International Trade Committee on May 28th, 2021

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

In that case, let me deal with the other part of my question.

Why is the sale of licenses common among Russian and Chinese companies that manufacture the vaccine, while other companies currently providing vaccines to western countries do not use the same approach?

[Hamid Benhmade]

Could you be more specific about that question, Mr. Savard-Tremblay?

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

Do you know why the mechanism is more common in those countries?

[Hamid Benhmade]

At the moment, I have no concrete data that would help me to answer your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Green, you have three minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We've heard today in testimony and we've heard repeatedly that Canada, so far, has maintained it has not rejected the TRIPS proposal. At the same time, it has not supported the tech space negotiations and has continually emphasized the need to hear about specific, concrete IP challenges rather than the solutions.

Would our friend from Doctors Without Borders care to comment about the double standard our Canadian government has when it comes to the TRIPS waiver internationally versus what we're doing here in Canada domestically?

[Dr. Jason Nickerson]

We would emphasize that Canada actually acted quite quickly in enacting domestic legislation that gave the Canadian government the ability to issue compulsory licences. This happened early on in the pandemic. This was prior to there being any vaccines or therapeutics that were approved for use. Canada, as I said, gave itself the ability to issue compulsory licences to effectively waive intellectual property rights in the event that Canada needed to scale up the manufacturing of a COVID-19 tool.

This is effectively the speed and the precision that's needed to respond to a global pandemic today. We of course recognize that intellectual property rights and rules are not the only barrier, but I think all of us would agree that they represent part of the problem, and waiving these rules represents part of the solution in addition to the many other things that need to be put into place. I think—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt. There's a pretty important point that was raised in your submission, and I want you to talk about the moral imperative for a moment, which is that Canada does not have to apply for the TRIPS waiver domestically but should not prevent other countries from doing so.

Would you care to comment on that?

[Dr. Jason Nickerson]

Well, it's exactly that. Canada can simply support the passage of the waiver so that countries that are facing potential legal barriers have that risk removed. This is fundamentally what the TRIPS waiver is about: removing the legal risk of a company or a country pursuing domestic manufacturing of COVID vaccines.

There are other things that need to fall into place, but removing that risk is a significant step.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In closing, Mr. Douglas—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You'll have to be very quick, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—Oxford started off with a promise that it would actually commit this for free in licensing. What changed?

[Dr. Alexander Douglas]

Well, AstraZeneca is selling this not for profit. We have a licence, or AstraZeneca has—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, sorry; I mean the university. The university promised to provide licensing for free, and then licensed to AstraZeneca.

What changed?

[Dr. Alexander Douglas]

I should be clear. I'm appearing in a personal capacity.

We tried quite hard, some of us, to find a partner that was willing to take a non-exclusive licence, and we couldn't find such a partner. The—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, Mr. Douglas, but your time is up for this member.

I have to thank the witnesses. My apologies for the shortness of time, but we have another panel that has to come before the committee yet today. Thank you to the witnesses who are before us.

I will suspend for a minute or two while our clerk connects with the other panellists.

Thank you, again, to the witnesses, and my apologies for the limited amount of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. I call the meeting back to order.

I want to welcome back Ambassador Stephen de Boer, and the officials from Global Affairs Canada and from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, who have accepted our offer to come back for a second time—following their appearance on April 30 before the committee—in order to answer members' questions.

I understand you do not have opening remarks. We are very glad you don't, and that we can get right on to committee members' questions. We will be very limited in time.

We'll start with Ms. Gray, and we'll try to see if we can give everybody five minutes in the first round.

Ms. Gray, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for coming back to this committee today.

I'd like to start my questioning with Ambassador de Boer.

Ambassador, has Canada's position on the WTO TRIPS waiver changed since the last time you appeared before this committee back in April?

[The Clerk]

You're on mute, sir.

[His Excellency Stephen de Boer, Ambassador & Permanent Representative of Canada to the World Trade Organization, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

I'm sorry. I thought you controlled my sound, not I.

In fact, Canada has not changed its position overall. We have never been opposed to the waiver. What has perhaps changed somewhat is that we have more clearly articulated that we're very much ready to engage with the proponents on the proposal, but we have never been opposed to the TRIPS waiver itself.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I hope that the delay doesn't cut into my time there.

Ambassador, can you please table to the committee any analysis that you or your department may have prepared on the United States announcement from a few weeks ago supporting a COVID-19 TRIPS waiver?

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

There is no analysis of the U.S. proposal, because the U.S. proposal is nothing more than what you just stated: that they would support discussions of a waiver with respect to TRIPS.

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

Ambassador, with regard to the TRIPS waiver proposal at the WTO, we know that the WTO often works by consensus, so do you foresee consensus being reached on this proposal in a timely manner?

[H.E. Stephen de Boer]

That's very difficult to say, because it's difficult to know what consensus looks like when we don't have text on the table. I would imagine that if it meets the criteria for the membership, which is to ensure the timely delivery of vaccines and the increased production of vaccines, I see no reason why the membership would block consensus.

However, that's something that will have to be visited when we actually see text on the table and we can ensure that it meets those criteria.

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

Ambassador, if consensus isn't reached, is there still a way to get the TRIPS waiver proposal enacted by the WTO? How would that process work?