As long as a single country is offside, the waiver will not be a slam dunk.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 10, 2021.

The Canadian government could have been on the wrong side of the world vaccine issue.

By failing to immediately join the United States president in his call for an end to patent protection for coronavirus vaccines, Canada risked losing its globally positive reputation.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already signalled he may replace an initial tepid response with a strong endorsement of the plan by U.S. President Joe Biden to suspend patent rights during the pandemic. He should.

In most cases, governments have already participated financially in the development of these vaccines.

Parliament has already passed a resolution permitting the government to suspend patent rights during a pandemic.

The tools are there to move quickly in support of a World Trade Organization resolution proposed by India and South Africa and now supported by more than 100 countries.

It is quite possible that the nascent Biden administration kept allies in the dark regarding any intention to move on this motion.

Canada wasn’t the only country looking as though it was caught by surprise.

The European Union, and many countries there, had similar milquetoast responses to the statement issued last week by U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai.

The statement explained the change of heart because: “This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures … in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for vaccines.”

News reports say that the decision to proceed with the waiver was made on May 4 after weeks of internal debate, and representatives from the Commerce Department were not included in the final meeting.

With the announcement the following day, the usual outreach to like-minded countries did not gather a unanimous wave of support.

Germany came down hard on the proposal, while France offered tepid words of support.

While the American reversal was well-received around the world, the announcement promised discussion but there is no real deadline for completion.

The challenge of getting the exemption through the WTO is no small task because all resolutions are supposed to be determined by consensus.

As long as a single country is offside, the waiver will not be a slam dunk.

In the meantime, the current system will continue, with disproportionate vaccination in developed nations.

The second question not been fully answered is whether the waiver will actually ensure more global access to more vaccines, the reason behind the proposed patent waiver.

Vaccine manufacturers say the real issue is the production blockages and shortage of raw materials. They also claim that the waiver could dilute the safety and security of the vaccination rollout, encouraging fraudulent or inferior production methods.

The European Union has been promoting the idea of a liberalized licensing system with shared know-how and greater oversight.

Chances are this WTO patent waiver will take a least a year to implement, if ever.

Meanwhile the Biden administration has scored big with developing nations while Canada appears to be the fat cat sitting on the sidelines.

With the images of death and dying emanating from India, there is a huge humanitarian reason to be on the waiver side of this issue.

That, coupled with the number of expatriate Indo-Canadians fearing for their families’ lives, should be reason enough for the cabinet to come out strongly in support of the Biden initiative.

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh has already accused the prime minister of putting drug company profits ahead of the pandemic.

He knows that Canadians will not take kindly to a leader who waffles on the issue of global access to vaccines.

The irony is that the United States has already used its own manufacturing capacity to secure vaccines for all its citizens before pivoting on the waiver issue.

The president knew that raising the ire of vaccine manufacturers would probably slow down his national rollout.

On the Canadian side, we currently have no international manufacturers. The only Canadian company that had begun the development process, Providence Therapeutics from Calgary, last week blamed lack of government support for a decision to leave the country.

Last month, Ontario and federal governments announced a vaccine package of 925 million with Sanofi, a French pharmaceutical giant. The plan envisions a new vaccine production facility in Toronto to open in 2027. The federal government contributed 415 million and Ontario added 55 million to the project.

Those jobs will likely be threatened by an open vaccine regime.

But the prime minister’s own job may be at risk if Canada flaunts the global consensus.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on September 10, 2018.

OTTAWA—Culture is a hill that the North American Free Trade Agreement should die on.

And those naysayers who have piled on to criticize the prime minister’s decision to hold firm on culture simply don’t know what they are talking about. The growth in cultural jobs doubled that of the overall economy, accounting for more than 650,000 jobs.

Our intricate system of cultural supports, subsidies, and licence requirements is an economic driver for the country. According to Statistics Canada, the cultural GDP in Canada totalled $53.8-billion in 2016, a 1.5 per cent increase from the previous year.

Culture also accounted for 2.8 per cent of Canada’s overall GDP. The importance of culture varied considerably across provinces and territories, ranging from a share of 1.3 per cent of GDP in Saskatchewan to 3.5 per cent in Ontario.

At the national level, cultural jobs were on the increase in most domains, led by sound recording with an increase of more than seven per cent.

The only decrease was in the publishing of written works which declined for the fourth consecutive year.

The audio-visual sector is certainly an important part of the cultural landscape but it is by no means the only sector influenced by a robust, and differentiated Canadian cultural policy, Canada’s intricate support framework is a job creator. But, more importantly, it is also the only way that Canadians can create and share their own stories.

The biggest cultural fight with the United States had nothing to do with television. The so-called “Magazine Wars” were actually about the written word.

That battle happened when the Americans tried to do an end-run around the cultural exemption Canada had negotiated in the initial free trade agreement with the United States.

The Americans went to the World Trade Organization to accuse Canada of unfair treatment because our tax system offered enhanced advertising credits exclusively for Canadian magazines. The Yanks wanted Time Magazine to get the same support as Maclean’s.

The WTO found in favour of the United States, taking the view that magazines are a commodity just like bananas or pork bellies. It ruled that no country could use the tax system to favour their own creative vehicles, like books, music, magazines, or film.

That decision so outraged Canada that we initiated a new world convention under the auspices of UNESCO. The 2005 Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions was a direct result of the magazine battle between Canada and the United States. It effectively replaced the WTO as the platform to arbitrate cultural disputes.

The United States was blindsided in their attempt to block the convention. Notwithstanding a full court press that included the intervention of then U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the final UNESCO Convention vote was 148 in favour and two against.

The only countries who voted against were the United Nations and Israel. Australia, Liberia, Nicaragua and Honduras abstained.

But the overwhelming majority of countries agreed on an important world precedent. They argued successfully that culture must be treated in a unique and different way from other commodities when it comes to the rules governing international trade.

Trudeau needs to stand firm on this position at the NAFTA talks. To do anything else would be folly for a country that shares the world’s largest border and a common language with the United States.

Can you imagine a Canadian broadcast landscape where Howard Stern and Fox News dominate the agenda? Under our system, Stern’s radio show lasted only weeks in Canada because his brand of misogyny violated our broadcast laws.

The cultural exemption ensures that we will have space and support for our own stories.

Canadians need shelf space for creations in print, music, museology, audio-visual and performance arts.

Each of those elements is an important part in defining who we are. Of course, some stories are universal.

A film version of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale resonates in the global market. But her strength as a writer and creator was nurtured through multiple Canadian policies that should not be compromised.

Copyright laws, book publishing support, public lending right payments, international travel investment in the arts and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have all played a part in Atwood’s impressive global trajectory.

The Handmaid’s Tale would not have been written without a strong Canadian cultural policy.

Some think that the cultural exemption is only there to support the few.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Trudeau needs to stand firm on this.

A NAFTA without the cultural exemption is not worth signing.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.