FAAE Committee Report

DISSENTING OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA

The Conservative Party is pleased to submit this dissenting report. We would like to thank the many witnesses and experts who testified before the committee.

The frank reality at this point is that the global context is completely different from the context that existed when hearings were held. The committee decided to study this issue at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic was still raging and when there were still significant COVID-19 related restrictions at the provincial and federal level in Canada and in various jurisdictions around the world. Today, even if not everyone considers the pandemic to be over, most people and most governments are behaving as if it is. This is one way that the context has changed. Another new piece of context is that a global compromise was reached on issues of intellectual property and vaccines. This compromise has been praised by some and criticized by others. It might be worthwhile for the committee to study views on and the impact of this compromise. However, since the hearings for this study were held before the compromise was reached and the report is being published after the compromise, it’s hard for the committee’s reports to actually speak substantively to the current reality. There continue to be many issues worthy of discussion related to vaccine equity, but this report does not speak effectively to the current context.

We also note that witness testimony revealed how there is significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in developing nations. Even in the spring we were told that a lack of demand was more the driver of low vaccination rates than a lack of supply. The committee’s report generally fails to engage with the substantive reasons why this might be the case. The committee heard that the Canadian government was primarily distributing doses of a vaccine (AstraZeneca) that was not recommended for use in Canada by Canadians. Conservatives sought to understand how the government could justify recommending against a vaccine for Canadians while distributing it to the developing world. It is not entirely surprising that this apparent inconsistency may have contributed to vaccine hesitancy. Another possible contributing factor to vaccine hesitancy is the fact that pharmaceutical manufacturers sought and received indemnification agreements which involved countries (not companies) contributing to a no-fault compensation mechanism for those who experience vaccine injuries and that countries had to sign onto indemnification agreements before accessing the COVAX mechanism. Seeking indemnification clauses is not a great way for companies to seek to inspire confidence in their products. These current realities, along with the history of colonialism in many developing countries, are likely contributing factors to the lack of demand for COVID-19 vaccination that the committee report does not address. An honest reckoning with the reality of low vaccination uptake in certain quarters needs to take these factors into consideration.

While the Conservative Party believes that this is an important area of study, the committee would have been better advised to prepare a report that engaged with the present circumstances and with the other factors mentioned.