This committee heard last week that the government should eliminate some of the safeguards, including the schedule 1 of lists. In our view, this is not a solution, as the schedule is one list and is not an impediment to the availability of patented products, as some people have suggested. In fact, 95% of the medicines on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines are not protected by patents, and of the remaining few products on that list, those patents are not being enforced in developing countries. This means that no special legislation is needed to deliver these medicines to countries in need.
I would argue that the schedule 1 list facilitates the movement of drugs, as it creates a process for distributing drugs to developing nations. For this reason, I view the schedule 1 list as advantageous. Removing the list won't make this legislation any better.
I would also like to stress the importance of ensuring that other safeguards, particularly those focused on diversion, will remain in the legislation and be fully implemented. Any diversionary safeguards will ensure that patients in developing countries receive medications and that they are not diverted and sold illegally.
Corruption of the pharmaceutical supply chain is a serious problem in developing nations. It serves no purpose for Canada to be involved in this process, and it cannot, at a minimum, secure the drug supply and ensure that medicines sent from this country reach the people who rely on them.
I would also remind this committee of perhaps a less-known provision of the legislation, which provides for a 30-day period in which a generic drug company can negotiate with a patent-holding pharmaceutical company to provide a specific drug for export. It is my understanding that no generic has gone past this process and applied for a compulsory licence.
Safeguarding intellectual property also plays a role in access of pharmaceutical products. People tend to argue that access and intellectual property are mutually exclusive, but I disagree. I would argue that intellectual property creates access because it leads to new medicines. The fact is that intellectual property fosters research and innovation, and that leads to life-saving drugs and vaccines. It is therefore important that we do not put research at risk in this country.
Intellectual property regimes exist in developed countries because they create a climate for innovation to treat disease. They do not exist in many parts of the developing world. As such, Canada has a responsibility to create a regime that protects intellectual property and leads to greater access of prescription drugs among poor nations.
Our community believes it would be premature and counterproductive to alter Canada's access-to-medicine regime at this stage. The legislation has not been fully tested. Its efficacy cannot be fully known until awareness of the legislation increases and it is fully limited. Only then should alternatives be considered.
Changing the legislation now runs the risk of providing the wrong response to the challenges facing health care in the developing world. We encourage this committee and the Government of Canada to reach beyond the current legislation and consider a comprehensive approach to the delivery of medicines to people most in need.
Canada's access-to-medicine regime is only one piece in a continuum of efforts to address the health requirements of developing countries. By broadening its approach, Canada can continue to play a leadership role in the area of greater access to health care overseas.
Thank you. We look forward to your questions.