Our Submission for the HESA Study on Canada’s Pharmaceutical Sovereignty

April 17, 2026

Share:

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is pleased to contribute to the Standing Committee on Health’s study of Canada’s pharmaceutical sovereignty. Ensuring a reliable supply of essential medicines, devices and equipment is critical for health security and economic resilience. Enhancing access to these goods is also vital for addressing health system challenges and supporting our life sciences sector, which is a driver of innovation and economic growth. In a less secure geopolitical climate, and as we face unprecedented economic headwinds, a strong life sciences sector and domestic production capabilities are valuable national assets.

However, rather than focusing on “pharmaceutical sovereignty,” the government should instead pursue a policy of “pharmaceutical resilience.” While building domestic production capacity is important, it is unrealistic for Canada to domestically produce all the medical goods it needs. The best way to ensure access to critical medicines and equipment is through a competitive life sciences sector. International trade and integration into global supply chains is a vital precondition of our sector’s success and limiting our ability to import the goods we need and of our domestic firms to participate in the global economy will be counterproductive. In addition to strong domestic manufacturing capacity, risks arising from disruptions to global supply chains can also be managed through bilateral or multilateral mechanisms that protect the movement of medical goods during crises.

As the U.S. administration continues the overhaul of its trade policy, Canada’s life sciences sector is faced with a new set of challenges. Chief among these is the effort of the U.S. administration to rebalance global pharmaceutical pricing through its most-favoured nation (MFN) policy. In light of U.S. list prices for name-brand drugs regularly running several times higher than those abroad, the MFN policy would benchmark U.S. prices to countries with a GDP per capita at least 60% of the U.S. Rather than face significant losses in the U.S. market, drug manufacturers could withdraw or avoid smaller markets like Canada, which accounts for only 2% of global pharmaceutical demand.

Given the potentially profound consequences, a response that increases our support for pharmaceutical innovation and production is needed. We have a broad range of potential tools at our disposal, including the creation of a fund to support life sciences innovation, reducing wait times for patients on public plans to access new drugs, building on red tape reduction initiatives at Health Canada, and aligning our intellectual property (IP) rules with those of key trading partners. These policies will incentivise investment in the life sciences sector and effectively increase our support for pharmaceutical innovation.

A vision of pharmaceutical resilience must also include measures to ensure access to medical devices and equipment, which increasingly work hand in hand with pharmaceuticals in treating medical conditions. Currently, the U.S. administration is conducting a Section 232 study on medical devices, PPE, and consumables. Likewise, while building domestic manufacturing capacity is important, overly restrictive “Buy Canadian” policies could threaten to restrict access to needed devices and equipment in Canada. Limiting trade restrictions on medical devices must also be prioritised in trade negotiations, including during the CUSMA review.

We submit the below recommendations for the Committee’s consideration. We would be happy to discuss the contents of our submission with Committee members in greater detail.