Ominous sounds from the EU
Securing COVID vaccine for Canadians is this government’s highest priority, said Mary Ng.
It was the most convincing thing the trade minister said during her appearance at the international trade committee on the european Union’s attempts to curb vaccine exports.
The implications of a vaccine export ban for the fortunes of this government — not to mention the health of Canadians — are ominous.
That explains the frenzy of activity at official and political levels to ensure Canada is not caught up in the eu’s dragnet.
Ng said she has received assurances from the bloc’s trade commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis, that exports of the two vaccines Canada has approved are not affected by the new eu export rules.
Those vaccines are Pfizer biontech’s, which is manufactured in belgium, and Moderna’s, which is made in Spain.
The “transparency and authorization mechanism” was introduced last Friday and requires manufacturers to obtain permission before shipping COVID vaccine outside the trading bloc.
The mechanism gives the commission and its member states the ability to block vaccine supply from companies that also have contracts with the eu. It was proposed after Astrazeneca said it could only deliver one quarter of the doses it had said it would by the end of March.
Back at committee, Ng offered the impression the whole affair is much ado about nothing. Assurance has been given and Canada will monitor the situation closely to ensure the eu complies with its trade agreements, but garder le calme et continuer.
However, as the opposition peppered her with questions, it became apparent that the verbal assurances the minister has received aren’t worth the paper they’re not written on.
In its explanation of the new policy, the eu said it is mindful of advanced purchase agreements signed between countries like Canada and eu-based manufacturers and “will endeavour” to ensure deliveries are made. “It is not our intention to restrict exports any more than is absolutely necessary,” it said.
What constitutes “absolutely necessary” was not defined.
But it is clear that what the eu is doing is legal — Canada’s top trade negotiator, Steve Verheul, said the eu is on “solid ground,” given the provisions are temporary and aimed at securing critical supplies. Canada’s only recourse, should the eu renege on its assurances, is to claim it has been a subject of discriminatory practices.
The eu has published a list of 120 countries exempt from the mechanism and Canada is not on it.
Quite why that is the case, if the eu has no intention of restricting vaccine supply to this country, Ng could not say. She pointed out that the u.k., u.s. and Australia — all countries with domestic production — are not on the exempt list either, as if this makes things better.
Verheul said his department is carrying out an analysis of potential options should the eu’s assurances prove bogus.
“We’re waiting to see if the eu process is going to pose any interruptions or not. but we’re certainly prepared that, if this process does start to create problems, we will have steps we can take in light of that.”
Conservative MP randy Hoback asked how the mechanism might be triggered. Could, for example, Pfizer’s attempts to make up the 400,000 dose shortfall, caused by production issues in belgium, push individual eu states to call for export restrictions? “They can’t give Canada preferential treatment in a regulation,” he said.
Ng reiterated she’s been assured that shipments will not be delayed but only a blind optimist could have emerged consoled.
The u.s. also has rules that allow it to curb exports of vaccine.
Astrazeneca’s vaccine is currently before Health Canada for approval. If and when it is approved, supply of vaccine will likely come from Verity Pharmaceuticals and Serum Institute of India. At last glance, relations between Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and Narendra Modi’s India were so ultracold they could be used to store Pfizer’s vaccine.
Domestic pressures mean all politicians are vaccine protectionists now.
Ottawa did a good job identifying promising vaccines and taking out options on seven of them.
But that was only after it botched the opportunity to come up with a madein-canada solution at the National research Council facility in Montreal, where a collaboration with a Chinese vaccine company proved abortive.
(The Montreal site will start producing vaccine for Novavax, whose product is still waiting for approval from Health Canada. but the facility is unlikely to start manufacturing until July).
The deficiencies in Canada’s vaccine strategy were laid bare by Sir John bell, regius professor of medicine at the university of Oxford, on CTV’S Question Period.
Bell was involved in developing the vaccine being produced by Astrazeneca under licence in 13 different countries. At the start of the pandemic, bell said the u.k. had “close to zero manufacturing capability.” yet, with government funding, two manufacturing facilities were constructed.
“We took the decision last spring to make sure we actually had that capability,” he said. “Lots of other countries decided they would rely on others and that perhaps has not proved to be the right strategy.”
He suggested this country has become “overly dependent” on other countries, particularly the u.s.
“You do have to be independent and autonomous in these health and security issues,” he said.
It’s a lesson the federal government should have learned nearly a year ago from the shortfall of personal protective equipment.
No wonder Ng emphasized how important vaccine supply is to her government.
Nothing will prove as ruinous to Trudeau’s political fortunes as relying on shipments of vaccine from foreign countries that never arrive.