International Trade Committee on April 30th, 2021

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I know I don't have a lot of time, but I just wanted to canvass the committee on whether we might be able to have these witnesses back. We often have officials appear for two hours. It was already a briefer appearance than normal and then some technical difficulties ate into the time we had today.

I don't know that we need to decide that immediately, but I wanted to put a marker down that I think that's a question the committee ought to return to. Hopefully, our witnesses would be prepared to accommodate that if it is the will of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We will raise that issue before we go into dealing with the report.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much.

I know the ambassador has said they're not hearing that the principal issue is intellectual property, but we're certainly hearing from some folks—if no one else, then the proponents of the waiver—that intellectual property is an issue. We also heard that time is an issue. Canada has not supported this waiver from the outset. It's been before the WTO going back to at least October. If granting some exceptions on IP is going to make a difference, surely it has the biggest potential to make a positive difference the earlier it's granted.

At what point does Canada recognize that its failure to advocate for this rags the puck to the point that whatever difference it might have been able to make is going to be far less than if Canada had joined others in proactively supporting the waiver earlier on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have time for a brief answer, Mr. Verheul or Ambassador—whoever wants to answer that or make comment, please.

[Stephen de Boer]

I think it's very important to recognize this is a consensus-based organization with 164 members. Canada has not said no to the waiver. Canada has to be joined by 163 other members. It's not for Canada to decide. Canada can certainly show leadership. Canada can certainly advocate on one side or the other.

What Canada is advocating for now is a better understanding of the waiver and for engaging with the proponents and engaging with industry—both in the developed and the developing world—to find out if this is actually the correct approach. Canada does not have a veto in this context, but Canada could certainly work towards achieving a result.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ambassador.

To the members of the committee, there are two more members in order to complete round two. We've had some technical difficulties. Mr. Blaikie is interested in possibly coming back with these witnesses. We are scheduled to go in camera to deal with the very report some of our witnesses are referring to.

I have Mr. Hoback and then Mr. Dhaliwal to complete this round. Does the committee want to go forward and give the members five minutes each?

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

I'm okay right now, Judy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Hoback, do you have a pressing question there?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I definitely do have some questions here. I'm a little frustrated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, Mr. Hoback. We'll adjust.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Hoback. You have five minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Bendayan touched on this a little bit, and I want to relate back to that. When we make decisions internationally, we don't want to make decisions that would prevent something from happening domestically.

Ambassador, you were talking about the TRIPS agreement. If we were to get out in front and endorse it, would that destabilize things to such a factor that we would possibly see some potential manufacturing put on hold or not happen here in Canada?

[Stephen de Boer]

I don't know the answer to that. I certainly think that's a factor in the consideration as to what that means in terms of international reputation. I don't think we know enough about how the waiver would actually operate to be able to give you a definitive answer.

But absolutely, when we think about the waiver, we think of three lanes, I suppose: It would be very positive for vaccine production, it would be neutral or it would have a negative consequence. What you are talking about is one of the potential negative consequences to granting the waiver.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

We've heard from witnesses before that this is not a simple vaccine. There's a fair amount of not just intellectual property and ingredients involved but also processes. There's severe concern that if they were not done properly, we'd actually end up with product that would be harmful, not beneficial. As we look at what we can do to help other countries, and as we look at our innovation to bring vaccines here into Canada, are we taking into consideration not only Canadians but also what Canada can do outside Canada, what we can do in Central America and South America, so that we have the know-how, the technology and the ability to not only produce for Canadians but to share or be involved with other parts that are in our own hemisphere?

Maybe that should go to Mr. Patterson.

[Darryl C. Patterson]

I think the primary focus of our strategy implementation team is to ramp up capacity in Canada. You're right that the manufacturing process is complex, and it varies based on vaccine type. We're trying to build up capacities to not only support the Canadian population but also to eventually become a global player that can support and partner with other countries as we build out our strategy.

However, we're starting from a place where the capacity is lacking in Canada, so the first step is to make the investments to build up the industry to be able to support moving forward.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

As you do that, again, you need to have some sort of vision of what you want to get to. That's why I look at the international consequences. We had a witness in here a week ago Friday saying that unless we start vaccinating around the globe, until we start seeing that level of vaccination hit in other countries, it doesn't matter what we do in Canada because we'll still be at threat from variants. Other parts of the world will see the virus mutate. As people travel into Canada or Canadians travel there, either we have severe travel restrictions into countries [Technical difficulty—Editor] Canada can't travel, or we do a better job of not just vaccinating Canadians but also looking at this in a global nature.

We can't do it all, but maybe we can take a certain area, such as Central and South America and the Caribbean, and say, “Hey, this is our backyard. We're going to make sure we have enough capacity to do that as well.” Is that in your vision when you look at developing the sector here into Canada?

[Darryl C. Patterson]

Innovation, Science and Economic Development's mandate is to attract investment to Canada and to build up the biomanufacturing sector. To do that, we need to work with all partners—international, provincial, territorial, industry, academic—and we're doing that.

In terms of supporting the construction of facilities or the building up of biomanufacturing capacity outside of the country, I think that's something we would do in partnership with others as opposed to the immediate efforts that we're trying to do in Canada, which is investing in Canadian companies—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm not saying build outside of Canada. I'm saying build it in Canada, but have the capacity in Canada for not just Canada but also other parts of the world.

Going back to Global Affairs, have those discussions gone on with other countries in regard to how we're going to handle areas that just don't have the capability to do this type of vaccine while we do?

Ambassador, are those considerations in our international discussions at this point in time? Are we saying that we need to make sure we have X, Y and Z available not just for Canada, not just for the rich countries, but for everybody else? It looks like the TRIPS isn't going to be a possibility. If we need to have consensus, we don't have to say anything. We just have to listen to somebody else say “no” and then say, “Hmm, okay, we didn't have to make a statement.” This government is very good at doing that, at not making a statement.

It doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that we have to get more people vaccinated. How do we do that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

Could Ambassador de Boer give a brief answer, please?

[Stephen de Boer]

I would just note Canada's support for things like COVAX, for example, and the financial support we're putting into vaccine development for sharing in the developing world.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

We're not sharing COVAX.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Please let the Ambassador respond.

[Stephen de Boer]

We have made a significant financial contribution to that facility.

The other thing I would say is that Canada has been leading with the Ottawa Group on trade and health. This is something that the director-general is very interested in pursuing as well.

These are the other aspects of access to vaccines, access to PPEs and therapeutics that the proponents aren't necessarily talking about, but we know there are barriers to trade in these goods, and they are important in the context of the pandemic and addressing the pandemic.

There is scope for work in other areas of the WTO. The WTO is not just TRIPS. It's about all kinds of other things, including customs procedures, rules around export restrictions and technical barriers to trade. There's a lot of work that can be done to get out of the way of the free movement of inputs to vaccines and the vaccines themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ambassador.

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal, please.