally, 4.7 million children have lost a parent or caregiver to the virus. That's a staggering four children every minute.

COVAX was supposed to deliver two billion doses to low- and middle-income nations by the end of 2021, but delivered only less than half of that because of slow donations from wealthy countries, including Canada, and delivery delays from vaccine makers. People in low- and middle-income countries should not have to rely on the charitable goodwill of rich nations and pharmaceutical corporations to fulfill their right to protection from COVID-19. That is why Oxfam has supported the calls for a TRIPS waiver.

The TRIPS waiver proposal put forth by India and South Africa in October 2020 and backed by over 100 nations was a powerful message from developing countries that they needed relief in this pandemic. By giving more companies the legal ability to reproduce COVID-19 vaccines and drugs, a waiver could help to increase supplies and pave the way for a more equitable distribution of life-saving technologies.

For 18 months, the European Union and other rich countries chose to block the TRIPS waiver and the path to an early exit from this pandemic, thus defending the interests of pharmaceutical monopolies. Large pharmaceutical companies have been the biggest winners in this pandemic. It is tragic that our global economy has proved better at creating new vaccine billionaires than at vaccinating the billions of people who need protection from this cruel disease.

A few weeks ago, a document was published, proposing a compromise agreement on the TRIPS waiver. It was negotiated by the U.S., the EU, South Africa and India. With the except of the EU, these countries have not officially endorsed the compromised proposal. It is positive that the EU has finally come to the table and acknowledged that intellectual property rules and pharmaceutical monopolies are a barrier to vaccinating the world; however, in our view, the document is only a very small step forward. The current text is narrow in scope and has considerable limitations. It does not cover COVID tests or treatments. It covers only patents and not other intellectual property barriers. It narrows geographical scope, excluding countries with significant manufacturing capacity, and it creates new, onerous barriers for countries seeking to issue a compulsory licence, rather than easing current rules.

Adopting this text without addressing its flaws would set a negative precedent and stand in the way of the world's ability to respond collectively to future pandemics. We hope that Canada will work collaboratively at the World Trade Organization to urgently remedy the limitations in the proposed text. We would also like to see Canada accelerate its delivery of surplus doses and scale up international assistance funding to support developing countries with the devastating economic fallout from the pandemic.

COVID-19's economic, social, educational and health impacts on women and girls have been particularly staggering. In 24 months, the pandemic has set back the goal of achieving gender parity by a whole generation.

COVID-19 is a transnational challenge, but our collective response so far has been short-sighted, inequitable and nationalistic. It is time to change course. The world has waited long enough.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today on behalf of Oxfam.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. Sarosi, thank you so much for your opening remarks.

Colleagues, we will go into round one now.

I'm looking at the clock. We've had a bit of a late start. I think we have time for only this first round. I would encourage colleagues in the Conservative and Liberal parties to share their slot if they wish to do so. They are six-minute allocations.

Leading us off will be Mr. Genuis, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much to the witnesses.

Could you clearly put on record what you understand to be the government's position? What's your understanding of what the government's position is right now and what we are advocating for?

[Diana Sarosi]

I can jump in.

That's a tricky question. That's what we're trying to find out as well. It has been very nebulous. On the one hand, they are saying they're not supporting it, but they're also not opposing it. They've basically been standing on the fence on this issue for many months now, but have also initiated an alternative third way proposal, which has further undermined the advancement of the TRIPS waiver conversations.

I would like to bring in my colleague, Brittany Lambert, who can talk a little more about the Ottawa process.

[Brittany Lambert, Women’s Rights Policy and Advocacy Specialist, Oxfam Canada]

Yes, the government has always stated with regard to the TRIPS waiver that its goal is to work constructively to find a consensus-based solution at the WTO that would be acceptable to everybody. In reality, though, this nebulous position has made it very difficult to tell what the government's position is. It hasn't wanted to engage with us on the specifics of any clauses in the TRIPS waiver or in the compromise proposal. It's impossible to tell how constructive a role it is playing at the WTO right now.

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

At the risk of sounding partisan, this sounds, sadly, typical. They have the right buzzwords out there—co-operative, collaborative, being nice, helping people—but it becomes hard to know what they actually mean by these words.

Would you say that the third way they're talking about is providing more clarity or simply more confusion about what their position is? Do you know what the substance of the third way proposals are, or is that just another set of nice-sounding concepts without clarity?

[Brittany Lambert]

In the third way, the Walker process, driven by the Ottawa Group, they say they're aiming to tackle issues like supply chains, export restrictions and other issues that the industry has identified as being barriers to production. Unfortunately, it contains nothing on intellectual property, so it's not seen as a viable alternative by the 100-plus countries that identified intellectual property as the biggest obstacle to their ability to secure life-saving tools.

I would say that it muddied the waters at the WTO and that it probably did indeed postpone a consensus on the TRIPS waiver.

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

Has the government articulated any reasons for not proceeding in this direction? Has that been part of the dialogue, or has it not even gotten that far?

[Brittany Lambert]

No, they have said that they want a consensus-based solution that works for everybody. I suspect that their reasons, much like the other wealthy countries that have obstructed the TRIPS waiver, have to do with not wanting to take a position that would be contrary to the interests of pharmaceutical companies, which obviously have a huge influence, especially when these nations themselves are depending on them to secure their own vaccines.

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

How would you describe the level and nature of engagement of civil society, of human rights organizations like yours, by the government on this issue?

[Brittany Lambert]

The government have been responsive. They've been willing to meet with us, but as I said, their position is so nebulous that it prevents us from getting into detailed discussions with them on anything. Their speaking lines continue to be that they support consensus and that they're working behind the scenes to get that, and that's where it ends.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Langlois from Amnesty, do you want to weigh in on that point, about the nature of your engagement with the government up to this point?

[France-Isabelle Langlois]

Could you repeat your question? I'm not sure I understood.

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

How would you describe the nature and quality of engagement that you've had with the government on this issue? Have they been forthright? Have they been available at senior levels to discuss their position? How has that unfolded?

[France-Isabelle Langlois]

Thank you.

We have been having discussions with the government and different stakeholders. It has not been easy. We had to push a lot 18 months ago to have these meetings and discussions. However, we cannot say that discussions are not taking place. There are discussions, but its position does not appear to have changed.

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

I know we have a draft.... I'm not supposed to speak about draft motions on notice, so I won't.

I have one final question. Could any of the witnesses speak to this concept of enlightened self-interest in the context of the pandemic? We want to talk about altruism, of course, being a primary value, but how does enlightened self-interest inform what we should be doing in this respect?

[France-Isabelle Langlois]

The question is for me?

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

It's for anyone who wants to take it.

[France-Isabelle Langlois]

As already mentioned, we have been living with this pandemic for more than two years, and there have been delays and negotiations for more than two years. We are asking the government to demonstrate real leadership and to be constructive in order to resolve the situation. We really must go ahead with patent waivers and the democratization of technologies and the production of all treatments for COVID‑19 around the world. We must create vaccine equity and equitable access to all technologies and, above all, to new medications being developed that will soon be available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Ms. Langlois.

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis.

We'll go to Dr. Fry, please for six minutes.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair. I want to thank my colleague, Heather McPherson, for bringing up this particular topic, because we all know, this is common sense, that until we can end the pandemic everywhere, we will continue to have bouts of pandemic going on, as we can see now with the BA.2, which is beginning to threaten countries in Europe and, obviously, the United States and Canada.

I think this is an important issue. We've talked about vaccines. I think the question I have is whether any of you know or understand what Canada is doing with regard to testing, with regard to diagnostics and with regard to culture? I think that is an important thing, cultural issues regarding vaccine uptake in some countries.

[Brittany Lambert]

I can speak to that.

Through the ACT Accelerator, there are several arms. I'm happy to see that Canada is not focusing only on vaccines, but also through the other arms and diagnostics and treatment, etc.

That being said, this TRIPS waiver compromise proposal is quite worrisome in terms of access to treatments and tests. One of its most glaring flaws is that it would apply only to vaccines. That may have been useful 18 months ago, but the context has now changed, and we're no longer in a situation of vaccine scarcity. We're now at a stage in the pandemic where regular, rapid and affordable testing and treatment are just as important, so we are concerned that this TRIPS compromise proposal, because it excludes tests and treatment, is just going to replicate the same extreme inequality that we've seen with vaccines, but in terms of access to other life-saving treatments.