International Trade Committee on April 30th, 2021

[Mark Schaan, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Perhaps my colleague, Mr. Patterson, can add some comments.

I think the life sciences sector is critical not only for Canada's economy, but also for the use of Canadian skills and capabilities and for growth during the pandemic. We have noted some of the more important initiatives for the life sciences sector in Canada, including efforts over the past year.

I will now turn the floor over to my colleague, Mr. Patterson, who can tell you about recent efforts in the life sciences sector.

[Darryl C. Patterson, Director General, Projects and Policy, Biomanufacturing Strategy Implementation Team, Department of Industry]

Thank you for your question.

I'd say it's widely recognized that the biomanufacturing industry in Canada has diminished over a number of decades. At the outset of the pandemic, there was a realization that Canada did lack a large population-scale, end-to-end capacity to manufacture COVID vaccines. The government immediately took steps to implement a strategy to build up biomanufacturing capacity in Canada and to work with the companies in Canada and abroad to attract a rapid scale-up of biomanufacturing capacity, but as my colleagues have already pointed out, that takes a bit of time.

Relying on the expert advice of the task force, Canada has implemented a strategy that's three-pronged: immediately mobilizing and expanding existing capacity; working with international partners to attract vaccine development here over the long term; and building out the ecosystem. We talked about the supply chain as well and about making sure that we have the talent, the researchers and the supply chain inputs in Canada to the extent that we can become globally integrated into the process.

A number of investments have taken place over the past year, including investments in the NRC and companies throughout Canada—Medicago, AbCellera and Precision NanoSystems—as well as contract manufacturers, including KABS in Quebec and Novocol in Ontario.

The government is now keenly focused on moving forward and working co-operatively with the industry, research institutes and the labour force to make sure that Canada is well positioned moving forward and is ready to engage with the industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Patterson.

We'll go on to Mr. Blaikie, please.

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

Thank you very much.

We've heard a number of times that Canada doesn't actively oppose the TRIPS waiver. Perhaps somebody could explain the process at the WTO. Does the application or the proposal for a waiver automatically pass if nobody opposes it, or does it require active support at the WTO in order for it to pass?

[Stephen de Boer]

Decision-making at the WTO is normally done by consensus. A proposal would have to get the support of the entire membership. You don't have to actively be against a particular proposal, but you do need to support proposals.

The discussions that have been happening at the TRIPS council around the waiver have been around this notion of building support for the waiver itself, which is why there have been these discussions, reports to the general council and continuing discussions, including with countries like Canada. We're trying to explore how the waiver might work and what some of the barriers are to vaccine production, and also continuing further examination, including talking to industry participating in the director general's third way.

Going forward, we would need consensus.

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

I'm just trying to understand. Is it the position of the government that Canada's support—or not—of the waiver proposal wouldn't make a difference either way? I mean, usually when things are proposed, you need supporters in order to get it through.

I find Canada's position somewhat odd, to put it really mildly. One is tempted to call it somewhat disingenuous, because the question is whether the status quo obtains with respect to intellectual property or not. We're in an exceptional position, and we recognize that waiving the typical kinds of intellectual property protections would have a salutary effect on vaccine production globally. Does Canada support the status quo or does it support the waiver?

[Stephen de Boer]

I don't think it's that straightforward. We don't know at this point whether there's a clear line between the lifting of patent protection and the waiver itself and an increase in vaccine production. What is being asked is that the rules be suspended, which is a serious question. Canada is a huge proponent of a rules-based regime, so—

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

With respect, it's a serious pandemic.

[Stephen de Boer]

Absolutely.

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

I don't think anybody who is proposing the waiver is doing so lightly or because they don't think there are significant, exceptional circumstances that warrant the waiver. Yes, it is an exceptional measure; these are exceptional times.

I don't think this is really an adequate answer.

Certainly one thing we haven't heard is that the waiver at the WTO would reduce global vaccine supply. We've heard that some people who think that once they have the intellectual property rights they may be able to produce more vaccine may in fact find that there are more complicating factors they hadn't considered, or that they don't have access to other things that are important. This means they may fail to produce more vaccine.

Isn't it better, in this context, that we have as many people trying to produce vaccines as possible and that we take as many barriers to vaccine production off the table as possible? I don't hear anybody saying that granting a waiver of the TRIPS provisions at the WTO risks reducing global vaccine supply.

[Stephen de Boer]

This is the question that's being asked, and we don't know that for a fact. What we do know is that what has been very important in the vaccines is the collaborative partnerships for scaling up production and technology transfer. What is of concern to some members is what a waiver might do to those collaborative relationships and whether it would actually be detrimental to vaccine production if you interfered with those relationships between the originators and the manufacturers.

It's not a given that the waiver is something that's worth trying because there are no negative consequences to the waiver. I'm not saying there are negative consequences. What I am saying is that we don't know, and there is a risk.

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

I'm interested to know—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Please keep it very short, Mr. Blaikie.

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

—or understand a little better the kinds of information you're asking for. Presumably, you're asking for information from potential manufacturers about what their problems are. These could be supply chain problems, technology transfer problems or those kinds of things.

Are those details that the major vaccine manufacturers of the day, such as Pfizer and Moderna, have disclosed publicly? Why would we expect other players would do so as a condition of getting access to intellectual property?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Could we get a brief answer, Ambassador?

[Stephen de Boer]

Our conversations are with both developed-country and developing-country manufacturers. They've pointed to a series of problems and barriers. Intellectual property is not the one we're hearing about. It's more around issues such as export restrictions, access to inputs and having the technological know-how at the other end to actually assist in the manufacturing of the vaccines. This is what we are hearing at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ambassador.

We'll go on to Ms. Gray for five minutes, please.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for being here.

Ambassador, you stated in your testimony today that Canada sought to be on the EU vaccine export exemption list and that the EU said no.

When did we ask and when did we have that answer, no?

[Stephen de Boer]

I am not sure I am the right person to be answering that question. I don't have the exact date.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Today is the first time we've heard this information, that Canada actually asked to be on the list and was informed no.

Mr. Verheul, do you have that information?

[Steve Verheul]

I'm afraid I don't have a specific date either. We did make the request on a number of occasions at a number of different levels for the EU to put us on the list of exempted countries. They did not do that. They didn't make any changes to that list until quite a bit later on, and then they withdrew a number of countries from the exempted list. They narrowed it down considerably.

One of the reasons we raised that issue was that we did have concerns that, if the EU was exempting certain countries but not others, then that would put them in a position where their measure could be offside with their WTO commitments. We did express concerns about that.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I would like to ask to have it tabled.

Who asked for the exemption? When did we hear back? How did we hear back? Who was asking? How many times did we ask? What was the correspondence back? Are those things that would be able to be tabled to this committee?

[Steve Verheul]

I'm sure we could provide that information, yes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much. It's very interesting to hear all this for the first time.

Ambassador, you also said that Canada was not intended as a target for the vaccine exemptions from the EU, which doesn't sound very reassuring. Would you say that the EU has measures that would be different? Saying that we're not intended is not the same as saying we will not be affected. Wouldn't you say that's very different, that we would not be affected as opposed to not intended to be affected?

[Stephen de Boer]

Yes, I do think that they are different, and I do think it was unfortunate. I would also note that there have been no negative consequences with respect to the movement of vaccines to Canada, despite the EU measures.