Industry Committee on Feb. 18th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Good morning, everyone. I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 18 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will only show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor, English or French.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the directives from the Board of Internal Economy regarding masking and health protocols.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

With regard to the speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain the order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

As is my normal practice, I will wave the yellow card when you have 30 seconds remaining in your intervention, and I will hold up a red card when your time is up. I ask all members and witnesses to be mindful of the cards and to respect your time limit to allow all members to participate.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, December 1, 2020, the committee is meeting today to continue its study on the domestic manufacturing capacity for a COVID-19 vaccine.

I would like to now welcome our witnesses.

From the COVID-19 vaccine task force, with us today, we have Joanne Langley, co-chair; Mark Lievonen, co-chair; and Roger Scott-Douglas, secretary.

The panel will have up to seven minutes to present, followed by rounds of questions.

With that, I will turn the floor over to the vaccine task force members for their presentation.

[Dr. Joanne Langley, Co-Chair, COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force]

Good morning.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee for inviting us today.

I'm really honoured to be with you today as the co-chair of Canada's vaccine task force. I think I speak for my colleague, Mark Lievonen, who is here, and all task force members in saying how privileged we all feel that we are able to serve in this way during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I'll speak briefly about our vaccine work and then turn to Mark, who will talk about the biomanufacturing component of our work.

The task force was formed in June 2020 to advise the government on the best strategy to secure safe and effective vaccines for Canadians to mitigate this pandemic. In order to do so, we looked broadly at three aspects of our work: domestic vaccine candidates, international vaccine candidates and biomanufacturing opportunities.

Who are we? We are 11 experts in broad fields. All but one of us are Canadians; we have one international member. We come from fields like clinical medicine, immunology, vaccinology, biomanufacturing and commercialization. We're all volunteers, and we are working in a format where we are looking for the most recent evidence that's available at the time when we're trying to provide advice to the Government of Canada. That evidence includes literature review, meeting with companies and meeting with external experts. We've met with 12 external experts at this point. Six of those are international and six are Canadian. We've also met with task forces from other countries to learn from them as well.

We've been guided by a number of key principles, and probably the most important one is science. The recommendations we make are based on the best available information at the time. Another principle is transparency. We know that the public is interested in our work, and our members have proactively engaged with media on about 135 interviews as of yesterday, I think. We've also participated in outreach events and met with scientific community members across the country: people in academic settings, NGOs and so on.

We held our very first meeting on June 16, and the tenor of the room was one of extreme urgency. We have since met about 39 times. Despite this commitment to transparency, of course we are dealing with confidential business information, so the secretariat put in place a rigorous protocol to declare, manage and record potential conflicts of interest. This process means that we do end up recusing ourselves from providing advice on projects where there's a conflict or an appearance of one, and this has happened about 30 times so far. All of our potential conflicts are registered on the public access NRC website.

Back in the early spring/summer, we recommended a portfolio of candidates, a portfolio because we were recognizing that there was a risk that any of these potential candidates might not make it into clinical trials and ultimately to regulatory authorization. Ultimately, the government has announced seven advance purchase agreements with promising candidates, and two of these are now being rolled out in programs across our provinces and territories.

We did recommend purchasing more vaccines than we might potentially need, knowing that some of these might fail and wanting to have safe and effective vaccines for Canadians. We knew that the option for donation of excess vaccines was always available if the vaccines were authorized.

We reviewed, with regard to Canadian proposals, 24 Canadian options through the strategic innovation fund. The most promising back in the spring/early summer were Medicago, Variation Biotechnologies, VBI, and Precision NanoSystems, PNI. Other domestic candidates were funded through the National Research Council and the industrial research assistance program. Those include Providence Therapeutics, IMV, Entos, Symvivo, Biodextris and Glycovax. These will play an important role in developing Canadian candidates in the more medium term.

I think I will pass over at this point to Mark to discuss the biomanufacturing.

Thank you.

[Mark Lievonen, Co-Chair, COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force]

I'd like to start by echoing the remarks of my co-chair. I am delighted to be with you today. It has truly been an honour to serve on the vaccine task force.

I have been struck by how much can get done in a relatively short period of time when you bring together the right people across government, academia and industry. I have often said that we are operating in battlefield conditions, making recommendations on urgent issues with very limited information.

Along with my role as co-chair of the vaccine task force, I chair a subcommittee on biomanufacturing. All members of the vaccine and therapeutics task forces are able to participate in joint biomanufacturing subcommittee meetings. We employ the same rigorous process on declaring interests and recusing ourselves if there is a conflict or the appearance of a material and direct conflict.

The joint biomanufacturing subcommittee was tasked with providing advice to the government in three areas. First, we were asked to assess biomanufacturing projects proposed to the government under the strategic innovation fund. Second, we were asked to develop an overall strategy to increase Canada's biomanufacturing capacity. Third, we advised the government on other biomanufacturing matters related to securing COVID vaccines and therapeutics for Canadians, including efforts to attract international vaccine candidates to manufacture some of their vaccines in Canada.

We began meeting on June 23 of last year and now the subcommittee has met 22 times, for a combined total of about 55 hours.

In recommending biomanufacturing proposals, we considered criteria such as demonstrable experience with manufacturing; production planning, readiness and flexibility; manufacturing facility readiness; solid management and project risk management capabilities; and the potential to contribute to developing Canada's vaccine R and D sector.

As with the domestic and international vaccine candidates, we also invited experts from outside of Canada to learn about the ways that other countries, particularly the U.S. and the U.K., have built capacity or plan to do so.

The joint biomanufacturing subcommittee identified early on that strengthening Canada's biomanufacturing capacity is a key element of our COVID-19 response. Our advice in this area has included recommendations on critical, immediate investments to respond to COVID-19, and on a series of medium- to longer-term measures that aim to protect the health of Canadians when faced with future pandemics, while also promoting economic growth.

We reviewed 21 domestic projects, which were for the most part biomanufacturing projects for either vaccines or therapeutics.

It's a pleasure to be with you today, and we look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to our rounds of questions.

We will start with MP Baldinelli.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today.

I just want to follow up on some of the comments that were made and find out specifically, in terms of the task force's responsibilities, about the data and the research that led them to recommend to the government certain vaccines, rather than others.

[Dr. Joanne Langley]

I could start on that, Madam Chair.

As we looked at the candidates from a vaccine point of view, there are some vaccine platforms that have been used in programs since the 1950s when we started to roll out public health programs, so we would have a lot more experience and knowledge about their technical ability to be ramped up and their safety in big populations, for example, pertussis vaccine or influenza vaccine.

During this pandemic we had some very novel platforms, particularly the mRNAs.What we did was look across the entire science of how you evaluate a vaccine: its immune response; the pre-clinical studies, that is the studies in animals; any toxicology studies; any evidence in humans; and then all those technical aspects of biomanufacturing that Mark has mentioned, to come to a decision and looking at it from all the aspects that we mentioned.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you for that.

During your comments, you had mentioned that you were looking at the most recent evidence, including literature reviews and meeting with companies and international experts.

I talk about that because, as you're aware, we're hearing from stakeholders and you're seeing the stories in the media about perceived conflicts of interest with regard to membership within the task force.

How does the task force go about ensuring that its recommendations were not biased by the professional interests of any of its members?

[Dr. Joanne Langley]

We had a process in place whereby potential interests were categorized under nine categories, then the impacts of those potential interests were considered by the secretariat.

We were overly disclosing any potential interest. Normally you would disclose something involving an interest within the preceding three years. We disclosed things going back 20 or 25 years, just because we were so aware that the integrity of this process ultimately had to do with Canadian citizens' confidence in the process. We wanted to bend over backwards to make sure everything was made clear. Those interests are all disclosed, and those people would leave the meeting.

I guess ultimately the letter to ministers—every letter of recommendation from the task force—goes dually to ISED and the Minister of Health, to Minister Hajdu and currently Minister Champagne, and they make the ultimate decision. We're giving our best advice, but we are not ultimately making the decision. They are aware of any disclosures we make.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You mentioned disclosures. Were there recusals of members because of these?

[Dr. Joanne Langley]

Yes, there were. There were, I think, 29 or 30 instances in which people recused themselves.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I want to go to the timeline with regard to the acquisition of the vaccines here in Canada. We can go back to May, when the National Research Council entered into the agreement with CanSino. On May 12 the NRC publicly announced the deal; on May 16 the Prime Minister then commented on it. Three days later was when the government became aware that the candidate doses were being held back in China, and that wasn't disclosed to the public until July of that year. Subsequently, in August, the government announced its new agreements with Moderna and Pfizer.

Your establishment took place in June. What information was presented to you by the National Research Council or by the government to assist? Were there other candidates that the government had considered at the time or wanted you to proceed to look at before you went ahead with your recommendations to the government on those two vaccines?

It seems to me that we lost those three critical months; that instead of having another recommendation available, you were just starting from scratch.

[Dr. Joanne Langley]

I would say that we looked at all the international candidates on the same shelf. CanSino was one of those international candidates. We were hoping for a domestic candidate and we very much placed equal emphasis on all the domestic candidates, but ultimately our goal was a safe and effective vaccine.

CanSino was thus one of the international candidates, and it was not given preference in any way, I would say.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

To follow up on your mention of Canadian firms, how many Canadian-made vaccine production options came forward for your consideration?

[Dr. Joanne Langley]

There were at least 24 SIF proposals, but there were other ways that support could be accessed.

Mark?

[Mark Lievonen]

Yes, there were various Canadian proposals at various stages of development.

Just to reiterate one of Joanne's points, all of these were done in parallel. It wasn't a case of looking at CanSino and then waiting to look at others. We looked at the international candidates and the domestic candidates at the same time and we reviewed all of them carefully in view of whatever stage of development they were at.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Our next round of questions goes to MP Erskine-Smith.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I first want to say that I very much appreciate your volunteer efforts in the course of this crisis to help us get through it.

Like many Canadians, I have family in the United States and I have family in the United Kingdom. There is recent news that the United Kingdom has vaccinated 15 million people. Largely, they have been successful in that rollout, from what I can tell, because of AstraZeneca.

I have a few questions going forward, but I first want to spend a little bit of time looking back.

When we look at AstraZeneca in particular, they seem to have had a great head start in their research. The U.K. entered into an agreement with them at the end of April, and I'm curious about what the exploration process was. We've heard some testimony related to how the NRC could have produced AstraZeneca's vaccine and has produced similar vaccines previously. I'm wondering what the exploration was of that opportunity—licensing AstraZeneca and building at the NRC.

[Dr. Joanne Langley]

Every possible candidate was explored, and AstraZeneca was one of them. Our current option is to get it through COVAX.

Perhaps Mark or Roger could speak further to the AstraZeneca option.

[Mark Lievonen]

I would comment that AstraZeneca, as you know, is one of the seven vaccines we recommended. In terms of being able to get it to Canada as quickly as possible, it was deemed that would be best through providing it from other countries. There is always the possibility to look at manufacturing vaccines in Canada, but across the board, the shortest time frame for bringing it into Canada was through importing it from other countries.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I have a follow-up question.

I'm a layperson and I respect your expertise. When I look at the Novavax deal, though, I'm thankful we're going to be producing vaccine and building up that domestic supply, but in terms of that timeline from announcement to manufacturing processes being up and running, is it possible that had we in July said we're going to license AstraZeneca, we're going to move it to the NRC, we're going to copy what the U.K. has done effectively in some respects, we would have that supply, say, today? Do you think it's possible?

[Mark Lievonen]

Vaccine manufacturing is very complex and it takes time. To think that one could announce a concept to do that and actually sign a licensing deal, do the technology transfer, bring it here, and have it up and running faster than when we expect to receive it, I don't think that would have been possible.

The time frames we're operating under are extremely tight. Before, the shortest period to develop a vaccine and commercialize was four to five years. Typically, it takes 10 to 15 years. To think that this is being done within a year is truly remarkable.

If you think about where we were a year ago, and to have vaccines being delivered, and including plans for the AstraZeneca vaccine if it is licensed, when it is licensed, to be coming forth in the second quarter is a pretty remarkable achievement. I don't think we could have done it faster with any type of licensing in or tech transfer agreements.

Licensing in, tech transfer and Canadian production all make sense to pursue, particularly in the medium term, but they would not be part of the solution for 2021.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Again, I'm certain there's a good answer, but why pursue with Novavax and not, say, AstraZeneca, where we know AstraZeneca is already now approved by the EU, by the WHO and by the U.K.? I expect Novavax will be successful; I hope it will be successful, but why not pursue through NRC, in the medium term, as you say, a proven vaccine?

[Mark Lievonen]

My understanding is that the Government of Canada has spoken with all the companies to see who might be interested in manufacturing in Canada. It would seem to be that Novavax was a company that wanted to do that.

Again, it's unprecedented to make billions of doses of vaccines in a very short period of time. If you look at worldwide supply and capacity for these vaccines, typically the constraint is the drug substance, the bulk manufacturing, fill and finish or formulating it and converting it into drug product. That is the bottleneck, so to start with looking at how you can have fill and finish capabilities and then transfer bulk manufacturing into Canada certainly is a way to go to fortify us for the intermediate and the longer term.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

My last question is in relation to that medium term.

Novavax seems to be a medium-term goal, to have domestic manufacturing capacity up and running. We will hopefully have all Canadians vaccinated by then, but there are obviously considerations as it relates to variants; and we should contribute to the global supply as well, because it is obviously a global challenge.

When we look at mRNA technology, at least with the science we have to date, that mRNA technology seems to be better suited to respond to the variants. Who knows? That could change.

We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on supporting Canadians, individuals and businesses, through this pandemic. Should we not be spending a significant amount to build out mRNA capacity here in Canada?