Evidence of meeting #20 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was covid-19.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado
Thank you very much.
That ends our second round. Before we start our third round, I'd like to thank Dr. Nemer.
Dr. Nemer, thank you for being with us and for extending your time with us today. Your testimony has been very helpful. Thank you so much for what you're doing to assist us in this pandemic.
With that, I'll start the third round. We should be able to get through the third round so everyone can get a slot.
We will start with MP Dreeshen for five minutes.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Of course, I just heard this story that the starting line doesn't matter much. It does matter. With the $30 billion of debt each month we are going through right now, job losses, businesses going under, the starting line does matter. I think that's one of the reasons we're 58th in the world, instead of where we normally would be, which is probably in the top 10. That's where Canada has been in the past.
We also know we can't ramp up development of our own Canadian vaccines in time. We should have been aggressively procuring vaccines last spring. There has to be a reason we're so far down the line. Can someone explain to me why the government seems to be so comforted that they've made all these deals to procure hundreds of millions of doses by next year? If we need these many for a future date, why aren't we relying on our own new domestic supply to produce them? If it looks as though we can produce a bunch in the next little while, why are we continuing to talk so comfortingly about that?
I have a final question before I give the floor to Mr. Baldinelli. What is the shelf life of each of these vaccines we have, and perhaps only those that we are producing or looking to be produced here in Canada?
I'm not sure who would like to jump in on that, but could there be a little discussion on those things?
Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
I fully agree with you. The start line does matter, because the faster and sooner we go, the faster we get to the end.
I somewhat disagree that it takes years and years. We have seen great innovation and great realization across the world. In Canada, I think we can do the same. I think that colleagues all across Canada are up to the task.
I fully agree with you.
Chairman, Precision NanoSystems
I agree that the start line matters, as does how quickly you get up to speed. The finish line, of course, also matters, but the combination of changes of behaviour, availability of rapid diagnostics, availability of therapeutics and availability of vaccines are all very important tools. We need to use all of them. It's not one or the other; we need a combination of all those tools together.
I would say that in Canada the approval of these vaccines and the therapeutics absolutely has to happen more quickly, and not only the federal approval, and also the use of them in being drawn down by the provinces. We have antibody-based therapeutics approved by Health Canada that are not being deployed and not being used by the provinces. I know that the therapeutics task force also has opinions on that. They believe that they are being underutilized and that they definitely need to be rolled out as quickly as possible.
Concerning the shelf life of these vaccines, they're very stable, although I'll pass it over to James, who's more of a technical expert on that subject.
Chief Executive Officer, Precision NanoSystems
Thank you very much.
The stability is not, I think, going to be the limiting factor. Using up supply will be the limiting factor for these vaccines at this point in time.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you very much.
I'll yield the rest of my time to Mr. Baldinelli.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to go to the witnesses from McMaster University and quickly ask a question.
As we know, some of the variants of COVID-19 have drastically reduced the effectiveness of some of the vaccines. Is McMaster playing a role in researching this, and could it produce booster vaccines as we move into the future?
Associate Professor, McMaster University, As an Individual
I'll take that one.
The answer is yes, we're working on this. As was pointed out earlier, neutralizing antibodies are very important, but they are what the variants are likely to escape. We and others are designing vaccines that induce cellular immunity against more highly conserved portions of the virus. It remains to be seen whether that leads to a level of protection that at least keeps people out of the hospital or prevents or reduces extensive spread.
We're addressing these questions right now in animal models at our facility. Boosting existing vaccines or treating people with pre-existing immunity is the goal of our clinical trial.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado
Thank you very much.
Our next round of questions goes to MP Erskine-Smith.
You have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks very much.
Mr. Kobinger, I want to take time with you, because you have said today that you speak directly. You have been critical in some ways, but you have a great expertise.
I read an article recently in the National Post. It's a common talking point that I've heard at times from constituents who are quite frustrated in relation to CanSino, that it distracted from other efforts. We heard from the Public Health Agency of Canada that the investments in Medicago and in the Saskatchewan facility actually predated the work with CanSino.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are. Do you think it was a distraction or was it one among many efforts? Was it a worthwhile effort at the time?
February 25th, 2021 / 12:40 p.m.
Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
I think what's a bit alarming right now is the different narratives about CanSino and how it really came to be a project. We just heard from Dr. Nemer that it was a research project. I would challenge that. The first written recommendation I saw from the task force was about CanSino. I remember it vividly, because my first reflex was to think that we had not discussed CanSino, as we had the other one, wherein we had an exchange with the company.
I didn't know where this recommendation came from. Honestly, it was in writing to the government and then this same recommendation was turned around 180 degrees—to not recommending the CanSino—after the doses couldn't be obtained.
I don't know. Was this CanSino issue a distraction? I think so. Was it scientifically sound? I don't think so at all.
Canada, by the way, was the only western country to identify that vaccine as a possible candidate.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
On that point, maybe criticism is warranted in relation to pursuing it at all, but when I read the history, the suggestion is that we put all our eggs in one basket and that because we invested in this we weren't cutting deals with other companies or investing in other companies.
Is that a fair assessment?
Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
No, I don't think that.
I think that the federal government can do more than one thing at a time. Actually, this is why I believe that signing contracts with big pharma was the right thing to do, and at the same time to prioritize innovation and production of vaccine within our borders was also a priority—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Pause on that, because I completely agree with that.
The other frustration I have with this National Post article, as I was going back and forth, is with those concerns about the lack of progress in some ways here in Canada. It held out the prospect of Providence as a real solution.
I think we're right to invest for the medium term in Providence and mRNA here in Canada, but credibly, you're the expert. If we'd invested in Providence, is there any likelihood that vaccine would have been online to help Canadians in the course of the pandemic in the short term?
Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
I don't know enough about their capacity honestly, but I do believe that at least two platforms, maybe three, in Canada could have been online by now, if there would have been the right amount of support behind them.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Is one of those AstraZeneca? When I look at the could have, should have, would have, at what could have happened with the benefit of hindsight, but I am an entire novice, I look at a deal cut with the U.K. at the end of April in terms of an investment into partnership with Oxford and AstraZeneca....
Is that something you think could have been pursued more seriously in partnership with the NRC or otherwise?
Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
Yes, maybe as one additional, but I think the colleagues from McMaster have a very good capacity there, and I think with support from the beginning, they could have done miracles honestly. Others in Canada could have, as well, which are the other two I have in mind.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
We are where we are now, and clearly the portfolio approach in the short term, and the build-out of domestic capacity in the medium term has been the overwhelming recommendation. We heard it from the co-chairs of the vaccine task force when they attended.
What recommendations would you have for this committee on a go-forward basis? It's not to criticize what's come before, but what recommendations should we be making to government to make sure we are putting ourselves on the firmest footing going forward?
Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
As I said, I think there should be an advisory board that is independent of the government, irrespective of which government. Of course, we are in this discussion and we sense there is a little bit of partisanship at play. I guess it's normal in your line of work, but I think Canadians also expect that people will work together to find solutions.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I appreciate that.
I would just note that some commentators say that the U.K. task force did a much better job in some ways. However, I would note that there is a very strong connection between the chair of that task force and one of the government ministers in the U.K. There are the same concerns that were raised initially and yet they did a very good job. So, some of these concerns don't actually preclude a task force from doing an excellent job in the end.
Thanks for your time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado
Thank you very much.
We now go to Mr. Lemire for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question is for Mr. Kobinger.
When you were answering my fellow member M. Généreux's questions, you brought up conflicts of interest. Can you tell us a bit more about how the task force handles conflicts of interest, and would you say the process is satisfactory?
I'd especially like to hear about mechanisms you think could be put in place to ensure the task force's transparency vis-à-vis its members and elected officials.
Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual
I guess it's a matter of opinion. I think the members of an advisory committee should have to disclose any conflicts of interest, which should then be scrutinized by an independent committee. We all have connections here and there and everywhere, so we all have conflicts of interest to some extent, even if they just relate to our kids. What's important is the process to address those conflicts of interest.
As I mentioned, the fact that the task force members would not publicly disclose their conflicts of interest on the pretense that they were volunteering their time was a big problem for me. The fact that they claimed not to have any conflict of interest when they were shareholders in the pharmaceutical companies was also a big problem for me.
How do you solve that problem? By being transparent and, by extension, accountable. As you can clearly see from the meeting minutes, I suggested having a member of the media at every meeting or, at the very least, recording the meetings. I even suggested letting any Canadian call in to listen to the meeting. The idea wasn't to let them participate; otherwise it would never end. It was simply to add a layer of transparency. That's paramount, especially when you're dealing with vaccination.