International Trade Committee on May 28th, 2021

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

The WTO operates by consensus, so I think it would be difficult to imagine how it would be possible.

I would also say, however, that for many members, including Canada, intellectual property issues around COVID-19 are only one aspect of the issue. There is a range of other issues that can be discussed at the WTO, including trade facilitation, including the removal of export restrictions—things that would encourage the supply of vaccines and inputs to those vaccines.

There is thus a range of policy options and legal options available to the WTO, and consensus could be reached on other aspects.

Canada is working hard—for example, in the Ottawa Group—to come forward with proposals that would address some of these other issues.

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

On that same note, then, where do you see the biggest hurdles as being right now at the WTO, with the TRIPS waiver proposal? Who are the large players who are not presently supportive of this waiver, and what is their reasoning for not supporting it to this point? As you said, you haven't seen the text, but I'm seeking a general answer, with comments that you're aware of.

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

It's important to note that no member of the WTO has said they are opposed to the waiver—at least the current proposal that's on the table. Every member is willing to engage. The fundamental issue for many members will be—and I don't feel particularly comfortable speaking on their behalf— whether this will actually increase vaccine production and allow more people to be vaccinated. That will be the fundamental question. That is the stated rationale for the waiver; that is the test by which it needs to be measured and that will be the test when it is being discussed.

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

Ambassador, the last time you were here—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gray. You have 20 seconds left, and it just won't work in the tight schedule we're in today.

We will go to Mr. Arya, please, for five minutes.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ambassador de Boer, thank you for coming back, and thank you so much for your own and your team's work on this file.

I have heard that because of the engagement of countries such as Canada, the current proposal on the table is much better than the first one, and a lot of ambiguity has been removed. I'm sure that this proposal still has to be refined further.

About 20 years back in my career, I did a study on technology transfer. For knowledge transfer, many people think you just waive the restrictions and everything will flow automatically, but people don't know that knowledge is composed of recorded knowledge and tacit knowledge. Any waiver can easily make the flow of recorded knowledge available, but the tacit knowledge that is required to see actual vaccine production go on, along with all the other supply management issues, is not so simple.

We are, in principle, not opposed to this. Obviously this pandemic is a very major threat to everybody in the world, and we need to do whatever is required to see the pandemic threat eliminated. However, if, going forward, this waiver is just implemented as is without looking at all the aspects, what are the unintended consequences you think may happen?

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

We don't know, and it's one reason we're asking questions. It's why, for example, Minister Ng said in her statement that she was committed to finding solutions that accelerate global vaccine protection but do not negatively impact public health.

There are concerns, I should say—but this needs to be examined further—that it may divert inputs into vaccine production. It may undermine existing relationships and thus subsequently undermine vaccine production. These are questions that need to be examined.

I don't think it's safe to say there are no downsides. We don't know that. This needs to be discussed further. It's one reason that Canada has been asking questions and engaging with the proponents since October. This needs to be examined more closely.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Ambassador. This is exactly the right way to go. When the U.S. came out with the press statement that they're supporting it, everybody thought, “Oh my God, here it is. It will happen tomorrow,” without completely understanding what was happening.

You did mention the other options that Canada is exploring. Can you give a quick update as to whether any of those options have gone further? Is there any chance of that getting implemented or considered for sure?

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

Yes, there are ongoing discussions. I would say, right now at the WTO, we are discussing the next ministerial conference, which will start at the end of November. We're in active discussions about what the things are that need to be done in the lead-up to the ministerial conference and the outputs from the ministerial conference.

The DG and the General Council chair have been very clear. It's impossible to imagine that we would go into a ministerial conference without doing something that would address the pandemic.

As I mentioned earlier, the Ottawa Group has proposals on trying to make sure there's access to PPE, access to therapeutics and increasing vaccine production, and there is growing support for this proposal. You will see very shortly that the EU is engaging in this discussion as an Ottawa Group member, but it also has some other ideas.

The director-general herself is engaging in something called the third way, which is trying to marry manufacturing capacity, IP and the industry to increase vaccine production. There are a number of proposals out there with growing support. It's difficult to know exactly what form this will take by the time we get to MC12, but there is growing support, and there is a recognition that something must be done at the WTO. What we're talking about now is what things could be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. de Boer, you gave us a little explanation about the coming program. You talked to us about the upcoming meetings of the WTO, about what is going to be put forward, and about the ministerial conference.

In terms of the waiver, what is Canada's concrete plan at each of those stages? I'm not talking about Canada's position as such, because you have already told us about that, but about the short-term action plan.

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

The plan of action with respect to the waiver in the short term is that there will a meeting on Monday, an informal TRIPS council meeting, where it will be the first time this new proposal is presented to the TRIPS council. We expect that the proponents will walk us through the proposal, and there will be an opportunity for questions and explanations. We will meet again more formally on June 8 and 9 to discuss further, all with the view to reporting to the general council.

There will be an ongoing dialogue, and that dialogue is happening very soon. As soon as Monday the conversation will start, and the membership will pick this issue up.

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

Did you feel that the change in the American position was a real catalyst, a defining moment even, as to the way in which the countries of the world will deal with the issue?

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

That's hard to say. I can't really get into the minds of other members. I would say this: There is a new proposal on the table. It might be as a result of the U.S. action, but I would also say that the new proposal doesn't seem particularly narrower than the former proposal, so I'm not sure if the proponents think they're closer or further from building consensus because of the U.S. action.

It's not at all clear how the U.S. intends to engage. Many of us had initially thought that the U.S. may be putting a proposal on the table. It's not clear that will be the case. It's not clear to us here in Geneva exactly how this will move forward or what the impact will be.

I suppose the meeting on the 31st might inform us to a certain extent.

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

Thank you.

When President Biden announced the position of the United States in favour of the waiver, some western countries were rather ambivalent. That was specifically the case of France, if I'm not mistaken.

I imagine that you are having active discussions with those countries. Have you sensed any movement on their side? Are we beginning to set aside our fears and change our approach to those countries?

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

France is a bit complicated, because France actually doesn't speak at the WTO. The EU does on France's behalf.

Let me say this: Some of the issues that France raised are the very issues that we have been discussing in the context of the Ottawa Group. France has said there are other issues, not just intellectual property, that are impeding the manufacturing of vaccines—that are getting in the way of supply chains, for example, and customs issues. I think that's partly where France was coming from.

It's important to note that no country has ever said it was opposed to the waiver. This has been discussed since October in the TRIPS Council and has gone to the General Council a number of times now. The discussions have continued. There may be varying degrees of support for this. There may be more questions for some members than others, but no one has actually said, we are opposed to the waiver. I understand that in the media there seems to be this sense that some countries are opposed, but in the WTO context no one has come out as directly opposed to the waiver.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We go now to Mr. Green, for five minutes, please.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

We keep hearing how you're not opposed, and yet you're not supporting the text-based negotiations. You put out eight questions, along with Australia, Chile and Mexico, but these questions reportedly have been answered in detail, most notably in document IP/C/W/673. Would you care to comment on that?

It's one thing to say you're not opposing it, but if you're not actually getting to the table on the text-based negotiation, you're stalling it. Stalling it is, by virtue, opposing it.

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

There are a couple of things I could say. One is that the responses we received were more of a historical nature. The questions we have are about how this particular waiver would work in this particular context. A lot of the comparisons are made to HIV medicines, which are very different from vaccines against COVID-19. The questions themselves don't lend themselves to talking about what happened in the past. We need to be thinking about what is the potential for this into the future. It's important to ask these questions—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, to the ambassador, respectfully, if Canada feels that the TRIPS waiver isn't necessary, that's fine. I don't understand how you have a moral imperative to block other countries from applying for it.

How do you respond to other members from this committee that even if Canada doesn't want to make the application, you're going to continue to drag your heels and allow other countries to do so?

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

I'm at a loss to understand how Canada is blocking this discussion. We have been engaged in this discussion since October. There is only a proposal, there is no text on the table. Canada has in good faith asked questions as to how this waiver would operate. I have met with the proponents a number of times to discuss this waiver. This is a consensus organization. Canada does not have the ability to block.

Canada will be looking for the best outcome in order to increase vaccine production. The waiver may be one of those tools, but Canada is not blocking that discussion.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, through you, is the ambassador briefed on the potential threat that's been raised today of mutant variants, potentially in six to eight months, rendering current vaccines useless, potentially, if we don't get to a place where we have significant increased capacity in production and distribution globally for vaccines?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I would leave that up to the ambassador.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't believe there is a translation need at the moment, so this is through you to the ambassador.

Is the ambassador briefed?

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

We are very aware that we need to increase vaccine production very, very quickly, and we are aware that there are health issues associated with variants. The question is, how do we go about doing that in the best way possible?