Evidence of meeting #23 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was countries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Are you saying, just to be clear, that we wouldn't even know, if a vaccine shipment was rejected. It's not something that would really be publicized or that we would even know about. It would just happen and we wouldn't know the rationale behind it?
2:40 p.m.
Professor, University of St. Gallen, As an Individual
That's one point. The second point is that we wouldn't even know about cases in which a vaccine manufacturer in Europe didn't ask for authorization because they anticipated denial of the application. That we wouldn't even know, either. That's exactly why the system the European Union has at the moment is non-transparent.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Part of the concern is that we don't know what the content of the different contracts is, so we wouldn't know what would be expected and what the different authorizations and what the different contracts would be to fulfill, because there hasn't been any transparency here.
What you're saying, then, is that because we haven't had any transparency with the contracts, we wouldn't know what has been approved. We wouldn't even know what issues there are, because there hasn't been any transparency along the way.
Is that a fair assessment?
2:40 p.m.
Professor, University of St. Gallen, As an Individual
There's plenty of non-transparency, both in the contracting process and the export authorization process. I would say, however, that in preparing for today's session I looked on the Government of Canada's website and they have clear schedules for delivery. I'm assuming that those schedules of delivery were informed by the contracts that Canada has signed. One could, then, essentially match up those forecasted delivery dates with what Canada actually receives and then identify whether or not there was in fact a delay.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Ms. Gray.
We go on to Mr. Arya for five minutes, please.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Madam Chair, I'm really concerned, when the representatives of the global industry start facilitating partisan political attacks. Complaining about not getting a meeting is more on a matter of style than of substance.
Mr. Lipkus, I have a question for you. You mentioned TRIPS article 8, article 31 and article 6, and you also mentioned amendments made in 2003 such that there are flexibilities available. If I understand you right, there's no need for any knee-jerk reaction to battle the current pandemic by going for changes to the TRIPS. Am I correct?
2:45 p.m.
Past Board Member, Intellectual Property Lawyer and Patent Agent, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
The way I see it is that there are the current flexibilities on one end of the spectrum, and a waiver is basically saying, let's completely do away with copyright, patents, industrial designs and trade secrets, which is a very big carve-out from TRIPS.
The existing flexibilities may work, if potential manufacturers who meet all of the capacity requirements are able to comply with those flexibilities: if they are able to identify the need, understand exactly what they are going to need to make and ensure that they take all the steps needed to ensure that those vaccines are properly identified and not re-exported anywhere else. If they meet the TRIPS requirements and are able to do these things, then the TRIPS flexibility is enough.
If, on the other hand—
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Thank you, Mr. Lipkus.
Madam Chair, I would like to give my remaining time to my colleague Rachel Bendayan.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, colleague.
Madam Chair, with your permission, I would like to ask Mr. Evenett a few questions following his discussion with Ms. Gray, because it is an issue near and dear to me and one that I'm working on quite carefully with the Minister of International Trade.
Mr. Evenett, as you pointed out, there is a schedule online for all Canadians to see as to when our expected deliveries are to arrive. I see that you're nodding in agreement. I think that is an important point to be made, because we do know whether or not a shipment comes in based on that schedule, of course, and the history of these last few months since the export controls were introduced shows us that not a single one of our shipments was refused or delayed for export authorization purposes.
I understand, of course, your concern, but do you agree that we would know if a contractor or manufacturer was not even asking for an export authorization? We have the dates in front of us.
2:45 p.m.
Professor, University of St. Gallen, As an Individual
Presumably the Government of Canada must know what it contracted for and what lands in Canadian airports.
2:45 p.m.
Professor, University of St. Gallen, As an Individual
I think that's pretty clear.
The chilling effect argument that I made earlier is one that we have seen within Europe. It may not yet have applied to exports to Canada, but then your colleague was asking me about risks, not necessarily about definitive outcomes.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Correct, and we have been successful in ensuring that all Canadian shipments did receive export authorizations, and we have numerous assurances from the European Union that it would continue to be the case.
We have seen only one export authorization refused, and that was to Australia for AstraZeneca, which is really the target of these export restrictions when you parse things out and really look into the details.
Would you agree with that?
2:45 p.m.
Professor, University of St. Gallen, As an Individual
As a statement of fact, you're correct.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Evenett.
I would like to go back to an earlier discussion. I believe it was involving Ms. Fralick with respect to our investments in research and development and the life sciences sector over the last many decades, as I believe you mentioned.
I understand. I have a few statistics here that we cut research and development investments at the federal level quite significantly between 2014 and 2017, and even earlier than that in comparison to other OECD countries.
Do you think that the cuts to research and development and to life sciences in Canada made during those early years, thinking primarily, of course, of 2007 to 2011, which I believe had the highest number of cuts, impacted the industry and our ability to grow the industry?
2:50 p.m.
President, Innovative Medicines Canada
A simple answer is yes. Certainly, it is a signal among many that shows that the life sciences sector writ large has not been embraced as a strong industry with potential to help Canada's economy and health.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Ms. Fralick.
I'm sorry, Ms. Bendayan. I will try to see if there's still time at the end.
We go on to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for two and a half minutes, please.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
According to a November 13, 2020, Reuters article, Canada's reliance on supply contracts to obtain COVID-19 vaccines from drug manufacturers like Pfizer has put the daily lives of Canadians and the economic outlook for the coming year in the hands of a few foreign companies facing overwhelming global demand.
The article also adds that while other governments spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on vaccine development, Canada has spent $1 billion buying vaccine doses from abroad.
How accurate is this article?
The question is for whoever wishes to answer it.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
President, Innovative Medicines Canada
I will jump in, and perhaps my colleague or Professor Everett would like to.
I don't have the global comparison, but I have been stating this all along, that investments in and in support of the life sciences sector and the innovative medicines industry have not been strong in Canada.
I would like to add, because I haven't had a chance to do so, that what we have seen in the last few months, the outreach from the current government to this industry, has been remarkable. To me, it's such a good news story for Canada of what can be. I can't help but think of what we might have left on the table in previous years and what might be ahead of us, so there is an optimism for me that the government will start embracing this industry and appreciate, not just that it's a cost centre in their eyes but a value centre as well.
We look forward to what the government will do going forward.
2:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Legal, Regulatory Affairs and Compliance, Innovative Medicines Canada
I would add that Canada, obviously, is a federation, and a successful life sciences strategy and policy involves the provincial governments, notably Quebec and Ontario. The governments of Ontario and Quebec—Premier Legault's and Premier Ford's governments—are actually already there. They understand the importance of the life sciences and they are willing to get on board and do things differently in the future.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much. You time is up, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.
We'll go on to Mr. Blaikie for two and a half minutes.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you.
We've heard a number of our witnesses today talk about the importance of certainty for investment in the pharmaceutical industry. I think it's beyond dispute that the pharmaceutical industry has done a very good job globally of creating an intellectual property regime that provides a lot of certainty and price protection for their industry.
I find it hard to believe that a targeted and temporary TRIPS waiver in respect of a COVID-19 vaccine could really jeopardize that larger context of certainty. Certainly it couldn't have interrupted any medium- or long-term investment that the industry was engaged in prior to the pandemic, because nobody really saw this coming. We are in uncertain times. Everybody is living through uncertainty. There have been massive risk-mitigating investments by the public sector in respect of most of the vaccines that are out there. I'll say for the sake of the record that I think it's perfectly appropriate to provide some relief from the usual regime for the purpose of expanding global supply, even if this is only one component of what needs to be done to realize that expansion.
When it comes to the kind of statement that can be made at the World Trade Organization by implementing the waiver, one of the things we heard from Ms. Silverman is that there are still bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that could represent barriers to some countries in benefiting from a TRIPS waiver.
Is it not also the case, Ms. Silverman, that having an understanding at the WTO might help countries seeking further exemptions under bilateral or multilateral trade agreements to get those exemptions? Might it not be of greater benefit to start at the WTO and work our way through those agreements rather than to have countries fighting on all fronts without any kind of international consensus or decision they can point to?
2:55 p.m.
Policy Fellow, Center for Global Development
Thank you for the question.
It's a bit complicated. On the one hand, I think you're right. If this measure was adopted at the WTO, it would certainly be a signal of support from the underlying member states of the WTO that are engaged in the bilateral and multilateral trade deals that would otherwise apply. Their support would be a signal that they are looking to be more flexible. That signal can be sent in other ways. This is only one of many ways. I agree it would be a signal.
I think the thing that's complicated here is that.... Again, it is my view that the waiver itself does not have much practical value but a campaign around the waiver, the threat of the waiver and the threat of compulsory licensing can motivate good behaviour. In a way, if you actually adopt the waiver, you're then removing that leverage point to some degree. You can have pharma companies saying, “Why should we make the effort to do this? You adopted the waiver. You go do it.”
I think the dynamics there are complicated. It's a leverage point because pharma sees it as a very negative precedent and a source of uncertainty not really related to this particular pandemic but related to the future of the entire industry.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Ms. Silverman.
We'll go on to Mr. Lobb, please, for five minutes.