That is correct.
Evidence of meeting #24 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.
Evidence of meeting #24 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.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
What's your expected approval date if all goes well in your phase II trials?
11:50 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Providence Therapeutics
We need phase II and phase III in order to receive emergency use authorization. We went to Health Canada seeking a combined phase II-phase III trial, and Health Canada felt that it would be more appropriate for us to split those trials into discrete trials. That has the effect of extending the program by about three months.
We were hoping to have an approved vaccine in October or November. I would expect that our vaccine will now be approved in January or February 2022.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Then currently the vaccine is not approved. You're still hoping to have it approved. We're obviously optimistic that we can get some Canadian-made vaccine, and yours is very promising. However, as of now, is it correct to say that it's not approved and you're expecting approval at the end of the year or in early 2022?
11:50 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Providence Therapeutics
That is correct.
If we wait until approval to start manufacturing, given the lead times for manufacturing, we need to start now if we want to have doses ready when approval is obtained.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you.
My next question is to Mr. Daley. You said hybrid solutions are probably the best in terms of creating regional supply chains, as well as using existing trade agreements. Will trade agreements on their own protect us?
What we've noticed in pandemics is that despite having trade agreements, governments sometimes hijack PPE right off the tarmac. In other places, we've seen domestic interest and NIMBYism occur where nobody wants to have their vaccines leave.
Do you think trade agreements on their own will be able to protect us in the future, or do we need to create domestic production so that licensed products can be made here even if the patent and the product are owned elsewhere?
11:50 a.m.
Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, As an Individual
I don't think trade agreements are ever going to protect us in every conceivable situation. As we've seen in emergencies, countries, like individuals, look out for their best interests, and they're always going to do so. Nonetheless, I believe a regional idea allows us to rely more heavily on people with whom we have long-term and trusted relations so that those types of problems are less likely to arise in the future.
We see, and have seen in the past year, that a lot of our supplies come from countries with whom we do not have very good relations and with whom those relations are deteriorating. I think the regional model would minimize some of the risks, but you can never eliminate all of them.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
What would be the best solution for that? Is it to have more production facilities and R and D here?
As you can see, you can't always bet that a Canadian manufacturer will come up with the solution. You have to hedge your bets everywhere. As you said earlier, Canada had the largest procurement, but we had to cross the globe to secure enough doses for Canada, and that might be the case in the future as well.
What is the best way to maintain a secure supply chain for Canada?
11:55 a.m.
Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, As an Individual
I think you're right that we have to increase our domestic capacity. There's no doubt about that. That's the lesson we've learned in the last year. We've seen some of the weaknesses of allowing a widely dispersed global supply chain.
That said, as I mentioned in my presentation, the whole world of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and vaccines is too vast and too complex for even very large countries to manage on their own. It's simply not possible for Canada to be completely self-sufficient in every possible medical device or pharmaceutical that we might ever need.
Increasing domestic capacity, encouraging research and development and encouraging innovative Canadian companies is a great idea, and I think it's something we should do, but we're never going to be completely self-sufficient.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Thank you.
My next question is for you, Mr. Agnew. I know you've said that you're more from the commerce side of things and not the research side, but I understand that the economic recovery is dependent on mass vaccinations. How do you think the additional eight million Pfizer doses this government recently secured are going to help speed up economic recovery and support Canadian businesses?
11:55 a.m.
Vice-President, Policy and International, Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Well, I suppose it's ultimately up to the provinces to get them into arms quickly, and certainly anything that gets more vaccines into the country helps, but we do need to have better underlying infrastructure to get the vaccines into folks. One of the things that we think would help, for example, is prioritizing essential workers for the receiving of vaccines. More supplies help, but you then have to distribute them once they're in the country.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Sarai.
We'll go on to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for six minutes.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Chair, there were some sound issues earlier, but the technical team didn't call me to check on this matter.
Can you confirm that the sound is good and that you can hear me now?
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
I want to thank the witnesses for their presentation.
Mr. Gagnon, we used to have expertise in Quebec. We need only think of the Institut Armand-Frappier, which doesn't really seem to exist anymore. What happened and how can this help to show us that this isn't the way to go?
Over the past year, and even since the SARS crisis in 2003, we've missed many opportunities to develop our own expertise.
What hasn't been done, and what should we do from now on?
11:55 a.m.
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
You must understand that, for a long time in Canada, public vaccine manufacturing capacity was very high. There's a significant difference between public and private production capacity. In the case of public production capacity, the public authorities decide on the priorities for the use of its facilities. There's a great deal of talk here about intellectual property. There's a serious general issue when it comes to this matter. Intellectual property incentives don't always align with public health needs. Additional tools are needed to make the necessary products when intellectual property incentives aren't sufficient.
For a long time, there was Connaught Laboratories in Toronto. In Canada, this company was the hub of vaccine manufacturing. There was also the Institut Armand-Frappier, in the Quebec City area. Connaught Laboratories was sold to Sanofi. In terms of the Institut Armand-Frappier, there was a public-private partnership, which became IAF-Biochem Pharma. This company was subsequently sold to the Shire multinational company. Shire sold the parts end to end. The vaccine manufacturing facilities became the property of GlaxoSmithKline. The facilities still exist, but private companies now decide how they're used. The companies do so based on the priorities of their shareholders, not public health priorities.
When the Institut Armand-Frappier was privatized, the argument was simple: the public sector shouldn't step on the toes of private enterprise, against which there shouldn't be any unfair competition. However, this involved much-needed production capacity. More public production capacity is needed. Now, a type of comeback has been announced. The government announced $126 million for the National Research Council of Canada. However, a public-private investment of half a billion dollars has just been announced for Sanofi, which owns the Connaught Laboratories facility in Toronto. This agreement is still confidential and it isn't yet clear who can decide on the priorities for the use of these facilities. In my opinion, this situation is extremely troublesome.
I'll give you the example of another pandemic, the Ebola virus. Canada developed the Ebola vaccine in the public sector. Canada then did what it always does. It sold the licence to a private firm so that the firm could manufacture the vaccine. This firm did nothing for 10 years. It wasn't until the latest Ebola outbreak that suddenly panic arose. The licence was simply sold back to Merck so that Merck could make the vaccine.
Many people were very upset that a small company would purchase a public licence at a low price and sell it to a large company at a very high price. I, for one, was outraged that it took the deaths of 10,000 Ebola victims to get this vaccine, which we had developed ourselves, made. That's unacceptable. In these situations, the financial incentives for intellectual property don't meet the overall public health needs.
Noon
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you.
On the subject of intellectual property, industry representatives have told us that waivers from patents would be pointless, because the problem lies with the lack of production capacity and labour.
I gather you don't agree.
Noon
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, As an Individual
I do not agree in the slightest. Canada and other countries do have production capacity. It's a complex endeavour when it comes to vaccines. On top of that, vaccines in this case use messenger RNA technology, so things get even more complex. Even with the formula to manufacture the vaccine, a company would have a very hard time beginning production overnight. It would require co-operation; technological know-how would have to be shared.
The capacity to foster that transfer of know-how does not currently exist. Any attempt to co-operate, share information and allow the use of existing vaccine-making capacity, would likely meet with legal challenges under the TRIPS Agreement or intellectual property provisions. It is a serious problem.
Now, we have tools to increase production, stem the pandemic and ensure Canadian companies have access to a swifter economic recovery, but we are not using them under the pretext that intellectual property must be protected.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Professor. I'm sorry to interrupt.
Mr. Blaikie, you have six minutes, please.
Noon
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Gagnon, I'd like to give you an opportunity to finish what you were saying.
Noon
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, As an Individual
Thank you.
I wanted to point out that BioNTech developed the vaccine, and Pfizer went on to manufacture it. The University of Oxford developed the AstraZeneca vaccine. Initially, AstraZeneca was supposed to have a non-exclusive licence, but in the end, it became an exclusive licence. Moderna's vaccine was wholly funded by the public sector.
Now, it's being argued that the vaccines were developed thanks to the protection of intellectual property, but that is not true. There is a difference. Some big companies are raking in huge profits under the guise of intellectual property. It is in their financial interest to ensure that as little knowledge as possible is shared about the manufacturing of the vaccines. As long as they control the technology and expertise, they keep their profit margins, and that's unacceptable.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
We've also heard about differential pricing that does not necessarily reflect production or transportation costs, but we still do not have adequate publicly available information on the prices companies are charging for their vaccines.
Mr. Gagnon, how important do you think it is to have access to data on not just the technology and manufacturing of the vaccines, but also the profits being made?
It is extremely hard to determine how much private companies are acting in the public interest and in a transparent manner, something governments should do as well. Information on how much money is being made on the vaccines stays confidential, so it's hard to know just how much companies are benefiting financially from the public funds they received and from intellectual property protections, to turn profits that go undisclosed, all during a global pandemic.
12:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, As an Individual
Thank you for asking such a great question.
It's actually a huge problem right now, one that affects vaccines and patented drugs overall. Simply put, everything in the current marketplace is done under the table, through confidential agreements, and everyone is in on it. As an outside analyst looking in, I have no way of knowing who is paying what and under which terms. This is the new drug marketplace: everything is done under the table without a shred of transparency regarding who is doing what in relation to a product that is essential to public health.
Take the Moderna vaccine, for example. No private money went into developing the product, and yet Moderna is charging the most of all the vaccine makers. It even won the Shkreli Award for being the worst profiteer in health care.
Moderna's vaccine was funded first and foremost by the United States government, so it's to be expected that, under their confidential agreement, the company is charging the United States a very low price. However, Moderna can charge extremely high prices outside the United States and make a large profit on a product that it did not pay to develop. Not a single cent of private money went into developing the vaccine.