International Trade Committee on April 23rd, 2021

[Mark Warner]

I can take a shot at it if you want.

Medicago is a joint venture of a Japanese company and a British company. I know people keep calling it a Quebec company, but that's what it is. Its largest facility was in North Carolina until this began.

I think to the extent you can get people to invest and produce here, it's useful, but they're obviously doing it in response to a significant government contribution. They didn't do it beforehand. Let's be honest about it.

The question we're going to have to face in Canada at some point is that right now we all want to spend that money, but are we going to want to spend that money tomorrow? I don't know, but if you want to keep having a Japanese and a British joint venture producing a COVID vaccine that I don't think has finished a phase III trial, or has just finished it, you're going to pay for it.

Just imagine this. Imagine if we had spent all the money developing Medicago and we were now waiting to buy from Medicago, and it's not even been approved. That wouldn't have been a solution to our problem. That's part of where I think this whole idea of nationalism and needing to build our domestic capacity falls down. Imagine if we were waiting on the other one that's been mentioned here today—I can't remember the name of it now, but the other mRNA one from Canada. Imagine if we were waiting for them. They haven't even finished a phase III trial yet. It sounds good and it feels good, but it's not realistic to a global pandemic.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Okay.

[Rohinton Medhora]

I'd make the distinction, as you do, I think, in your question between manufacturing and development. Manufacturing, as we've seen with the Sanofi plant that will open in the coming months, is relatively easier to ramp up, and I'd make that point, by the way, about developing countries as well. Jesse is right: It is condescending to simply say we shouldn't open up technology to other countries because they wouldn't know what to do with it. That may be the case in many countries, but certainly not in the emerging countries, many of which are ahead of Canada in innovation indexes and other such measures.

On development, I think that's a fair point. I'd really want to know who owns the IP, because that's where the value is. If it's a question of having heavy subsidies for a foreign firm to locate in Canada, but the IP still resides elsewhere and there are just a few well-paid scientists and lobbyists in Canada, that's not the end game.

On the question of putting all our eggs in one basket, as Mark just said, we'd still be waiting for a vaccine, but these are not either/or propositions. Canada can have homegrown innovation sectors and still engage with the rest of the world and make deals. In fact, our hand in making deals would be stronger if we had homegrown innovation capacity, so let's not create false dichotomies where none exist.

[Renzo G. DiCarlo]

Madam Chair, can I jump in or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go very quickly, please. You have a few seconds.

[Renzo G. DiCarlo]

I think we need to distinguish between technology and production. Providence wanted technology support back in March, at the same time that Moderna and Pfizer wanted it. If we had provided it then, we would have had technology where it's manufactured, and then Canada could decide that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, go ahead for two and a half minutes.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Ms. Whattam.

We know that one of the World Health Organization's proposals to speed up vaccine production is to use the COVID-19 technology access pool, or C-TAP. The C-TAP is a global mechanism for voluntarily sharing knowledge, intellectual property and data related to health technology to combat COVID-19. I don't know whether you've heard of it before.

What has been the impact of this program so far? Doesn't this tool seem sufficient to you? Is it really necessary to focus on a waiver for intellectual property? If so, is the voluntary sharing aspect already a step in the right direction?

[Jesse Whattam]

Ideally, yes, but it has been clearly demonstrated that the voluntary aspect of it is not working. The C-TAP has been around for months now, and no pharmaceutical company has offered that up or agreed to join C-TAP. There are many layers to that, and the Bill Gates foundation played a big role. The same day that the C-TAP was announced, five of the biggest pharmaceutical companies and Bill Gates were on a panel talking about their initiatives with the ACT-Accelerator.

I would love C-TAP to be working, but it's not. The voluntary aspect is not, and the profit incentive is not there.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I gather from your response that the results to date show that the program isn't working. So you believe that the waiver is the only solution. Is that right?

[Jesse Whattam]

Yes, but it's not the only solution. We've established that it's not the only thing that's needed. It's not the silver bullet, but it's a necessary and important first step to create the space for other necessary measures.

I definitely think it's necessary. That's why there's an increasing amount of pressure for it. The U.S. had a big press release today, a couple of hours ago, which is why over two-thirds of WTO members are calling for it, and there's huge mounting international pressure, so yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Blaikie, you are next, for two and a half minutes.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Medhora, I want to come back to you.

I want to reference one of the other things we've heard previously at committee. In fact, we had one witness suggest that the movement for the TRIPS waiver might be just as important or more important than the granting of the waiver itself. It's a signal to pharmaceutical companies that governments are prepared to move into this space and play a larger role in determining how vaccine production is structured if the existing industries can't produce in a satisfactory way.

You've mentioned that Canada's bargaining position doesn't change if we don't do anything new here in terms of domestic capacity. Maybe I misunderstood your point, but that's what I took you to mean. Could you speak more to that?

There seems to be a problem right now in terms of global supply and equity of distribution. The TRIPS waiver is part of signalling a willingness of governments to move in, in a temporary and focused way. The other claim that somehow a temporary and limited waiver for COVID jeopardizes the entire IP framework that big pharma has been using to make money over the last 30 years seems a little radical.

Could you to speak to those issues of how we develop leverage for the public interest against well-organized industries with a lot of resources and power? What role does the TRIPS waiver play in that effort?

[Rohinton Medhora]

I heard that testimony and I've heard that said before. Signalling positioning matters a lot in these negotiations. I wouldn't doubt that even if the TRIPS waiver doesn't go through, the fact that so many governments, including the Biden administration, are considering it is a good thing.

The analogy I'd give is that the U.S. was firmly opposed to increase special drawing rights a year ago, but one of the first things the Biden administration did was change that tune when Secretary Yellen signalled the U.S. support for SDRs. I think people are looking to that as something that might carry over to the TRIPS waiver as well.

Signalling positioning is one point. The other point I'd make is that waivers, by definition, are meant for exceptional events. We are living in truly exceptional times. Change doesn't happen when everything is going fine. It was in fact the HIV-AIDS crisis that led to this move for compulsory licensing.

By the way, the threats of retaliation are what prevent countries from using their so-called right for compulsory licensing in TRIPS, but it is those kinds of crises that lead to change. That's my point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Medhora.

We'll go on to the last four minutes with Mr. Hoback, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

One thing I wanted to talk about is Canada-U.S. integration and the importance of that moving forward. Do you have any advice on what we should be doing here in Canada to make sure we cement that integration?

I'll start with you, Mr. Warner.

[Mark Warner]

In general, we're doing some of the right things. As you know, we have the USMCA or CUSMA being renewed.

Specifically in the pharmaceutical space, we have made some changes in both the USMCA and CETA that have brought us more into line. I think we probably have more to do in that. Also, the Americans are moving closer to some of our positions on drug pricing, both under President Trump and now under President Biden. That might help us.

The difficulty in the pharmaceutical space is that if we're going to integrate, I think we're going to have to rethink to some extent what we've been doing since the 1970s, which is emphasizing generics over innovation.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Outside the pharmaceutical space and in regard to the educational side of things, right from hospital workers to nurses and doctors, what do you see in terms of opportunities for Canada and the U.S. to work together and maybe work more closely with other like-minded allies, such as Australia, Europe and the U.K.?

Mr. DiCarlo, it looks like you want to answer that question. Maybe I'll go to you.

[Renzo G. DiCarlo]

In terms of education or pharma and the U.S. and things like that, I think that having the U.S., the U.K. and Canada working together more closely is extremely important.

For example, at BioPharma in St. Louis, we're actually the research centre for the U.S. FDA. Here we are, a Canadian company, and we're the research centre for the FDA in the U.S., which is great. In the U.S., we're BioPharma U.S.A. We're very proud to be American, but our headquarters are in Canada.

Whether it's Canada, the U.S., the U.K. or other countries, and whether it's education or pharma, I think that being able to work together, especially with our allies, is extremely important. During this pandemic, we haven't done the best job possible of that. We need to do better.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

In that scenario, then, as we're able to bring on new treatments, do we not have more of a responsibility to share that information in a way that allows new technology to be developed, yet still make sure we treat everybody else around the world with respect and get them the required—

[Renzo G. DiCarlo]

We do. For example, here at BioPharma, we're privately held. We're owned by a consortium of doctors, and we actually did a press release back in February when we started to see our Chinese clients suffer because of COVID. We volunteered our clinics for R and D gratis at the time.

Yes, we have a moral obligation. It's not just about money. We have a moral obligation to all work together, whether it's intercompany or intergovernmental, and to volunteer our services in our worst times. Definitely, for sure, I'm very passionate about that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I have one last comment, Chair, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I want to thank the Governor of North Dakota. What he did this past week is fabulous. Here in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba our truck drivers are crucial for us, and they're crossing that border, and to think that they could cross the line and get a shot.... Also, there's a first nations group in Montana that's doing something very similar at the border in Alberta. They're actually allowing Canadians to go across the line and get their shot—to not even leave the car—and come back.

Those are very creative ideas that allow us to get vaccinated quicker. I want to thank the U.S. for helping us with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoback.

Thank you very much to our witnesses for the very valuable information.

I leave you all for the weekend. On Monday's meeting, we will have the minister with us for main estimates and ISDS.

Have a good weekend. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.