Thank you, honourable members. We are very pleased to join you today. I hope that we can contribute to the discussion and that the debate generated will be conducive to progress and innovation in access to medicines for developing countries.
I agree with the opinions shared today, but I think that these points of view are lacking a more practical side.
Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies supports the principles of CAMR, but this regime is just one of the many partnerships and initiatives we have for fighting disease in the developing world. You heard about some of them today. You heard about others before, when CIDA officials appeared before you early in the fall.
There are many Canadian initiatives to help address health needs in developing countries. For our part, the Canadian member companies have collaborated with Health Partners International of Canada since 1990 and have delivered more than $250 million in donated medicines around the world. Globally, and I think this is very important, the innovative pharmaceutical industry is the third-largest funder of research and development on diseases in the developing world, behind the U.S. government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Much remains to be done, but the evidence suggests that these voluntary efforts are paying off.
At the end of 2008, more than four million adults and children from low- and medium-income countries received antiretroviral treatment That's 10 times more people than just five years ago.
Sub-Saharan Africa, where the need is greatest, was the largest recipient. A similar improvement was noted in the delivery of drugs to pregnant women to prevent the transmission of AIDS to fetuses.
CAMR has worked when the rules have been followed, but there are several provisions in the bill before us that concern us.
First, the current obligation to seek voluntary licence within CAMR would be repealed.
Second, the existing country notification on the limits of product quantities would be repealed.
Third, the bill would make a licence open-ended, even if the circumstances that led to it no longer existed.
Fourth, the bill would allow medicines to be exported from Canada to developing countries without Health Canada's safety approval. This would create a double standard with respect to the safety of medicines used in this country and the medicines sent abroad for humanitarian purposes.
Finally, there is the potential for diversion to other countries. The global corruption report identifies procurement, distribution, and counterfeit medicines as sources of corruption in pharmaceutical supply. The WHO reports that one out of four medicines in developing countries is counterfeit. In particular, we would ask what purpose is served by renewing the ability to terminate a licence if the humanitarian products are found to be re-exported from a country where they were originally sent. That is a straightforward question.
What concerns me most is the amount of time and effort that has been focused on this bill, when with the collective energy and unanimity I'm hearing about with respect to trying to make Canada do more, we could focus more on some of the voluntary infrastructure programs and the partnerships the industry has been making, and it would be more successful.
I will now yield the floor to Mr. Dotto, of Abbott Laboratories.