Evidence of meeting #38 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commercialization.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Furthermore, the committee requests an extended period of consultations. In light of this, the committee.... Go ahead.
12:25 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Michelle Tittley
For the clarity of the committee, I'll read it back, beginning at the beginning of the motion, and I will indicate where the amendment fits in:
That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology urges the industry minister to not move forward with the implementation of the regulatory amendments to the patented medicines regulations of the Patent Act published in Canada Gazette part I on April 26, 2008
The amendment would read:
and that it refer the matter to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
The motion would continue:
Furthermore, the committee requests an extended period of public consultation.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. I have Mr. Brison on the main motion, but now the debate will be on the amendment. Mr. Brison, did you want to speak to the amendment?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, we'll keep you on for the main motion.
We have Ms. Nash for the amendment.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
I have a procedural question about Mr. McTeague's amendment. Would that mean that after that scrutiny, the motion would return back to our committee, or is this a referral, meaning that the committee for scrutiny of regulations would take control of this motion? I assume it would come back to our committee.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll let the mover of the amendment clarify that.
Mr. McTeague.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Nash, the committee on scrutiny of regulations follows several criteria under which a regulation can be assessed and can be deemed appropriate. It's a very small and often obscure committee but with tremendous power.
My instincts tell me that the committee would probably find the rush to the Canada Gazette to be in contempt of their criteria. I would therefore urge that the reason for putting it there would be that it would also be something else further for the minister to consider and contemplate. Given the timeframe and the lack of consultation, that is something that concerns us all here.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
If I could, Mr. Chair, does that mean that after the committee scrutinizes this and makes its determination, we are still seized with this motion? Is this still an item before the industry committee?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Your motion itself, as I read it, does not call upon the industry committee to do anything. It calls upon the industry minister to not do something.
I know you're asking a question, and I'm asking you a question, but I don't see what this motion asks the industry committee to do.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Yes, let me rephrase that. It would still be a matter for the Ministry of Industry, obviously, because it's their regulatory change. So they will still be holding the consultations if they accept this motion for further consultation.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
If it passes with the amendment, it would still ask the industry minister to not do something.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I don't have any other speakers on the amendment. I call the question on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
Now we will move to the main motion. I have Mr. Brison on the list.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
The previous regulatory changes or proposals under the previous government involved very extensive consultation and engagement with stakeholders. I find the 15 days unacceptable. The minister has put this committee in a position where we've been effectively excluded from the opportunity to be engaged in learning more about this as legislators. In fact, the stakeholders themselves were not engaged sufficiently and early enough.
Later I will be proposing a motion that the committee send a letter to the minister expressing our disappointment in that lack of consultation, and that in future cases the industry committee itself should be used as part of the outreach for these kinds of consultations with stakeholders. We are perfectly positioned as a committee to constructively help the government evaluate these. If you look at pre-budget consultations and use the finance committee as an example, there are ways we can help contribute to sound government policy. We were effectively excluded from this.
I have concerns, after regulations have been gazetted, about the message they send to the investment and international community on our commitment to patent protection--to effectively seek a further extension once the regulations have been gazetted. So I will not be supporting Ms. Nash's motion, but I will be proposing a motion later that the committee express to the minister very directly that this lack of consultation and engagement of the committee is something we do not want to see again.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Generic drug companies in particular are guilty of a lot of misinformation. Having listened with an open mind to what officials told us yesterday, I understand that the aim of this bill is not to bring in changes, but rather to restore the situation that prevailed in 2006. With the freezing of the patent register, innovative pharmaceutical companies agreed to allow themselves to be controlled and kept in line. In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not speak out about the criteria.
The timeframe does not seem that draconian to me, since we're reverting to the situation that existed in 2006, when consultations took place over a period of one year. It is now time for us to forge ahead. If we start examining this matter all over again and call for additional delays, we will never see the end of it and industry stakeholders will never manage to agree.
Therefore, we oppose this motion.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
I want to assure the committee that the provinces were not consulted and the stakeholders were not consulted. R and D was obviously consulted, but the generics weren't consulted. I don't want to get into a battle of one over the other. I'm pleased to see that we're going to send a letter saying to the minister, “Don't do this again”. The damage will already have been done.
I suggest we get on with the vote, Chair. I know you have to get on with this. I think the lines are very clear. Ms. Nash and I have a problem with this. We'll see how this results.
I'm wearing my consumer critic hat. I'm very concerned about this. I'm also concerned that when there were changes in 2006--you'll recall, Mr. Chair--we actually gave data protection back to the industry. We couldn't acknowledge what the Americans, Europeans, and everybody said: that this was far too generous. They received at that time a far more generous opportunity to get a trade-off, which seems to have been lost in time.
I'd like to see consultation, but frankly it's very one-sided. I think that's the position of the department--it hasn't changed. I'm pleased to see that we would like to move on with this, but if we send a letter, I think the minister will look at it and say “Thanks very much. We'll move on.”
Thank you, Chair.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
I don't have any further members on my list, so we will go to the question on the motion.
(Motion negatived: nays, 9; yeas, 2) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Now we will move to Madame Brunelle's motion. We can do this quickly, Madame Brunelle.
May 13th, 2008 / 12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Certainly.
I remind you that Bill C-454 amends the Competition Act. This bill was examined during the last Parliament. The Bloc Québécois supported the proposed legislation, although it found the provisions rather meek. It proposed some amendments, but the bill died on the Order Paper.
In our opinion, the Competition Act needs to have more bite. We have a duty to intervene, even if it doesn't resolve the gas pricing problem fully. Since this bill was passed in the House, we could deal with it quickly with a view to disciplining the industry. In our opinion, it is rather unusual for the oil companies to supply each other with gas, rather than compete head-to-head. In order to prove collusion, we need to have the necessary mechanisms. Since we agreed on the principle of the bill, my motion calls for us to take action quickly in an effort to come up with some solutions.