Industry Committee on April 23rd, 2007

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Anybody. If it's not legit, don't even jump in. But is there a possibility that third--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, Mr. Alton, I'll let you address this.

[Gregg Alton]

I think I do understand the question.

If you recall my testimony, I talked about countries making HIV care a priority. We talk a lot about what we believe is needed in Africa and what Africa should be doing with their health care systems. That may not necessarily be what they want to do. They may be more focused on clean water. They may be more focused on maternal health care. They may have other priorities that rise above HIV. So we need to be very careful in assuming that what we think they should be doing is what they actually want to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There was a lot of rhetoric about this bill when it was brought forth, so I think we own this collectively, or there is a responsibility to see it work. All you have to do is go back to look at the Hansards for this committee, Hansards for the House of Commons, and public statements. These are international comments that have been discussed, and at the same time, we're still not getting the result. I mean, we all understand. Nobody's naive enough to think that if we just actually produce cheap medicines it's going to solve the problems of Africa or is going to treat tuberculosis in other developing countries. For heaven's sake, the bill is even named for Africa, when it's about the entire world. That's the politics of it. But I guess the point is where do we go from this point?

I'd like to hear from each group in terms of.... I don't know if Rx and D will just stay the course. That's fine. But I'd like to know what you need to have this work. Mr. Alton has also given two suggestions that we've heard before from other groups with regard to duration of licence and the forecasting requirement, two things that I think are very important.

I'd like to hear from each organization where we go from here, in terms of solutions, to make it work for you.

[Jim Keon]

I would agree 100%; I think it is important that the legislation operate. Again, I would say the brand-name companies do not need this legislation. If they want to donate medicines, they can do so now without this legislation.

This legislation is intended to generate competition, because it has been shown time and again that new prices come down when an Indian generic company or someone else has the product and is ready to offer it to a government. That's what makes the price come down.

We agree with the two recommendations from Gilead in regard to removing the time limitation on the licence. I think that would be very important.

As Jack said, there is a real political problem with countries self-identifying. We would like to see that requirement removed, or limited in some way. We would like to make the licence essentially an automatic licence, to remove and limit to the extent possible the need to negotiate with the brands.

As well, we would like to remove the requirement that there only be one country at a time, for a maximum amount of product. We need to have the right, if we're going to invest $2 million, to make this product for a long period of time, to ship it wherever it's needed to whoever needs it.

We would also like to remove the potential legal liability that our companies face if the product is inadvertently diverted once it's beyond our borders. It's unrealistic to think that a generic drug company, once it sells a product to Oxfam or MSF or someone else, can then control the product through all the channels.

I don't think diversion back to the western world is really an issue. If you take the Apotex product, for instance, it's not legally available in the western world, so if it showed up there, it would immediately be caught and its sale would immediately be stopped.

So the anti-diversion is also a problem.

In our brief we have outlined six or seven significant changes we would like to see made to the bill. We think if those changes were included, the bill would be significantly improved.

[Jack Kay]

I think it's important, when you're making policy such as this, to really understand that this is an issue for the Canadian government, not an issue for the generic industry. If in fact we want to make these products available in an affordable manner to these countries in order to save lives, we have to come up with a policy that the generic industry can take advantage of.

And it has to be simple, or I will not, and neither will any of the other generic companies operating in Canada, use our resources to make available products on which we're not going to make any money. We'll do it because it's the right thing to do as a Canadian company, but you have to make the policy such that it works easily.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Alton.

[Gregg Alton]

I have offered a couple of suggestions, which you identified before, so I won't repeat those. I would like people to look at the act as a safeguard to ensure that patents are being used responsibly, to ensure that the R and D industry is doing what it needs to do to make sure its products are affordable in the developing world. I don't think the act should be looked at as a mechanism to override patent protections.

We are very committed to access in the developing world, as is our industry. We spend tens of millions of dollars a year in the developing world running clinical trials to determine the appropriate use of our products, as well as through our programs, which we operate at substantial losses. This is something we are committed to and will remain committed to, and we want the opportunity to work in this area.

[Russell Williams]

One suggestion is that I want to inform more people what it is, so that it can work. And I'd like us, once we start a process, to run the process all the way through to make sure it is actually.... Before we decide what's broken, let's see what part doesn't work. Let's educate people.

Terry?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

To be fair, Mr. Chair, I think I'd like to record a question here for the committee; I think it would be helpful. What we're hearing is different from what was presented by government officials.

The question I would ask that this committee has heard is how much in financial and time-allocated staff resources has been spent by the government agencies on CAMR since its passing in Parliament?

I think that's important, because we're hearing some testimony that I think needs to be examined. I would hope that information would come back to this committee. I ask the committee members here to unanimously support this as a request, from all the agencies that presented to us last Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is that a question you're putting before the committee, or...?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm just asking the members to support this so that we could get that information.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sure.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, everybody has gone over. You're at six minutes and thirty seconds, so I would say not--unless you have a very brief question like Mr. Van Kesteren's.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

No, Mr. Chair, I would just like to thank the witnesses.

I know it's been difficult, some of this stuff, but if we come back and have to review this legislation in another three years from now, and we're in the same situation right now, quite frankly I think it's blood on our hands. Because that's what's going to happen. After the three-year review that's mandated to happen right now--it was amended by this committee because of the urgency of the matter--if we come back after three years again and nobody has used this tool, then it's been useless.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

On a point of order, I'm wondering if we could have Brian's request again, just so that everybody understands it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Sure, Mr. Chair.

How much in financial and time-allocated staff resources has been spent by government agencies on CAMR since its passing in Parliament? Those would be directed to the four agencies that presented in front of this committee on the first hearings on Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is that okay?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Yes. I just wanted to be sure of what it was.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay with that, or...?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering if this might be a huge thing to undertake by Monday.

Are you flexible with the time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Are you asking for this for Monday?