News
Canada lacks ‘political will’ to waive COVID-19 vaccine patents, Bolivian minister says – Global News
It’s been five months since the Bolivian government called on Canada to allow COVID-19 vaccines to flow from a manufacturer in St. Catharines, Ont., to the Global South.
Now, the country, where fewer than thirty per cent of people are fully vaccinated, is repeating its request for Canada to override the patent waiver and issue a compulsory license to allow manufacturing to begin.
“It is time to make decisions in the name of humanity,” said Benjamin Blanco, Minister of Foreign Trade and Integration, Ministry of Foreign Relations for Bolivia in an interview with Global News.
In May, Bolivia signed an agreement with Biolyse Pharma, a St. Catharines-based pharmaceutical company, which is prepared to manufacture the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine. The deal would ensure Bolivia received the first 15 million doses produced by Biolyse. However, the company still has not been approved to begin manufacturing by the Canadian government, leaving the Bolivian people in the lurch.
“We continue to wait,” said Blanco. “We have been waiting too long.”
Currently, the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement protects Johnson and Johnson’s patent on their vaccine and prohibits Biolyse from producing it. The TRIPS waiver, if put into effect, would allow for member states like Canada to scale-up their manufacturing of patent-protected COVID-19 vaccines.
Read more:
Biolyse suggests Health Canada lacks urgency over its ask to produce COVID-19 vaccines for export
Biolyse has also made a formal appeal to the Canadian government to amend a list of Schedule I drugs under the Patent Act to include COVID-19 vaccines under the Canadian Access to Medicines Regime, a separate entity from the TRIPS waiver. The Canadian manufacturer also approached Johnson and Johnson to help them in producing their vaccine, but were turned down.
Multiple attempts by Global News to reach Johnson and Johnson went unanswered.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada wrote in an email to Global News they are “aware of the interest in exploring IP flexibilities to increase COVID 19 vaccine production.” The spokesperson did not directly answer concerns from the Bolivian government or about Canada not issuing a compulsory license to Biolyse.
They’ve said that companies like Biolyse can apply for Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR) to acquire a compulsory license to produce and export the COVID-19 vaccine, which the company has already done. The vaccine has not been added to Schedule 1 and even if added would not itself result in a compulsory licence.
Canada lacking ‘political will’ on TRIPS waiver
Canada’s lack of movement on the TRIPS waiver has left Blanco stunned. The Bolivian cabinet minister said Canada, where more than 75 per cent of people are fully vaccinated, is looking out for companies, not people.
“What we need is political will,” said Benjamin Blanco. “We need the governments of developed countries to be able to think of life before the interests of a few transnational pharmaceutical companies.”
In May, then-Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade of Canada, Mary Ng said Canada will “actively participate” in negotiations to waive intellectual property patents for COVID-19 vaccines as part of a World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement.
“We have been a leader in the global effort to ensure there is equitable access to successful vaccines,” she said.
Ng’s comments were reiterated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who said his government was “working with others around the world to come up with a solution.”
“We’re engaged wholeheartedly in these discussions on various proposals,” he said at a press conference in May. “I can assure you that Canada is not interfering or blocking. Canada is very much working to find a solution that works for everyone.”
In many ways, Blanco said he is “disappointed” in Canada’s lack of decision-making to how the country positions itself as a global champion for equity and public health.
“We are confused. Canada in multilateral organizations uses one discourse, but in practice, we see another action,” he said.
Biolyse prepared to create vaccines
While it seems like initiating the TRIPS waiver might be a major move for Canada to undertake, the country did exactly that in 2007 when it approved Apotex to produce TriAvir, an HIV drug, to be sent to Rwanda.
“It was for a good cause, but it was a bureaucratic headache for all,” said Richard Gold, a law professor at McGill University who specializes in patent law and the biomedical field.
Biolyse is going down the more process-intensive and bureaucratic method of CAMR, according to Gold.
In 2006, the company won approval to produce the drug Oseltamivir, better known as Tamiflu during the bird flu pandemic. The process took seven months, but during that wait, the demand dwindled.
John Fulton, executive vice president at Biolyse, oversaw the process in 2007, so knew it would take some time. But, he still admitted the constant jumping through hoops the past several months has him “losing sleep” and it’s hard to stomach given the depths of the current global situation. He thinks that Canada could’ve approved the drug through CAMR or supported the TRIPS waiver, but has done neither.
“In some ways, I’m embarrassed as a Canadian that the government is not jumping on this opportunity,” he said.
Biolyse is in the midst of preparing to handle vaccine manufacturing, which Fulton said would require about four to six months and an injection of cash from the federal government.
Fulton said Biolyse checks off most of the boxes needed to produce the vaccine, but he alleges it is bureaucracy that is causing the delay, not the financial shortcomings or lack of experience. Over the past several months, Fulton claims he has been passed back-and-forth from different ministries and spoken to well over 50 government employees, none of whom can give him a clear answer on when he can expect an approval.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada told Global News that “federal government officials have met with Biolyse on a number of occasions to discuss their manufacturing capabilities, the process for Schedule 1 listing, and subsequent authorization requirements.”
Even if Canada did approve the vaccine to be on Schedule 1, Biolyse would still need to conduct trials to meet Health Canada safety requirements. According to Fulton, if all went well and Johnson and Johnson worked with them, that timeline could be four months, but if they have to reverse-engineer the vaccine, which is doable, it would take 8-12 months.
Blanco said in many respects, Canada has talked about making vaccines available to everyone, about the need for global vaccination, and now when presented with an option to follow through, the country has not moved on the opportunity.
“We thought that the Canadian government was going to be much faster,” said Blanco. “The days go by at the diplomatic level, we have no answer.”
What to do about the TRIPS waiver?
In March 2020, the Government of Canada amended the Patent Act and the Drugs Act in direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The changes would allow the government to use and authorize the use of patented inventions on a time-limited basis to address drug shortages.
At the time, Srinivas Murthy, a Faculty of Medicine member at the University of British Columbia, thought it would be a sign of things to come, but noted that we’ve trended the wrong way.
“I don’t think we’ve even moved the needle in wanting to waive patents,” he said.
According to both Murthy and Gold, some of the arguments to uphold patents, mainly around innovation, lack empirical evidence. But, to Gold, part of the reason why Canada could be hesitant around touching the intellectual property (IP) of big pharma is the desire to have them invest and build in the north. The desire to drive investment coupled with buying vaccines from the companies in question is another reason Gold thinks Canada is mum on the TRIPS waiver.
“Any time that the government worries about exporting or decreasing IP, they’re going to get attacked by certain sectors, including the pharmaceutical sector,” he said.
In May, 62 member states at the WTO supported a TRIPS waiver proposal brought forth by India and South Africa, with almost 100 low-income countries throwing their support behind the idea. But, wealthier nations like the U.K., Japan and Australia opposed it. While the U.S. announced support for re-negotiations, they have yet to sign onto the proposal.
To Murthy, Canada and other rich countries tend to be “chipper” about how much they do for smaller nations, but in reality, he thinks the pandemic has shown the gaps in global public health. Now, while rich countries have an abundance of vaccines and are able to have nuanced conversations like overcoming hesitancy or whether a third booster dose is needed, the rest of the world is still struggling to get even first doses.
In Bolivia, only 27.9 per cent of their people have received a full set of COVID-19 doses while the entire continent of Africa has only 2.2 per cent of their population vaccinated, according to Our World in Data, which tracks global vaccination rates.
“We’ve all realized that supply of these vaccines isn’t enough to meet demand globally,” said Murthy in an interview with Global News. “Rich countries have vaccinated their populations and poor countries have not. And that is almost exclusively because of supply and distribution on the supply side of things.”
Murthy knows there will be some arguments against citing a potential ‘loss of innovation’ if Canada moves to remove patents, but said a significant part of the COVID-19 vaccines were developed in part due to the work of researchers from the University of British Columbia. The technology used by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can be “traced back to research pioneered in the lab of Dr. Pieter Cullis in the late 1970s,” according to UBC. In Murthy’s view, it’s clear that innovative public health research is being used for-profit, but the public isn’t always reaping the benefits.
“People don’t have access to supply of the lifesaving intervention purely because of patents,” he said.
Gold thinks big pharma has enough profits off the vaccine and now it’s time to ensure people across the world can get the jab.
“They’ve profited, a lot. It’s time to share.”
© 2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
News
Capital gains tax change draws ire from some Canadian entrepreneurs worried it will worsen brain drain – CBC.ca
A chorus of Canadian entrepreneurs and investors is blasting the federal government’s budget for expanding a tax on the rich. They say it will lead to brain drain and further degrade Canada’s already poor productivity.
In the 2024 budget unveiled Tuesday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said the government would increase the inclusion rate of the capital gains tax from 50 per cent to 67 per cent for businesses and trusts, generating an estimated $19 billion in new revenue.
Capital gains are the profits that individuals or businesses make from selling an asset — like a stock or a second home. Individuals are subject to the new changes on any profits over $250,000.
The government estimates that the changes would impact 40,000 individuals (or 0.13 per cent of Canadians in any given year) and 307,000 companies in Canada.
However, some members of the business community say that expanding the taxable amount will devastate productivity, investment and entrepreneurship in Canada, and might even compel some of the country’s talent and startups to take their business elsewhere.
Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland unveiled the government’s 2024 federal budget, with spending targeted at young voters and a plan to raise capital gains taxes for some of the wealthiest Canadians.
Benjamin Bergen, president of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI), said the capital gains tax has overshadowed parts of the federal budget that the business community would otherwise be excited about.
“There were definitely some other stars in the budget that were interesting,” he said. “However, the … capital gains piece really is the sun, and it’s daylight. So this is really the only thing that innovators can see.”
The CCI has written and is circulating an open letter signed by more than 1,000 people in the Canadian business community to Trudeau’s government asking it to scrap the tax change.
Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke and president Harley Finkelstein also weighed in on the proposed hike on X, formerly known as Twitter.
We need to be doing everything we can to turn Canada into the best place for entrepreneurs to build 🇨🇦<br><br>What’s proposed in the federal budget will do the complete opposite. Innovators and entrepreneurs will suffer and their success will be penalized — this is not a wealth tax,…
—@harleyf
Former finance minister Bill Morneau said his successor’s budget disincentivizes businesses from investing in the country’s innovation sector: “It’s probably very troubling for many investors.”
Canada’s productivity — a measure that compares economic output to hours worked — has been relatively poor for decades. It underperforms against the OECD average and against several other G7 countries, including the U.S., Germany, U.K. and Japan, on the measure.
Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers sounded the alarm on Canada’s lagging productivity in a speech last month, saying the country’s need to increase the rate had reached emergency levels, following one of the weakest years for the economy in recent memory.
The government said it was proposing the tax change to make life more affordable for younger generations and fund efforts to boost housing supply — and that it would support productivity growth.
A challenge for investors, founders and workers
The change could have a chilling effect for several reasons, with companies already struggling to access funding in a high interest rate environment, said Bergen.
He questioned whether investors will want to fund Canadian companies if the government’s taxation policies make it difficult for those firms to grow — and whether founders might just pack up.
The expanded inclusion rate “is just one of the other potential concerns that firms are going to have as they’re looking to grow their companies.”
He said the rejigged tax is also an affront to high-skilled workers from low-innovation sectors who might have taken the risk of joining a startup for the opportunity, even taking a lower wage on the chance that a firm’s stock options grow in value.
But Lindsay Tedds, an associate economics professor at the University of Calgary, said the tax change is one of the most misunderstood parts of the federal budget — and that its impact on the country’s talent has been overstated.
“This is not a major innovation-biting tax change treatment,” Tedds said. “In fact, when you talk to real grassroots entrepreneurs that are setting up businesses, tax rates do not come into their decision.”
As for productivity, Tedds said Canadians might see improvements in the long run “to the degree that some of our productivity problems are driven by stresses like housing affordability, access to child care, things like that.”
‘One foot on the gas, one foot on the brake’
Some say the government is sending mixed messages to entrepreneurs by touting tailored tax breaks — like the Canada Entrepreneurs’ Incentive, which reduces the capital gains inclusion rate to 33 per cent on a lifetime maximum of $2 million — while introducing measures they say would dampen investment and innovation.
“They seem to have one foot on the gas, one foot on the brake on the very same file,” said Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Some business groups are worried that new capital gains tax changes could hurt economic growth. But according to Small Business Minister Rechie Valdez, most Canadians won’t be impacted by that change — and it’s a move to create fairness.
A founder may be able to sell their successful company with a lower capital gains treatment than otherwise possible, he said.
“At the same time, though, big chunks of it may be subject to a higher rate of capital gains inclusion.”
Selling a company can fund an individual’s retirement, he said, which is why it’s one of the first things founders consider when they think about capital gains.
Mainstreet NS7:03Ottawa is proposing a hike to capital gains tax. What does that mean?
Tuesday’s federal budget includes nearly $53 billion in new spending over the next five years with a clear focus on affordability and housing. To help pay for some of that new spending, Ottawa is proposing a hike to the capital gains tax. Moshe Lander, an economics lecturer at Concordia University, joins host Jeff Douglas to explain.
Dennis Darby, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, says he was disappointed by the change — and that it sends the wrong message to Canadian industries like his own.
He wants to see the government commit to more tax credit proposals like the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses, which he said would incentivize business owners to stay and help make Canada competitive with the U.S.
“We’ve had a lot of difficulties attracting investment over the years. I don’t think this will make it any better.”
Tech titan says change will only impact richest of the rich
Toronto tech entrepreneur Ali Asaria will be one of those subject to the expanded capital gains inclusion rate — but he says it’s only fair.
“It’s going to really affect the richest of the rich people,” Asaria, CEO of open source platform Transformer Lab and founder of well.ca, told CBC News.
“The capital gains exemption is probably the largest tax break that I’ve ever received in my life,” he said. “So I know a lot about what that benefit can look like, but I’ve also always felt like it was probably one of the most unfair parts of the tax code today.”
While Asaria said Canada needs to continue encouraging talent to take risks and build companies in the country, taxation policies aren’t the most major problem.
“I think that the biggest central issue to the reason why people will leave Canada is bigger issues, like housing,” he said.
“How do we make it easier to live in Canada so that we can all invest in ourselves and invest in our companies? That’s a more important question than, ‘How do we help the top 0.13 per cent of Canadians make more money?'”
More money will land in the pockets of Canadian families on Friday for the latest Canada Child Benefit (CCB) installment.
The federal government program helps low and middle-income families struggling with the soaring cost of raising a child.
Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or refugees who are the primary caregivers for children under 18 years old are eligible for the program, introduced in 2016.
The non-taxable monthly payments are based on a family’s net income and how many children they have. Families that have an adjusted net income under $34,863 will receive the maximum amount per child.
For a child under six years old, an applicant can annually receive up to $7,437 per child, and up to $6,275 per child for kids between the ages of six through 17.
That translates to up to $619.75 per month for the younger cohort and $522.91 per month for the older group.
The benefit is recalculated every July and most recently increased 6.3 per cent in order to adjust to the rate of inflation, and cost of living.
To apply, an applicant can submit through a child’s birth registration, complete an online form or mail in an application to a tax centre.
The next payment date will take place on May 17.
Keffiyehs remain banned in the Ontario Legislature after a unanimous consent motion that would have allowed the scarf to be worn failed to pass at Queen’s Park Thursday.
That vote, brought forth by NDP Leader Marit Stiles, failed despite Premier Doug Ford and the leaders of the province’s opposition parties all stating they want to see the ban overturned. Complete agreement from all MPPs is required for a motion like this to pass, and there were a smattering of “nos” after it was read into the record.
In an email on Wednesday, Speaker Ted Arnott said the legislature has previously restricted the wearing of clothing that is intended to make an “overt political statement” because it upholds a “standard practice of decorum.”
“The Speaker cannot be aware of the meaning of every symbol or pattern but when items are drawn to my attention, there is a responsibility to respond. After extensive research, I concluded that the wearing of keffiyehs at the present time in our Assembly is intended to be a political statement. So, as Speaker, I cannot authorize the wearing of keffiyehs based on our longstanding conventions,” Arnott said in an email.
Speaking at Queen’s Park Thursday, Arnott said he would reconsider the ban with unanimous consent from MPPs.
“If the house believes that the wearing of the keffiyeh in this house, at the present time, is not a political statement, I would certainly and unequivocally accept the express will of the house with no ifs, ands or buts,” he said.
Keffiyehs are a commonly worn scarf among Arabs, but hold special significance to Palestinian people. They have been a frequent sight among pro-Palestinian protesters calling for an end to the violence in Gaza as the Israel-Hamas war continues.
Premier calls for reversal
Ford said Thursday he’s hopeful Arnott will reverse the ban, but he didn’t say if he would instruct his caucus to support the NDP’s motion.
In a statement issued Wednesday, Ford said the decision was made by the speaker and nobody else.
“I do not support his decision as it needlessly divides the people of our province. I call on the speaker to reverse his decision immediately,” Ford said.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford reiterated Thursday that he does not support Speaker Ted Arnott banning keffiyehs in the Ontario Legislature because they are “intended to be a political statement,” as Arnott said in an email Wednesday.
PC Party MPP Robin Martin, who represents Eglinton–Lawrence, voted against the unanimous consent motion Thursday and told reporters she believes the speaker’s initial ruling was the correct one.
“We have to follow the rules of the legislature, otherwise we politicize the entire debate inside the legislature, and that’s not what it’s about. What it’s about is we come there and use our words to persuade, not items of clothing.”
When asked if she had defied a directive from the premier, Martin said, “It has nothing to do with the premier, it’s a decision of the speaker of the legislative assembly.”
Stiles told reporters Thursday she’s happy Ford is on her side on this issue, but added she is disappointed the motion didn’t pass.
“The premier needs to talk to his people and make sure they do the right thing,” she said.
Stiles first urged Arnott to reconsider the ban in an April 12 letter. She said concerns over the directive first surfaced after being flagged by members of her staff, however they have gained prominence after Sarah Jama, Independent MPP for Hamilton Centre, posted about the issue on X, formerly Twitter.
Jama was removed from the NDP caucus for her social media comments on the Israel-Hamas war shortly after Oct. 7.
Jama has said she believes she was kicked out of the party because she called for a ceasefire in Gaza “too early” and because she called Israel an “apartheid state.”
Arnott told reporters Thursday that he began examining a ban on the Keffiyeh after one MPP made a complaint about another MPP, who he believes was Jama, who was wearing one.
Liberals also call for reversal
Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie also called for a reversal of the ban on Wednesday night.
“Here in Ontario, we are home to a diverse group of people from so many backgrounds. This is a time when leaders should be looking for ways to bring people together, not to further divide us. I urge Speaker Arnott to immediately reconsider this move to ban the keffiyeh,” Crombie said.
Keffiyehs are a common garment across the Arab world, but they hold a special meaning in the Palestinian resistance movement.
Stiles said MPPs have worn kilts, kirpans, vyshyvankas and chubas in the legislature, saying such items of clothing not only have national and cultural associations, but have also been considered at times as “political symbols in need of suppression.”
She said Indigenous and non-Indigenous members have also dressed in traditional regalia and these items cannot be separated from their historical and political significance.
“The wearing of these important cultural and national clothing items in our Assembly is something we should be proud of. It is part of the story of who we are as a province,” she said.
“Palestinians are part of that story, and the keffiyeh is a traditional clothing item that is significant not only to them but to many members of Arab and Muslim communities. That includes members of my staff who have been asked to remove their keffiyehs in order to come to work. This is unacceptable.”
Stiles added that House of Commons and other provincial legislatures allow the wearing of keffiyehs in their chambers and the ban makes Ontario an “outlier.”
Suppression of cultural symbols part of genocide: MPP
Jama said on X that the ban is “unsurprising” but “nonetheless concerning” in a country that has a legacy of colonialism. “Part of committing genocide is the forceful suppression of cultural identity and cultural symbols,” she said in part.
“Seeing those in power in this country at all levels of government, from federal all the way down to school boards, aid Israel’s colonial regime with these tactics in the oppression of Palestinian people proves that reconciliation is nothing but a word when spoken by state powers,” she said.
Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, said on X that it is “deeply ironic” on that keffiyehs were banned in the Ontario legislature on the 42nd anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“This is wrong and dangerous as we have already seen violence and exclusion impact Canadians, including Muslims of Palestinian descent, who choose to wear this traditional Palestinian clothing,” Elghawaby said.
Arnott said the keffiyeh was not considered a “form of protest” in the legislature prior to statements and debates that happened in the House last fall.
“These items are not absolutes and are not judged in a vacuum,” he said.
Former HGTV star slapped with $10 million fine and jail time for real estate fraud – Fortune
Botched home sale costs Winnipeg man his right to sell real estate in Manitoba – CBC.ca
Social Media Tips for Event Profs – BizBash
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
12 Bizarre Things People Did Just To Make Social Media Content
Global Media Markets, 2015-2020, 2020-2025F, 2030F – TV and Radio Broadcasting, Film and Music, Information Services, Web Content, Search Portals And Social Media, Print Media, & Cable – GlobeNewswire
-
Media14 hours ago
DJT Stock Rises. Trump Media CEO Alleges Potential Market Manipulation. – Barron's
-
Media16 hours ago
Trump Media alerts Nasdaq to potential market manipulation from 'naked' short selling of DJT stock – CNBC
-
Investment15 hours agoPrivate equity gears up for potential National Football League investments – Financial Times
-
Sports19 hours ago
2024 Stanley Cup Playoffs 1st-round schedule – NHL.com
-
Investment24 hours ago
Want to Outperform 88% of Professional Fund Managers? Buy This 1 Investment and Hold It Forever. – The Motley Fool
-
Health23 hours ago
Toronto reports 2 more measles cases. Use our tool to check the spread in Canada – Toronto Star
-
Business15 hours ago
Gas prices see 'largest single-day jump since early 2022': En-Pro International – Yahoo Canada Finance
-
Real eState7 hours ago
Botched home sale costs Winnipeg man his right to sell real estate in Manitoba – CBC.ca
