Industry Committee on Dec. 1st, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting eight of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of September 23. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. As usual, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entire committee. As we do not have any witnesses today, I will not go over all of the usual rules to follow. However, I will ask members to raise their hand to get on the order of speaking. The committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain the order of speaking for all members, whether you are participating virtually or in person.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting today to consider the request of four members to undertake a study of the domestic manufacturing capacity for a COVID-19 vaccine.

With that, I will turn the floor over to MP Cumming, who has his hand up.

Mr. Cumming, you have the floor.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Good morning to my fellow committee members.

You have all received the motion that I will be putting forward. I do respect the work of this committee and the work the committee is currently on. However, in my mind, with my colleagues who signed the letter, we have a significant issue in front of us regarding the domestic production of vaccines. Earlier in the year, it was announced that Canada would have a production capability of up to 70,000 to 100,000 doses per month. We've seen that the U.K. has already started with making appointments. Here in Canada we still don't know when vaccines will be supplied, when they'll they'll be stored, and when they'll be distributed.

On November 20, Health officials confirmed that Canada did not negotiate the right to domestically produce vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca, implying that even if Canada developed the capacity to produce vaccines, we're putting Canadians at the mercy of international production. This is a very significant issue for Canada, because without a vaccine and without rapid testing, it will be very difficult to see our economy return. It's been 11 months, and thousands of jobs have been lost. We've spent billions of dollars. We've accumulated, as we saw from the economic update, significant debt.

Although we have supported many of the programs that have been put forward, we do think the ability for Canada to access vaccines and to have the ability to produce vaccines is critical for the economic recovery for the country.

My motion is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology commence a study on the emergency situation involving the domestic manufacturing capacity for a COVID-19 vaccine; That this study examine the May 12, 2020, announcement by the Government of Canada regarding $44-million to refit a National Research Council facility in Montreal for the purposes of the production of a vaccine in collaboration with CanSino Biologics, and review and examine all related issues, including: (a) the investment of $44-million into the facility and the necessary upgrades to space, technology, equipment and personnel that would need to be made as a result, (b) the potential impact of this initial announcement on the government's plans to procure other vaccines, (c) the facility's prior capacity to manufacture vaccines, including past delivery orders and schedules, and (d) the dissolution of the announced partnership between the National Research Council and CanSino Biologics on August 26, 2020, and its impact on the planned upgrades to the facility; and That, in order to fully study this emergency situation, the Committee invite the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the President of the Public Health Agency of Canada, each to appear separately before the committee for at least three hours, provided that (a) in respect of each of the ministers who does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to accept this invitation for the length of time prescribed, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his or her appearance from time to time, and (b) in respect of the President of the Public Health Agency of Canada, if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to accept this invitation for the length of time prescribed, a summons do issue for his appearance before the Committee at a date and time determined by the Chair but no later than three weeks following the adoption of this motion.

Madam Chair, that is my motion. I do think this is a critical issue for Canadians and a critical issue for this committee to be able to study and to be able to get answers for Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, MP Cumming.

We already have two hands up on the speakers list. If you'd like to speak to this motion, either use the participant “raise hand” or raise your hand and I'll put you on the list. If you're in the room, I can't see you, so please make sure the clerk sees you and he'll flag that to me.

I will turn now to MP Jaczek. Go ahead.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our Conservative colleagues for bringing the issue forward. It certainly is one of great interest to me. Going back in time, when I was in medical school—and this goes back to the seventies—the Connaught laboratories were such a pride for Canada. Their role in the production of so many products—insulin being the most well known probably, but also on the immunization front—was really critical in providing some very essential pharmaceutical products not only to Canadians, but globally as well.

I also remember in the eighties when I was doing my master's in public health, there was a great deal of conversation on the part of public health officials in terms of what was then the privatization move. In other words, it was selling what was then an organization within the Canada Development Corporation to be transferred to private ownership. Certainly, public health officials at the time were extremely distressed by this particular move.

What I'm getting at is that this issue has a long history in Canada. I think the intent of the motion is obviously to look forward to see what we can possibly do to encourage domestic manufacture. My colleagues may remember that I in fact did question Minister Navdeep Bains on the subject at a previous meeting of this committee.

I would like to propose a broadening of the motion. I would ask MP Cumming if he would find it acceptable to add a paragraph (e) under (d), with add the words, “the evolution of Canada's domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity”.

In other words, it's to look a little more broadly at why we are where we are now, and with the overall intent, I assume, that we can move forward and make strong recommendations for the future.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much.

We have an amendment on the floor.

If you'd like to speak to the amendment, I have MP Lambropoulos and MP Masse next on the speakers list, and I see MP Erskine-Smith. I will turn it over to MP Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mine's on the actual motion, not the amendment. I'm good with the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you.

MP Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm good with the amendment, too. Mine's on the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Erskine-Smith.

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

I have an additional amendment, but let's deal with this one first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Is there any other debate on that amendment?

The amendment is to add a paragraph a new paragraph (e), “the evolution of Canada's domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity”.

Is there any debate on that amendment?

MP Erskine-Smith.

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

To the point about where we go forward, “the evolution of Canada's domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity” is good, in that it takes us to where we are and why we are here today.

My interest would be would to look at the steps that Canada can and should take to restore its domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity. Would that be encapsulated by it, or would it make sense to say, “the evolution of Canada's domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity, including the steps Canada can and should take to restore it”? I don't know if that would be a friendly amendment, but I think we should drive a forward-looking question as much as anything.

How do we restore this capacity, so that we don't again find ourselves in the position we're in today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Are you proposing a subamendment?

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

I don't know if it's necessary or if Helena is amenable to that. I think we should consider not only the evolution, but also something forward-looking as a useful addition to it. I'm pretty open to the way we go about doing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

MP Erskine-Smith, could you give us some exact wording that you would like to add to this, just because I want to make sure it's clear to everyone.

MP Dreeshen, I see you and I'll add you to the list.

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

After “the evolution of Canada's domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity”, I would add, “and the steps Canada can and should take to address it”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Perfect.

We have a subamendment on the floor.

MP Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

What is happening right now is that we have to look at exactly the case of today; we can go back into history, if one wishes.

I understand where the Liberals are at this particular point in time. They believe they might be able to find a point in time at which they can blame Harper, but quite frankly, this goes back 20 years, with the issues and problems that existed.

This is not something we need a history lesson on. What we need to do is look at what is happening at this particular point in time. We've had five years in which many different changes have taken place that have put us in a very negative position.

I remember listening last night to Moderna speaking about how they will be able to get us to the front of a particular line in making some of these vaccines available to us. Any major company is going to talk nicely about where the government has been, but quite frankly, I heard from those discussions that we're going to have to depend on other countries.

It's a situation in which we have to look at where we are right now: we have so many great companies that have fallen by the wayside. I think it's important for us to get at this right away and talk about today's issue, not go back 20 or 30 years to try to get a history lesson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you, MP Dreeshen.

I have MP Jaczek, MP Cumming and MP Ehsassi on the speakers list.

MP Jaczek.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly welcome MP Erskine-Smith's subamendment. History is obviously very instructive. Notwithstanding MP Dreeshen's comments, I think we can learn from history. It doesn't need to be in-depth in terms of what has happened previously, but it could be very instructive for the way forward, which is part of MP Erskine-Smith's subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you.

Next I have MP Cumming.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you for the interest in the amendments.

Really, the issue in front of us and the reason this motion was prescribed in the way it was is that we have a crisis in front of us. I don't disagree that we may want to do further study of Canada's capacity, or of the direction it would go in, but this is really a crisis that we're in today.

The intent of this motion was to deal with the now and the specifics now of getting us through this health and economic crisis. Certainly, over a period of time, we could produce another study related to this entire industry.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Next we have MP Ehsassi, and then MP Lambropoulos.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, allow me to start by saying I think it's very timely that we consider this motion. It is imperative that Canadians have a good sense of how our country is doing and how we will be faring in the coming months, so this is very welcome.

What I do not agree with is the member characterizing this as Moderna's simply saying that they will push us to the front of the line. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our government has been working on this issue for quite a few months. They have negotiated all these agreements.

It's not, then, about a spokesperson for any manufacturer pretending they can do us any favours. This is a reflection of how hard our government has been working on this.

Secondly, insofar as history is concerned, I think Canadians are entitled to know why we find ourselves in the situation we currently find ourselves in. Our job as legislators is to present the facts to Canadians and allow them on their own to decide whether our government has been doing a good and robust job or not. It's not a question of history; it's about putting things in context for Canadians so that they have timely information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sherry Romanado]

Thank you very much, MP Ehsassi.

Next we have MP Lambropoulos and MP Masse.