Foreign Affairs Committee on April 25th, 2022

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Sure. I would have been upset had you not.

[Fabien Paquette]

Yes, of course.

Your question is a very good one.

It's important to keep in mind that the patent problem is a false problem. This has been clearly demonstrated. It's not a question of patent protection. The reality is that in order to immunize and protect the entire population, it's necessary to produce vaccines quickly and then distribute them to countries that need them, at a price that suits their needs. That's what Pfizer has done. We've maximized our production through our production chains around the world and then ensured that we have a price range that meets the needs of the various countries. As I mentioned earlier, we have three price ranges. In our opinion, these were the best solutions to respond to the pandemic and eventually put an end to it.

So it's not really a question of patents. As we've seen so far, when the experts who have the production capacity and the scientists who develop the vaccines are allowed focus their efforts on that, the industry as a whole is able to produce quantities of vaccines that meet the needs we're currently seeing in this pandemic.

[Kiersten Combs]

I will just reiterate, because I very much support that same position. We have seen that it's not the intellectual property that has slowed the availability of the vaccines across the globe; it has been the complexity of the supply chain and the distribution of it.

As we see across all manufacturers, the partnership in the ecosystems that we've created to be able to get the medicine to the local level has really been key to our success.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you very much.

In fact, you both seem to agree with Dr. Berkley, CEO of Gavi, who answered a previous question by saying that the problem wasn't so much with patents and intellectual property, but with know‑how of the concentrates used to manufacture vaccines.

That being said, let me repeat my question, if only to keep this committee up to date, because there still seems to have been a compromise agreement between South Africa, the U.S., India and the E.U. Can you tell us where those negotiations stand today? If so, what would be the potential benefits of such an agreement?

[Fabien Paquette]

Obviously, there are discussions with the World Health Organization, but Pfizer itself, as a company, isn't involved in those discussions. These are discussions among the countries. If we're asked for our perspective, we offer it, but these aren't conversations that Pfizer is necessarily actively involved in.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Would you like to add anything, Ms. Combs?

[Kiersten Combs]

No. In the interest of brevity, I concur. AstraZeneca is in the same position as Pfizer.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Can you tell us whether you were consulted during these negotiations?

[Fabien Paquette]

Our position has already been clearly stated. We said that we didn't believe that the release of patents was the way to go, as I mentioned earlier.

Moving forward, we leave it to the countries to negotiate among themselves. Our position has always been the same from the beginning.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

What about you, Ms. Combs?

[Kiersten Combs]

Again, I concur. We are in the same position. I personally and our organization here in Canada have not engaged in these conversations and very much confirm that the issue in our perspective is not intellectual property but distribution.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

We have Madame McPherson, please, for six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our guests for being here today.

I have to say that I have an AstraZeneca vaccine in my arm. I also have a Pfizer vaccine in my arm, and I also have a Moderna, which is not represented here today. I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to be vaccinated, of course, and I echo what our colleagues have said about making sure that you take whatever vaccine is offered to you as fast as you can.

Of course, I also have concerns about how the vaccines have been rolled out. I think we can all agree that it was not a perfect scenario, and I understand that it was done within an extremely unprecedented time and a very difficult time, but I do have some questions from the sector. I have met with many people who are concerned about how the vaccine was rolled out. I'm going to read this question, if I could.

Last year, rich countries were quickly vaccinating their population, often accumulating millions of excess doses. COVAX was struggling to access enough vaccines to fulfill its commitment to developing countries, which still now are much behind in terms of vaccination rates.

I'm wondering, Mr. Paquette, if you could tell us on what basis Pfizer's deliveries were prioritized. Were wealthy or richer countries that had bilateral deals with Pfizer able to push themselves to the front of the line because they paid more per dose?

[Fabien Paquette]

To start with, when we saw it was a pandemic, there were two components. The first was that we needed to find the best possible way to address this pandemic by producing vaccines as quickly and as safely as possible. To do so, we made sure that we put all our R and D resources into having our researchers, in collaboration with BioNTech, actually discover and then do the research and development, testing, manufacturing and distribution of the vaccines. Once you have that solution in your hands, you want to deploy it as widely as possible. As such, we were reaching out to all the countries in the world to make sure they would have an opportunity to sign an agreement with Pfizer.

To be very transparent, some raised their hands right away. Others decided to wait a bit, despite our tier pricing model. As such, we were offering our vaccines to every country in the world, including COVAX countries—with COVAX, of course—to make sure they would have access to it. However, as I said, some countries decided to sign agreements with Pfizer right away to—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm so sorry to interrupt you and I don't want to be rude, but you'll understand how pressed I am for time.

Were wealthy countries that came forward first, because they could pay that higher rate, able to access the vaccines faster? Were they able to be faster in the line?

[Fabien Paquette]

Like all the other countries, they had access to the vaccine as they were signing the agreements. There were countries that signed earlier on. I'll give you the example of Israel, which signed up front and had access to the vaccines. Canada was also among the countries that signed up front.

If lower- or middle-income countries within COVAX wanted to have our vaccine, they had access to it as well. In those cases, the challenge most likely was more around the infrastructure for deploying the vaccines in those countries.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

We know that's the case now, but we also know that at the beginning it was actually the supply that was a problem.

Can I also ask what profit Pfizer made with regard to the COVID-19 vaccine? How much profit has Pfizer made?

[Fabien Paquette]

I haven't had any details about the overall financials of the total sales or profit on this.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You can't provide how much money Pfizer made by producing the vaccine. Could you provide that to the committee at a later date, in writing, please?

[Fabien Paquette]

Yes, absolutely, we can provide the total revenues.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

The other thing I want to ask about is the allowing of donations to other countries. My understanding is that with the agreements that were in place, with the agreements that Pfizer had with the Government of Canada, they were unable to donate the excess vaccines because of the restrictions put in place by Pfizer.

Is that accurate?

[Fabien Paquette]

No, that is inaccurate.

I could very clearly mention that in our contractual agreement there was a clause that provided that Canada could give doses of our vaccines if they wanted to. Of course, we would need to have the conversation about how and when this could be done, but there was definitely an opportunity for Canada to actually deploy the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

When was that clause added? When was it first possible for Canada to donate Pfizer vaccines to other countries?

[Fabien Paquette]

They were allowed to do it as soon as they were receiving vaccines. It was in the initial agreement, the first one that we signed with the country. That clause—