Industry Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[Linda Watson]

I'd like to answer them all, but I will start by saying that I don't believe, with all due respect, that voluntary donations are an answer. Mr. Williams has quoted that something like $235 million worth of product has been donated by brand-name pharmaceuticals since 1990. When you divide that by the number of years and the number of companies, that's $265,000 a year. That does not substantially address any issue in the southern world.

Second, preferential pricing would still only bring prices down to one-quarter of the price in the developed world, whereas generic competition has dropped the prices 17 times over against brand-name prices. The generics have to be part of the picture. It's not an option. That's where the action is. That's what's saving lives right now.

Also I just have to take issue with some of the comments. I believe it was Mr. Williams who said that he regretted that time was being wasted on Bill C-393 when we could be spending our time more fruitfully coming up with answers to some of the other kinds of issues of infrastructure and sanitation and all those sorts of things. I believe the House of Commons is the body that decided Bill C-393 was deserving of the attention of this committee, and we are doing House of Commons business, the business of Canadians, and it's right that we do it well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Watson.

Mr. Williams, go ahead, very briefly.

[Russell Williams]

Just very briefly, what we said was that we are voluntarily collaborating internationally, and absolutely with generics, and that has proven to be far more effective. That partnership is the solution, but it's voluntary. We're very proud of the donations we make and we've made them on a voluntary basis. But never did we suggest that's enough.

I was trying to make the point that CAMR is limited and goes only so far. What we thankfully have been seeing—and I hope we can continue to work with everybody on this—is that if we push the voluntary collaboration, not for donations but for partnerships, we can go much further and respond to it, and I actually think we all unanimously agree on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Sorry. Time always marches on for us, and I just want to be fair to every member and every witness.

Mr. Masse, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would ask that maybe the research providing the testimony from Apotex, which was provided in the Senate with regard to Bill S-232--because they did answer on that--be distributed. That may be the next best thing we can get, because it is official, on-the-record testimony under the same rules as that of the House Commons.

Ms. MacLean, you made me smile when you talked about the watch, because that was one of the things we were told. I've heard these condescending arguments about “oh your intent is good”, and “if you just understood things a little bit better....” It diverts people from the real issue, which is that Parliament decided there was a role for the private sector to play with regard to this human catastrophe we have across the globe. We, as the public sector, could continue to do, and should do, some other things, such as what Mr. Williams was suggesting, and as common global citizens we could use public sector money to build that infrastructure. But the legislation is set up with the intent, and to recognize, that the members of the private sector, especially given the fact that they get generous research and development and a series of other tax breaks, could actually expand the usage of those terrific breakthroughs. We thank them for the work they're doing, and as long as that information was protected and respected, we would develop a system to expand the use of patents across the globe.

Mr. Perry, we've had only one case so far with Apotex. Say, for example, Bill C-393 went through and we had five per year that were granted from there on. I'm speaking hypothetically. Would that drive away investment from your company, from Canada, because the usage of that went further?

[Grant Perry]

I think the same question was asked of the officials earlier this week. Maybe I could look at it from one side and then come back to your question.

But if you look at Bill C-22 and Bill C-91, which were about the restoration of patent protection for the innovative pharmaceutical industry to the same industry standards as every other industry in the country, we actually saw the fastest growth rate in R and D in the developed world. So we went from about $40 million a year to well in excess of $1 billion a year, showing that actually providing patent protection can attract investment.

Whether the specific of five coming through or three coming through will lead to a reduction in R and D, the challenge we face is the instability caused by uncertain IP protection. It does have impacts on our ability to track that investment globally.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Let's get this straight, though. If there was going to be some illegal activity by a generic in this situation and we hit that really hard, the commitment is there to go.... Are you suggesting...? It has been out there. The department is saying it, and they can't say where it's coming from, that investment would dry up and billions of dollars would be lost.

I want to know, if we protect those patents, if we respect those patents, if we make sure they're done properly and the drugs go to the places where they're clearly on the mark and they're identified and they're evolved, you're going to pull back investment if more people get treatments for HIV, tuberculosis, malaria? We want to protect that IP. We just want to build the work better. We want the generics and more drugs to get out there.

If that happens, are you going to pull back investment?

[Grant Perry]

First of all, I think the evidence in our mind is that we don't have evidence that the bill doesn't work. As we've said, we've had one.

Secondly, our concerns are that the bill does not actually protect our intellectual property. It does not do the things you were saying in fact we should be doing. That's our concern.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

And that's fair. But say that we pass the bill, we make some amendments and make this more accessible, and then if we do have a problem, sure, we'll get right back and fix it again to stop those illegal or unintended consequences that none of us wants. Wouldn't that satisfy you and your company that you're going to get that type of protection? If we do make changes so that it can get used more and then it comes back in our face some way, or whatever--I don't think it's going to happen, but if it does--and you have our word that we will fix it again right away, is that not good enough?

[Russell Williams]

Can I jump in here, Mr. Masse, if it's all right?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's okay, yes, of course, Mr. Williams.

[Russell Williams]

This presumes that IP is a barrier and you're presuming that weakening IP in this country is going to facilitate access to medicines. I don't believe that. I think what we have to work very carefully on here is that unintended consequences could be quite serious. I identified some of them in my remarks, and I think we should be very careful. You heard other testimonials that 95% of the WHO medicines aren't patented. We could achieve what you're trying to achieve but through a more creative, voluntary way.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You say it's weakening IP. I say it's sharing IP and protecting that share of the IP.

[Russell Williams]

Then why haven't more people come forward?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The reason is we built a broken law and we knew it.

[Russell Williams]

It worked.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

We built a broken law that has been modelled after other countries and we knew it, and that's the choice we have to make. We have to choose whether we want--

[Russell Williams]

When the rules were followed it worked.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

--to change the law, to be involved.

I'll ask Mrs. MacLean to answer that.

[Russell Williams]

But when the rules were followed it worked in 60 days. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam MacLean, as briefly as you can.

[Emilou MacLean]

Okay. Just one quick point about how the rules did not work, which I think responds a little bit to the question you had raised earlier, Mr. Garneau, and it is related to this as well. It's providing information by Rachel Kiddell-Monroe, who's involved in this. We couldn't actually go forward with our process without a named country, and that was a real barrier, so that was an error in the process that did not work. I think the pharmaceutical industry perspective on this is that patents are not a barrier because there are voluntary mechanisms that can be used.

I just wanted to respond to that and say that voluntary mechanisms generally are not voluntary entirely. They usually exist because of pressure either from litigation or from the threat of a compulsory licence. There's certainly value to the threat of a compulsory licence, and there were a number of different examples of this, such as in South Africa when there was a competition commission challenge and in India when there was pre-grant patent opposition. Those are when voluntary licences get issued and when these collaborations exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam MacLean.

Now on to Mr. Rota for five minutes.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

I have a question for Mr. Perry. You made a statement, and I'm trying to work this through and I'm having a hard time with it. You mentioned that CAMR--I think it was in your statement--was successful. One shipment in six years...no one else is interested. Can you define success to me, because I'm having a hard time?

[Grant Perry]

CAMR was successful in that the one time a generic company tried to use the mechanism, it worked in less than 70 days. We have not had failures. We have not had a number of generic companies try to use the program and not be able to use it.

I can't determine when the generics will choose to use it or not to use it. Is it a question that there's not a need for it? Is it a question that there's a safety valve that exists to meet needs where they aren't being met through other programs internationally? I can't answer for their choices for not using it, but when used, it worked.