Health Committee on Dec. 6th, 2023

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That seems fair from the Canadian government's point of view, but here's what actually happened.

In March 2022, the WTO decided not to accept Covifenz for emergency use because of Medicago's ties to the tobacco industry. They came to a different conclusion than the Government of Canada would have.

Here's the thing. The reason that Covifenz was not proceeded with was not because the Government of Canada decided not to.

A February 2023 Mitsubishi Chemical Group Corporation news release said, “after a comprehensive review of the current global demand and market environment for COVID-19 vaccines and Medicago’s challenges in transitioning to commercial-scale production, the Group has determined that it will not pursue the commercialization of COVIFENZ.”

Isn't it true, Minister, that the reason Medicago didn't proceed was because it was not commercially viable for them to produce this vaccine if they couldn't sell it to the world? They certainly wouldn't have proceeded with full commercialization if only Canada was going to proceed with it.

Isn't that right?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

What is true is that Medicago had challenges stabilizing the vaccine for mass production, as I understand it. Further investments would have been needed to be able to get it into a position of broad-scale distribution.

Certainly, if it were the only viable option—if it were at a different place—those investments would have been made. I don't think you can ignore the fact that a large number of very successful vaccines were already in wide deployment, so those investments wouldn't have been logical.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I understand that.

Minister, I'm not ignoring the hypothetical of if it were the only one. That's hypothetical.

I'm pointing at the fact that Medicago couldn't sell its vaccine because the WHO said it was not going to approve it for emergency use worldwide. There was no way, in that environment, that any vaccine manufacturer was going to proceed with a vaccine when it couldn't sell it anywhere, except for maybe in Canada.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

The problem is that it's not a hypothetical. At the moment you're talking about, a wide range of vaccines were approved, not for the ancestral strain but for the most current strains of the virus at that moment in time, so there simply wasn't the need. Why would the investment have been made?

What I'm saying is, if that situation didn't exist and we didn't have a vaccine, then that certainly would have been a different circumstance. Of course, it would have to be.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Here's the bottom line.

Your government signed a treaty to not accept or support the tobacco industry or any entity working to further its interests. You then signed a contract with a pharmaceutical company that was 21% owned by the tobacco industry.

Square that for me.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

There was only one Canadian-based option that showed it had the technological and scientific ability to develop a vaccine. The minority position that Philip Morris had in it did not advance the interests of tobacco or nicotine. It certainly was a viable option in order to save hundreds of millions of lives in the moment that we were dealing with, when we did not know whether or not we would have any vaccine and when we were all worried for our families and loved ones.

I think the decision made to make sure that the country had a vaccine was the right decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

That's your time. Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Thank you, Minister.

We are going back to the Conservatives now for five minutes, beginning with Dr. Ellis, please.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

No, it's Mr. Perkins.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Perkins, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you're painting these hypothetical worlds to justify a $323-million loss to the Canadian taxpayer.

Before this contract was signed either to develop the vaccine or to buy the massive number of 76 million doses, the U.S. had already approved Pfizer, so this world that you say didn't exist because you didn't know whether or not a vaccine would exist actually existed months before that. It was already approved by the U.S.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

That's simply not true. I don't have the timeline with me, but I could turn to—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It was approved in the summer. The contract was—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

If you're interested in the answer, I can refer it to Mr. Sheppard. If you're making a political point and don't want an answer, I can move on.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

If he has it at his fingertips, he can get it. If not, you can send it to the committee in writing.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

It's simply not true. If you want the truth, then we can provide it, but what you've said is not factually true. It's not true in substance or in fact.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

The other thing that's not true, because.... Have you read the contract?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Have I read it? Look—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Answer yes or no.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Have I read the contract?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Have you read the contract to buy the vaccines?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I have not read the full contract.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

If you had, you'd know, unlike the government Liberal members, that the $323 million that's been wasted and the $150-million penalty payment you've paid is not a down payment. It's not insurance. It's not a mortgage. It's none of those things. There is no clause in that contract that requires any money up front. It's a penalty payment for not meeting your commitments under the contract.

Isn't that true?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

No. I've described the nature of the advance purchase agreements. I can turn to—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

In what clause does it say you have to pay a payment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Let him finish, Mr. Perkins.