Industry Committee on April 18th, 2007

[John Kelsall]

Just to add to that, I would say that I'm a businessman from way back--I've been involved in an NGO now for 15 years--and it's very important to know your costs of inputs, costs of shipping, and costs of distribution. That's why I say this is really a transitional strategy. The African countries need to be encouraged to produce it on their own.

It would be interesting for the committee to determine whether, in those African countries that are producing their own ARVs, there is subsidization from the Clinton Foundation or other global types in order to make the final cost to the patient affordable. If ARVs were produced in Canada, basic intuition would say that there would need to be some kind of subsidization so the prices could actually be met by the person receiving the ARVs.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

All three of you answered my question as if Canada were the only country with that problem. Do you realize that there are 30 countries that have exactly the same problem, including the European Union? Nobody can get one single order from those countries for generic medicine, not one.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Unfortunately, we're out of time. I will have to let that be a statement.

I'll move on to Madame Brunelle.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I would like to talk about the list of schedule 1. Mrs. Perkins, you say in your third recommendation that eligible pharmaceuticals should not be limited to the list in schedule 1 because those that are most needed are not on the list.

Mr. Elliott, you have also recommended to eliminate this schedule 1. I did not take part in the drafting of this legislation but I suppose there would have been a long debate before coming to an agreement on the list. There must have been some kind of consensus.

I wonder how that agreement was achieved when we know that things happen very quickly in R&D. Certainly, new drugs are created regularly. So, should we get rid of that list of schedule 1? Is there any danger in doing that? Would there be any problems? Is that the solution to really implement the legislation?

[Sarah Perkins]

Thank you very much for your question.

I just want to clarify. I believe--and Richard Elliott can probably correct me if I'm wrong--that Canada is actually the only country that has implemented this decision, that has included the schedule. So the schedule 1 list of medicine is not a requirement by the WTO for compliance. So we could eliminate this decision for the factors that you point out.

Research and development are happening very, very quickly. As drugs come up, we want them to be instantly available if there's a generic manufacturer who's ready to step forward and produce that drug. So we can take off this list and leave it open, and that would be compliant with our WTO obligations.

[Richard Elliott]

First, I want to clarify something. When the legislation was being discussed, there was no consensus on the fact that there should be a list. On the contrary, all the NGOs were opposed to the creation of that limited list. As Mrs. Perkins explained, we said that there was no need to include such a list in the Canadian legislation since none was required by the WTO decision.

As far as we are concerned, it is not difficult to identify what is a pharmaceutical product. The only requirement should be to obtain a compulsory license to manufacture the product. It is not difficult to determine what is a pharmaceutical product and it is not necessary to have a limited list.

Thank you.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

One may think that in case of a pandemic, for example, the existence of this list of medicines could delay the process and prevent the rapid distribution of drugs. So, eliminating the list could be a solution in case of a pandemic.

[Richard Elliott]

That should be part of the solution but it is not the only recommendation we have made in our brief. There are other important recommendations, especially on the compulsory license process which should be simplified. Eliminating the list is part of the solution but is not the whole solution.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

[Richard Elliott]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, madame Brunelle.

Members, we have about 13 minutes. I have a couple of questions, and I have the next spot.

I'm not going to hold members here. I know they have to get to the House. But for the witnesses, if you wouldn't mind staying for a few more minutes, I will add my questions, and if we have time, we can get in a couple of more questions as well.

First of all, I want to follow up on Madame Brunelle's discussion with Ms. Perkins and Mr. Elliott with respect to the schedules.

You're correct in the sense that we do not have to have the schedules in the legislation. In fact, I think other countries do not have schedules in their legislation. But when I asked this of the Industry Canada representative, he said that if we don't have schedules in the legislation, it will in fact make the process longer because litigation over the patents will result. So it was Industry Canada's view that if you had the schedules and you had the identified pharmaceuticals, you'd actually make the process simpler.

I want to get your response to that statement.

[Sarah Perkins]

I would disagree. As I mentioned, when developing countries look at this list, the drugs they want and most desperately need are not on it, like second-line treatment.

In the case of Ghana, Ghana actually has been the first West African country to issue a compulsory licence. They issued that licence to import from India. They often issue that type of thing on an emergency basis when they find that they have a sudden drug shortage on their shelves, because planning can be very, very difficult in African countries. To have legislation that's responsive and swift, we cannot have that sort of scheduled list, because the drug they need might not be on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's a fair point, but that's not what I'm asking. There is a process to add pharmaceuticals to the list, and it may be cumbersome or it may not be. But my question is more that Industry Canada stated that if you did not have schedules, you would in fact make the process longer by having litigation over patents between the generics and the brand names.

You're stating that is not your position. Why not?

[Richard Elliott]

With great respect to our colleagues at Industry Canada, I find it hard to imagine that a brand name pharmaceutical company is going to be able to go credibly before a court in Canada and say that particular tablet is not a pharmaceutical product.

If your legislation says you can get a compulsory licence on any pharmaceutical product, I don't think there's much risk of litigation here. Is Glaxo really going to go to the Federal Court of Canada and say that tablet of 3TC is not a pharmaceutical product? I think the concern is overstated, frankly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No, the concern would be that they would say the patent was being broken, and that's what ties it up.

[Richard Elliott]

Well, that's the entire purpose of this legislation, to allow for the patent to be overridden and to authorize a generic manufacturer to make it. But the notion that we need a list of specifically named drugs in order to resolve any confusion about whether a particular drug is a pharmaceutical product, to me, does not seem particularly logical.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm sorry, Ms. Devine, I have a second question. Perhaps you can start with this one.

Following up on what Mr. Martin said, respectfully I would say the big problem here is that we're setting up a model where you're just allowing....

Any time you get into patent legislation, the same as competition legislation or a lot of other legislation, it's so complicated and involves so many interests. It seems to me that Mr. Martin's question is completely valid in the sense that it says, let's step outside of that and let's put out an RFP, and let's in fact realize that the brand names are the ones actually creating these medicines in the first place, and then you give them an opportunity. He said you simplify the licence system.

That seems to me to be an entirely valid question, especially with the amount of foundation funds that are out there with the Gates Foundation and other foundations. It seems to me much simpler to actually say, here's what the Government of Canada is coming to the table with through CIDA, here's perhaps the Gates Foundation, and here's an opportunity for either the brand name or the generic to come forward and supply the medicine. The goal is to get the medicine from here to a person, as Mr. Fox said, so that person's life improves. It's not to get involved in a patent debate in Canada.

Ms. Devine, maybe you want to respond to that again.

[Carol Devine]

Thank you.

For Médecins Sans Frontières' viewpoint, we have a certain amount of money to spend on the drugs. We want to treat as many people as possible with quality drugs, so we're going to keep going the generic route. We haven't had enough success in having enough affordable medicines from the brand names to not depend on the generics, so unless there's a fundamental change in the pricing--and we can say with certainty that ad hoc, there have been some good initiatives--it's not the route to go if we're talking about saving lives now, if we're talking about the AIDS pandemic.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But the reason I like Mr. Martin's proposal is that it actually says to the brand names, okay, if you guys want to come to the table, come to the table. The Government of Canada's coming to the table. The foundations are coming to the table. You have the opportunity to come to the table.

[Carol Devine]

We've been urging that for years, frankly, so--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Mr. O'Connor, you wanted to respond.

[Michael O'Connor]

Yes, I just wanted to say that for us as an organization that has been looking at what CIDA does and how we spend our development assistance money for a number of years, I think that a move like that, if that's what comes out of the recommendations from this committee, would be a move backwards. It is back towards tied aid. It's not really taking the full potential of this legislation, and I think it would be counterproductive.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Well, I'd love to continue the discussion. I thank you all for coming in. I thank members for staying and allowing me a couple of questions.

I want to apologize for the shortness of the time, but obviously votes in the House are beyond our control. If there's anything further you'd like to submit to the committee, please do so through me or the clerk.

Thank you all for coming in. Thank you, members.

The meeting is adjourned.