Okay, so you're—
Evidence of meeting #32 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 vaccines.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #32 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 vaccines.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I have a point of order, Chair.
This is totally unorganized. You have already fixed the amendment of the dates, so to move another amendment.... The only way that could have happened is if you had done a subamendment to the original amendment beforehand.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Exactly. That wasn't done. We have already adopted that one.
I'm going to call for a vote on the main motion that I had read out halfway. I will complete reading out this motion:
...from 8.99% to 18.32%; that the meeting be at least two hours in length; that the minister appear for no fewer than one hour and that appropriate government officials appear for no fewer than two hours; and that this meeting occur no later than June 4, 2021.
Madam Clerk, can we please have a recorded vote on Mrs. Gray's motion as amended by Mr. Savard-Tremblay?
Is everybody clear here? There are no other motions, or amendments or anything else. This is what we're voting on.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
That's wonderful.
At this point, I will have to suspend the meeting so we can get our witnesses all online. Following the meeting, I will have the clerk immediately send out a clear schedule of the next meetings based on today.
We are suspended for five minutes.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
My apologies for the delay.
As witnesses today, we have, as an individual, Alexander Douglas, research group leader, Oxford University.
From Amnistie internationale Canada francophone, we have France-Isabelle Langlois, executive director, and Colette Lelièvre, responsible for campaigns.
From Doctors Without Borders, we have Jason Nickerson, humanitarian representative to Canada, and Adam Houston, medical policy and advocacy officer.
From Le Réseau québécois sur l’intégration continentale, we have Claude Vaillancourt, member, and Hamid Benhmade, network coordinator.
Mr. Douglas, you have five minutes, please.
1:55 p.m.
Dr. Alexander Douglas Research Group Leader, Oxford University, As an Individual
Thank you very much for the invitation to appear today. I hope I can be of some help to the committee's study on this very important topic.
I will provide some background first. I'm a university employee and researcher, but I'm speaking in a personal capacity today. I have a conflict of interest to declare in that I may receive income as an inventor of a patent application relating to the manufacture of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
My role in the Oxford COVID vaccine program has primarily been to develop the manufacturing process and lead the initial technology transfer, both to sites within the U.K. and to overseas sites, including the Serum Institute of India. I have subsequently worked closely with AZ, but I can't speak for AZ at all. I understand that your remit includes Canada's domestic vaccine supply, but I've had no involvement with AZ's arrangements for supply to Canada.
Equity of access to our vaccine has been a really key driver for me and our team from the beginning. We transferred manufacturing to low-income countries at the same time as setting it up in the U.K. We prioritized willingness to pursue equitable access in our choice of pharma partners and pushed very hard for terms to promote equitable access when we entered the partnership with AZ. The outcome really has been quite radical on that, in terms of both pricing and distribution.
Clearly, though, the world is now in exactly the situation we were worried about when we were taking those decisions. Personally, it's important to be clear. It's outrageous that some countries are vaccinating 18-year-olds while the global rates of COVID-19 deaths are pretty much as high as they have been, and health workers and 70-year-olds are unprotected and dying in many parts of the world.
This is damaging for all of us, not least because of the ongoing economic disruption. The IMF has published an excellent study showing massive economic benefits to high-income countries of fast and equitable global vaccination.
What can be done now? In particular, is a TRIPS waiver the right thing to focus on?
It's critical to understand how different the situation is now from the problem of HIV drug access 20 years ago in low-income countries, for which patent waivers were very effective. That was a problem of price. There was potential manufacturing capacity sitting idle, and the patent was the main block. Now, we're in a much more complicated situation. The manufacturing capacity itself needs to be expanded as quickly as possible, and that requires removal of multiple non-patent constraints, such as raw material supplies, skills and non-patent know-how.
Removing patents implies new entrants with less experience competing with the innovating companies for those resources and duplicating efforts on developing know-how. That would be really quite inefficient. Having governments work in a critical but constructive partnership with innovators to expand that effort and improve equity of supply is likely to be a much better solution. It's clear that the status quo isn't working. Some of those innovating companies are not currently feeling that it's in their interests to prioritize low-income country supply. We need to examine and address the reasons for that, and countries like Canada can play a really positive role in that.
First, we need to be clear that the current situation on the distribution of vaccines that exist is intolerable. We need moral pressure on Pfizer, Moderna and governments that are vaccinating young adults to donate a proportion of their supply immediately.
Second, we need to see whether we can make the supply we have cover more people. It may well be that half doses of the existing vaccines are adequate, which would double supply at a stroke. That could be established very rapidly if clinical trials of low doses were set up urgently, but I don't see the companies rushing to do that without governmental intervention.
Third, we need to expand the supply, and with a G7 meeting coming up, we need an international, G7-led version of the operation warp speed effort. Rather than focusing on initial vaccine development for one country, this time it would be focused on manufacturing capacity expansion for the world.
That needs governments to really constructively engage, not just donate money. That effort can and should echo the features that made Operation Warp Speed and the U.K. vaccines task force effective. That means bringing together technical expertise, getting into the detail, understanding the different bottlenecks facing each manufacturer, and creating solutions.
It needs to use the clout of government to compel, but deploy it smartly, and it needs to act not just as a passive or even a pushy customer, but like a venture capital investor, as a partner and an enabler for industry.
We're dealing here with transnational supply chains, so this has to be an international solution to an international problem. However, increasing output should help everyone too. It's a huge win-win. I hope that you and Canada consider picking up on the positive motivation behind the patent waiver idea and driving things forward in a really effective, equitable direction.
Thank you.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Douglas.
We will now go to Amnistie internationale Canada francophone, with France-Isabelle Langlois.
Go ahead, Ms. Langlois.
2 p.m.
France-Isabelle Langlois Executive Director, Amnistie internationale Canada francophone
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Parliament of Canada and members of the Standing Committee on International Trade, thank you for inviting Amnistie internationale Canada francophone to the hearings into Canada's position the proposed waiver from the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, the TRIPS, which was submitted to the World Trade Organization, the WTO.
As an organization that defends and promotes human rights, Amnesty International became involved from the first moments of the pandemic in order to call for unfailing international solidarity by all states, especially the richest ones. For Amnistie internationale Canada francophone, this includes Canada. We therefore call on Canada to support, firmly and without further delay, the revised proposal for a waiver submitted to the WTO on May 21, 2021.
In October 2020, seven months ago now, India and South Africa called for a temporary waiver to the WTO's TRIPS Agreement until the majority of the world's population is immune. Although 60 countries are co-sponsoring the proposal for a waiver and more than 100 of the WTO's 164 member states are in favour, a certain number of prosperous states are still opposed to it, while others, like Canada, remain neutral. Canada claims that it is not causing an obstruction but simply asking questions.
Nevertheless, although time is an issue, the result of Canada's position is that agreement on the waiver is blocked. The waiver would temporarily suspend the implementation, application and enforcement of certain intellectual property rights, such as patents on pharmaceutical products. It would help to guarantee that pandemic-related medical products, including safe and effective vaccines, can be quickly manufactured by a larger number of suppliers and made available to all at an affordable price.
By supporting the removal of intellectual property protection for vaccines against COVID-19, Canada would be placing the lives of people around the world ahead of the profits of a few pharmaceutical giants and their shareholders. The only way to end the pandemic is to end it globally. The only way to end it globally is to put people before profits, which can only be done by making knowledge and technology available to all.
The international standards of human rights to which Canada subscribes and the regulations governing international trade clearly stipulate that the protection of intellectual property must never come at the expense of public health.
COVID-19 is not only a health and economic crisis, it is also a human rights crisis. It cannot be overcome without true commitment to one of the sustainable development goals: to leave no one behind. Starting from the principle that no one will be safe unless everyone is safe, Canada today has the opportunity to make a decision that would make that goal a reality.
Since the pandemic began, there has been an overwhelming global consensus on the urgent need for all countries to work together so that everyone, everywhere, is protected. The United Nations General Assembly has, on several occasions, stressed the need for intensified international cooperation and multilateral efforts to contain, mitigate and defeat the pandemic. The World Health Assembly has recognized the role of extensive immunization against COVID-19 as a global public good in preventing, containing and stopping transmission in order to bring the pandemic to an end.
Under international human rights law, states also have the obligation to provide the financial and technical support necessary to uphold the right to health, especially in the face of the international spread of a disease. Yet companies in the pharmaceutical industry around the world continue to pursue a business-as-usual approach, which places limits on manufacturing and supply capacities.
Canada has suggested that intellectual property is not an obstacle as far as pharmaceutical products and technologies against COVID-19 are concerned. This ignores the hard evidence that restrictive licensing practices have already caused a shortage of supply in several countries.
On May 5, the United States declared its support for the waiver, at least in terms of vaccines, and the European Parliament declared its openness to the initiative on May 20. Amnesty International repeats its clear demand to the Government of Canada—
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Ms. Langlois. I'm sorry to interrupt, but time is very tight. Thank you for your comments.
We'll go on to Doctors Without Borders, with Mr. Nickerson, please, for five minutes.
2:05 p.m.
Dr. Jason Nickerson Humanitarian Representative to Canada, Doctors Without Borders
Hello. Thank you for having us here today.
We're going to speak about two issues that are part of the committee's study from the perspective of our organization, which provides medical assistance to people affected by crises in more than 70 countries around the world.
First, Canada should support the TRIPS waiver. The waiver is not a complete solution to scaling up and diversifying COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing to address the supply shortages, but supporting the waiver quickly clears space and removes legal barriers to then focus on the many other barriers. We emphasize that any waiver must encompass not only vaccines, but other tools like therapeutic drugs and diagnostics and medical devices such as ventilators, as well as the components and equipment needed to make vaccines.
Canada's position during discussions around the TRIPS waiver has been one of indecision—never formally rejecting it, while repeatedly raising alternatives that have failed in the past.
One such alternative raised is the TRIPS article 31 bis mechanism, which is operationalized by Canada's access to medicines regime, or CAMR. It is our position that Canada should follow through on its own claims of CAMR's effectiveness by taking the necessary first step of adding COVID-19 vaccines and drugs to schedule 1 of the Patent Act. While Doctors Without Borders does not believe that TRIPS article 31 bis or CAMR are effective tools at the best of times, let alone sufficient in this pandemic, Canada's failure to even list these items in schedule 1 means that Canada is the single greatest roadblock to utilizing the very tools it has promoted at the WTO.
The second issue we would like to discuss is domestic production. MSF supports increased domestic production, but it must be done correctly. If Canada's approach to scaling up biomanufacturing in this country is to provide financial support to pharmaceutical companies to build factories here, this funding must come with guarantees of affordable access to the final products, both for Canada and for the rest of the world. This is just common sense. If the public is paying to develop and manufacture medicines, we should all be able to access them at fair prices. To this end, Canada must also be transparent about the terms of all such deals.
Another key question is what to do between pandemics with the public manufacturing capacity that Canada is building. New quality-assured manufacturing capacity that has been initiated for the purposes of producing COVID-19 vaccines should not be shut down or sold off to private interests after the pandemic fades. Rather, Canada should use this capacity to address other important global health issues. Producing a range of products keeps facilities operating and Canada's skills sharp. After all, it's not clear what the next pandemic will be, and the world needs a diversity of manufacturing capacities.
Canada has world-class researchers. Where it falls short is in end-to-end development to get innovations out of labs and to patients. Products that are vital for global health but have limited commercial appeal have no real pathway to approval.
Take the Canadian-invented Ebola vaccine, discovered by scientists at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. After discovering it, Canada signed a deal to license it to an American company. This ultimately led to the vaccine languishing on a shelf for years. This meant that this effective vaccine was not ready in time for the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak. To be blunt, this cost lives.
Canada has other promising experimental vaccines, such as the ones for Lassa fever and Marburg virus, which have faced similar challenges. End-to-end production from lab bench to patient bedside ought to be part of our biomanufacturing strategy.
Our overarching message here is that there are many important diseases that are essentially market failures: They are not profitable enough to attract investment from private pharmaceutical companies, yet they represent significant public health threats. Ebola, Lassa fever, Marburg and, prior to this pandemic, coronaviruses are all examples.
There are also many important drugs and vaccines that already exist and are regularly in shortage or hard to obtain. Diphtheria antitoxin, the product Connaught Labs was founded to produce, is now almost impossible to procure worldwide. We know this first-hand because when we were responding to simultaneous diphtheria outbreaks in Yemen, Bangladesh and Venezuela in 2017, we quickly realized how few options existed. The same is true for many antibiotics and other low-profit medicines.
A robust biomanufacturing strategy that is guided by public health needs—and not the pursuit of profits—is what needs to guide Canada's biomanufacturing strategy, which ought to be linked to a research and development strategy—
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much. I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Nickerson.
I'm trying to get everybody's points across here this afternoon and allow the members to ask some questions.
We'll go on to Mr. Vaillancourt, please, for five minutes.
2:10 p.m.
Claude Vaillancourt Member, Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale
Mr. Benhmade will be giving the presentation.
May 28th, 2021 / 2:10 p.m.
Hamid Benhmade Network Coordinator, Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale
Ladies and gentlemen, my colleague Claude Vaillancourt and I would like to thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee on behalf of the Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale.
Currently, as you know, the debate on the waiver of intellectual property rights on anti-coronavirus vaccines reveals a divide between those who are for the waiver and those who are against the waiver.
As my colleagues reminded us earlier, the waiver has been officially endorsed by 58 governments and is supported by 100 countries. A small number of powers are opposed; they include Brazil, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Ladies and gentlemen, whether we are for or against the waiver, one thing is certain: no one can deny that vaccine nationalism may well harm all the investments that have been made to contain the pandemic since it began. That a number of anti-coronavirus vaccines have been produced in less than a year is an unprecedented scientific accomplishment. However, that success, laudable though it is, is presently undermined by unequal, troubling and worrying access to the vaccines. That is why the Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale is calling for property rights on the anti-coronavirus vaccines to be suspended for two fundamental reasons. First, for reasons that are humanitarian, not economic, and second, for reasons that are purely economic.
First and foremost, it is time to put humanitarian issues before all other considerations. It is unjust that the least fortunate, basically those from developing countries, should remain at the mercy of pharmaceutical giants, when we know full well that most subsidies intended to support research into the coronavirus come from public funds.
Here we are once more, privatizing profits and socializing losses. The public is paying twice for the same vaccine. We pay first to finance the research and development and we pay again to acquire the doses we need.
Because developed countries have obtained more than half of all the contracts for vaccines, many developing countries will not have mass vaccination before 2025. A delay of that kind could set the scene for potentially dangerous variants in the future and cost many their lives.
Economically, the vaccine war is likely to cost more than the war against the pandemic. That is the conclusion of research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the United States. In fact, if countries of the North become vaccinated and countries of the South remain largely excluded from vaccination, the global economy will sustain losses of more than $9.2 trillion in 2021, almost half of which will be absorbed by advanced economies, including Canada.
Because of the recession that the pandemic is imposing on less-advanced economies, exporters and importers in the advanced economies, of which Canada is one, would be prey, first, to markets that are stagnating or even declining, and second, to global value chains that are more and more disrupted. This is why ensuring free and universal access to anti-coronavirus vaccines, and doing so today, is not only an altruistic and moral act, it is also an economic necessity.
In the light of these factors, which we invite Canada to consider, our network urges the Government of Canada to support the waiver of intellectual property rights on vaccines and to promote it in international discussions.
In the long term, lifting property rights on vaccines against COVID-19 must be followed by the dissemination of knowledge. Some countries in the South have shown that they have a great capacity for producing generic medications. But restrictions on importing them in the TRIPS and the extension of protection for brand-name medications in various free trade agreements, have made it difficult to disseminate essential data so that the medications can be produced and made available.
Ladies and gentlemen, whether the issue is saving lives or relaunching economies, free and universal vaccination is currently the only way we have to achieve it. The extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic call for extraordinary action.
Thank you for your attention.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your sensitivity to the time as well.
We'll go to Ms. Gray. There's only time for three minutes each, one question from each of our members, in order for everybody to get in a question.
You have three minutes, please, Ms. Gray.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today and for all of their information.
My first question is for Doctors Without Borders.
I appreciate, first of all, your comments on Canadian manufacturing. This is one of the Conservatives' five pillars as part of our recovery plan: to secure our country and to make us more resilient and prepared.
We know the TRIPS waiver is no silver bullet and that we need a comprehensive approach to get vaccines to developing countries. What role should Canada be playing right now in doing this, outside of the TRIPS waiver negotiations? You mentioned a couple of ideas in your intervention, but they were more for the long term.
What do you think could be done right now, while we're still in the middle of the pandemic?
2:15 p.m.
Humanitarian Representative to Canada, Doctors Without Borders
The immediate answer to that is that we need countries that have secured doses of COVID vaccine to be committing to making donations of a certain percentage of the shipments they will be receiving. The world is, quite frankly, facing a massive inequity in access that's in motion today, and there is a global shortage of available supply. The COVAX facility, which is the primary mechanism for many countries to access COVID-19 vaccines, is short 150 million doses this month, and that will increase to 190 million doses next month. Really, in the face of quite limited manufacturing capacity, which has increased but hasn't significantly diversified, the immediate solution we need—and it's a stopgap emergency measure—is for countries to be donating doses to be reallocated to lower-income countries.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you so much. Our time is so limited here, so I want to squeeze in a couple more quickly, if I could.
You're aware of the COVAX program. While Canada is allowed to take vaccines through this program, do you think it's appropriate for us to be doing so? We are the only G7 country at this point to do so.
2:20 p.m.
Humanitarian Representative to Canada, Doctors Without Borders
Canada should not be taking doses from the COVAX facility as part of this round of dose distributions. It's appropriate for Canada to be a purchaser through the COVAX facility, but Canada also procured a large number of doses through bilateral agreements, and those have impeded COVAX's ability to secure doses.
My answer is no.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
My thanks also to all the witnesses for joining us today. You have my apologies for the limited time at our disposal.
Mr. Benhmade, I would like to go back to your comments, however, in order to clarify one point. Canada has never rejected the proposal to waive intellectual property rights.
As you know, WTO decisions are normally made by consensus. So a consensus is needed. As you said, about 100 countries are in favour, but we still need everyone to be on the same wavelength. That is why we asked questions and encouraged the parties to give the matter more thought. I believe we received a text on May 21 or 25. That was just a few days ago. Canada's representatives have said that they would be working on the text and that all countries would move forward together on this issue.
However, you have also heard testimony from other witnesses who have appeared before the committee and a number of other experts, who have said that intellectual property is not the only obstacle to vaccination moving forward. These vaccines contain more than 100 ingredients. So there are also problems in the supply chain.
What do you think of those other problems? How could we address them in order to get things moving forward? Would that be done at the WTO or otherwise?
Because time is short, I might also ask Amnesty International to comment a little on what they are seeing on the ground, and perhaps Doctors Without Borders as well. What else is missing, other than the actual COVID-19 vaccines? Are we in need of needles or other materials in order to make sure that everybody around the world has access to a COVID-19 vaccine?
Mr. Benhmade, please go ahead.
2:20 p.m.
Network Coordinator, Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale
Thank you for your comments and your questions, Ms. Bendayan.
First, as you mentioned, this negotiation process is certainly laborious, because it requires a consensus among the 164 members of the WTO, which is no simple, easy task.
In this case, since we are waiting for the waiver to be approved by consensus, perhaps towards the end of the year, alternate solutions need to be looked at in order to get around that ongoing obstacle. First, countries with surplus vaccines must share them with countries that may not have them available. Then, WTO members must remove the non-tariff barriers that are obstructing the trade in the raw materials and intermediate products needed to produce vaccines. In that way, we could have some solutions for the problems in the supply chains.
The World Health Organization, or WHO, must also work with countries that are in the process of perfecting vaccines in order to provide them with what we call emergency use authorizations. This will speed up vaccination locally.
Finally, because we must not wait until the waiver is approved, we must now identify countries in the South that may be capable of producing vaccines, such as South Africa, Bangladesh, Morocco, Pakistan and Senegal.
As for your second question, whether intellectual property rights apply only to patents or all—
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I'm sorry, sir. We've run out of time for the member. We have to move on.
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have three minutes, please.
2:20 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I found it interesting to hear where the representative from the Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale was going. I would like to give him the opportunity to finish his answer to the previous question.
Mr. Benhmade, I also have another question for you.
We know that vaccine-producing companies in Russia and China sell licenses. That is basically much like providing patents.
How is it that companies selling vaccines in western countries are not using that approach?
2:20 p.m.
Network Coordinator, Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale
Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.
Let me first finish my answer to the previous question.
The revision submitted a few days ago by South Africa and India clarifies some points and provides countries with more possibilities. It allows them to decide whether or not they want to grant the waiver.
First, the revised text specifies that the property rights are to be waived on diagnostic instruments, vaccines, medical devices, personal protective equipment, their materials or components, and all means of manufacture for the prevention, treatment or containment of COVID-19. That is the first point that was revised in the latest text.
Second, it specifies the duration for which the waiver is requested. The request is that the waiver be in force for at least 3 years from the date of the current decision. The TRIPS Council will then have the right to review the existence of the exceptional circumstances that do or do not justify the waiver.
Third, it specifies that the General Council shall review the waiver not later than one year after it is granted, and thereafter annually until the waiver terminates, that is to say, up to a maximum of three years.
Fourth, it specifies that WTO members shall not challenge any measures taken in conformity with the provision of the waivers contained in the decision.
As you can see, the current text clarifies some points that were ambiguous or vague in the first submission. The partner countries therefore have a much more concrete and complete text to inform their discussions, as they decide whether or not they will grant the waiver.