Evidence of meeting #40 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was drugs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
So you and I would agree that we need to take a look at what the next step is, but we need to identify systems and programs that are actually going to work to go from the $5.2 million to address the totality of the situation in Africa.
Mr. Attaran, did you want to comment?
Canada Research Chair, Law, Population Health, and Global Development Policy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes. I really must say I found Rachel's answer not properly analytic on this issue.
Let me be very frank. She said that other countries are waiting to see what Canada does before invoking their CAMR-like laws. That hypothesizes that China, India, and the European Union aren't clever enough to figure out how to do it themselves and need Canada to show the way. This is just unreal. Those are very sophisticated countries, as is Switzerland, as is Norway, and if they want to make use of their own laws passed by their own parliaments, they really don't need to watch and wait and see how Canada does it.
I'll leave it at that, but on the suggestion that there wouldn't be in the future medicines such as the second-line medicines available from those other countries that would only be available in Canada, again, that doesn't make a lot of sense. We're a relatively minor industrial country. We're small. We're no India. We're not China. That's obvious. We're not even the European Union. Thank goodness we can manufacture medicines and do it well, but so can those others, and this is inherent in the nature of globalization. There is more than one source for these things, and I would be shocked, I am shocked, to hear the advocacy that says “Although Canadian generics cost more, we want people buying those”, because that means fewer patients treated.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Attaran. I'm sorry, but time always bedevils us here at the committee.
Now we go on to Mr. Masse, for five minutes.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr.Chair.
Mr. Attaran, you've actually convinced me, as someone who has sat through this entirely over the last number of years, even when this was Bill C-56, to continue my efforts even more than ever before. Even looking at the face of your argument, you're actually advocating for generic rip-off drugs to get to people, as opposed to Canadian drugs. That's what would happen and would continue to happen under your scenario.
You used the word “unethical” in terms of the medical aspects of this. I find it unethical.... If you don't believe in Bill C-393, then come here with a solution that's actually going to help. I stood in the halls of Parliament when we all stood together to say that we wanted to make a difference, wanted this law to actually work.
I want to use my time with Mr. Abbott, who has actually been there. Mr. Abbott has spent his time at the WTO, has spent his time on the TRIPS, has advocated for a number of different groups and organizations.
Mr. Abbott, we've heard from the department and the lawyers here that we're going to violate pretty well every international treaty under the sun—now including NAFTA—by working on this bill, but at the same time that this bill won't even work. It's an interesting scenario, but I would like from you your testimony about why Canada won't be violating any international agreement by changing this bill, or how we can do it.
Edward Ball Eminent Scholar, Professor of International Law, Florida State University College of Law, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.
It is pretty clear, as a matter of the TRIPS agreement and the August 30 decision, that it is perfectly permissible for Canada to adopt a single-licence solution in which a substantial quantity of drugs is provided over a period of time. There is no requirement in the August 30 decision that the sequencing involved in the Canadian legislation be followed. Provided that notifications are provided at the time the drugs are shipped, Canada will have met all of its international obligations.
Let me add another point. There is no country in the world that is going to initiate a dispute settlement action at the WTO against Canada for providing low-cost drugs to poor people in developing countries. I repeat, no country in the world is going to bring a dispute settlement action against Canada for providing low-cost HIV antiretroviral medicines to people in developing countries at low prices.
Even assuming there were a morally and ethically challenged country that would do that, the worst-case scenario for Canada would be that after a period of three to five years it would have to fix what might be considered wrong with its legislation, and Bill C-393 is not inaccurate.
I want to make one other point. This argument by Mr. Attaran I find absolutely astonishing—and that Canadian parliamentarians are actually caring to echo it. His argument basically is that Canadian pharmaceutical producers are incompetent and cannot compete on global markets. And because they are incompetent and cannot compete on global markets, we should not let them compete on global markets. It's as if to say that because Canadians are not very good at playing basketball we should prevent Canadians from playing basketball and from joining any league that plays basketball.
Apotex supplies a large quantity of drugs to the highly competitive U.S. market. Teva Novopharm is one of the most competitive and largest suppliers of generic drugs in the world. The idea that Canadian industry is unable to compete with Indian industry—and I represent the Indian industry—I find absolutely an astonishing argument for preventing them from attempting to compete.
What are we talking about? We're talking about changing a few words on a piece of paper in Canada: we let you compete. The argument from Mr. Attaran is that we shouldn't change the piece of paper; because they are providing higher-priced medicines, we should foreclose them from competing. I really just find this argument so nonsensical it's hard for me to believe that a group of parliamentarians is sitting in a room accepting it.
I apologize for going on like that, but it's just such a nonsensical argument.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Abbott. I want to follow up, though, on one of your statements.
If there were that country out there—and I've contested that.... You would have to have a case in Canada in which we were providing treatment for people who are suffering and dying, and another country would then intervene to try to stop that from taking place, to deny those people that treatment. If there were that country out there and that case went forward and we lost—these are big ifs—we still have time to fix the bill to comply.
Is that not the case?
Edward Ball Eminent Scholar, Professor of International Law, Florida State University College of Law, As an Individual
That is the case. The only WTO theoretical dispute settlement penalty is to request Canada to bring its legislation into compliance with the determination of the dispute settlement panel. There is no penalty; there is no monetary fine. Frankly speaking, I think Canada would gain greatly in the opinion of the world community were someone to bring a lawsuit against them at the WTO alleging that Canada was trying to do too much for poor people in developing countries.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Abbott.
Thank you, Mr. Masse.
Before we go on to the next round, I'm going to make one more attempt to see whether we have a good connection with Mr. Kimani. In advance I'll ask Mr. Abbott to mute his microphone, and we'll see whether we can get Mr. Kimani.
Can you hear me, Mr. Kimani?
Canadian Medical Institute in Kenya, As an Individual
Yes. Can you hear me?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Yes. Could you try your opening remarks again? I will ask you to be as brief as possible, and we'll see whether we can have a smooth transmission this time.
Canadian Medical Institute in Kenya, As an Individual
I am Joshua Kimani. I'm a medical...[Inaudible--Editor]...individuals in Kenya. I live and work in Kenya.
Is that clear?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
No, it's not Mr. Kimani; I apologize. I think the only thing we can ask you to do is to submit your comments to our clerk via e-mail and we'll have them translated for the committee. I apologize that we just weren't able to get the technology to work properly.
Okay, now we'll go on to a second round of five minutes. We are going to need to be a little bit more disciplined at the five minutes this time. I apologize for any intervention.
We'll turn to Mr. Rota for five minutes.
October 26th, 2010 / 9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming out.
There has been a lot of concentration on India as the country that's producing the drugs, the antiretrovirals, but as of 2005 patent laws are changing, and there's a clear shortage. There's going to be a shortage of drugs in third world countries because India is not producing or not able to export. What countries are taking up that slack? Do we see countries coming up?
We'll start with Mr. Attaran very briefly and then go over to Mr. Abbott, if you don't mind.
Canada Research Chair, Law, Population Health, and Global Development Policy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Rota.
India has increased its manufacturing capacity. It is a very large country. It can lay on new assembly lines and it has done so. As India comes under the patent regime, I agree that this is a challenge. But India is best placed to solve it, because India, remember, also has a CAMR type of law. If conceptually a compulsory licensing law can help, it stands to reason that it will help in the country that is already best practised at making these medicines for export and does so at a lower price.
There's also—
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Let me just add to that. India is also a very growing country; it's developing very quickly, and their own needs are growing tremendously. Their demand internally is probably going to rise. How can we depend on that country to export, when their own production inside is so—
Canada Research Chair, Law, Population Health, and Global Development Policy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
We're not solely dependent on them. And as I pointed out, there are over 30 countries that have the CAMR system. I don't think India will run into that limit, but let me assume you're right. If they do run into a limit, there are 27 countries in the European Union that can pick up the slack. There's Switzerland, which has an enormous pharmaceutical industry—little Switzerland has a much bigger pharmaceutical industry than we have in Canada; there is Norway; there is China. So we're not really short on countries having CAMR-like laws that could invoke them.
May I add one other thing? I want to respond to some of what was said. You know that you're doing well in an argument when people put words in your mouth. I'm very distressed to see Professor Abbott very untruthfully say that I called Canadian generics "incompetent". I did not.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have a witness who is saying that another witness is lying. I haven't seen that type of behaviour at a committee in all my years here. To say that it's untruthful—
Canada Research Chair, Law, Population Health, and Global Development Policy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I did not say the word “incompetent”, and I don't believe it.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I honestly think Mr. Abbott made some strong comments regarding Mr. Attaran's testimony. Mr. Attaran has the right to defend himself.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
For the committee and for the witnesses, I understand the magnitude. It's a very serious issue and a very emotional issue. But please keep your remarks with a level of respect and dignity; that's required here in the committee as well.
Mr. Attaran, please continue.
Canada Research Chair, Law, Population Health, and Global Development Policy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I did not call Canadian generics incompetent. That is not the case, and the record will show that. What I did say is that they are more high-priced than other generic producers. This is simply a reality. Don't shoot the messenger. That's what the federal government admitted here--
Liberal
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Thank you, Mr. Attaran. I only have five minutes here, and I'd like Mr. Abbott's take on this as well.
Mr. Abbott.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Abbott, start again and unmute your microphone. I think you muted it for Mr. Kimani last time.
Edward Ball Eminent Scholar, Professor of International Law, Florida State University College of Law, As an Individual
Thank you very much.
As you noted, India has considerable capacity. India is facing new challenges as the 2005 patent law amendments take effect, and its newer drugs will fall under patent protection and then be less amenable to large-scale domestic production. India just finished convening a working group and a review process with regard to its compulsory licensing legislation. I returned from New Delhi on Sunday. When I was in India last week I was advised that there are generic producers in India preparing to make use of India's article 30 implementing legislation in the not distant future, to determine how well the Indian system is working.
I would certainly hope that Canadian generic producers, like Apotex, are willing to compete head-on with Indians in the supply of drugs to poor people in developing countries. I have no reason to believe that your producers are not capable of also stepping in. I would add, as these drugs become the more sophisticated second-line and third-line drugs, fusion inhibitors, etc., this is where Canada may really excel with very sophisticated synthesization techniques for higher-end and more complex antiretroviral drugs. I think there's a major role for Canadian industry to play in this area, and I cannot imagine why you would say that because Canadians are not very good at competing in the international market on price, we will bar them from competing. It simply makes absolutely no sense at all.
Thank you.