Evidence of meeting #41 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
What is the consequence of having one country list and not three? That's a fair question.
Colette Downie Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
The consequence is that if you were to collapse the country list into one, without distinguishing between the requirements or the manufacturing capacity of different countries, what you would potentially see is the ability to have a compulsory licence to send products to countries that are well developed, or that have their own pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity, in situations where there's no emergency. Mexico would be on the list. Singapore would be on the list. I think India is on the list as well.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Chair, it's really understood in the context of what we're talking about now plus the first two amendments I've put in. If you look at these three together, it makes sense--I think it makes sense. The intent was to get the list of medications back into Bill C-393. It had been removed.
The other schedule, the existing schedule in there, is the schedule of countries. Whilst I may have some problems recognizing that Singapore should be eligible for CAMR medication, I'm not going to go after that in today's discussion.
Conservative
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I need a little more clarification on that. I understand what you're saying, but doesn't it imply that the bill would put generic companies in a position to provide drugs for countries that wouldn't be, as we've deemed, necessary...? You rather left that hanging.
October 28th, 2010 / 11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
If you look at the current schedule in Bill C-393, we can argue about whether countries such as Poland, Singapore, and Hong Kong should be on the list. I didn't tackle that issue in what we're talking about today.
The reason I wanted to put this schedule 1 list of medications back in is that at the moment, the way the legislation is written, there is no defined list of medications.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
The list is also agreed to by the WTO, so there's consistency there. It's agreed to by the WTO, and the consistency would remain.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'd like to ask Mr. Garneau a question.
By implicitness, then, Mr. Garneau, do you accept the notion of a consolidated one country list, which this clause also speaks to?
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Yes. I didn't go after changes to restore the original schedules 2, 3, and 4 from the Patent Act. I left the schedule the way it is.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Seeing no more debate, then....
Before I put the question, there are a couple of things you need to know. This vote essentially applies to the fourth amendment and the sixth amendment from Mr. Garneau. The first Liberal amendment can only be proposed if this is adopted.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
That's right. Essentially, once you pass this, you've passed Liberal-4 and Liberal-6. Do you want to take a second to make sure you understand where I'm going on this and look at the amendments? Liberal-1 can only be proposed if this is adopted.
Also, I would remind you, once you adopt this, of the inconsistencies I pointed out, by the highlights in the bill that refer to this schedule rather than the wording that is in the amendments.
Mr. Garneau.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Chair, I think what's related to Lib-5 is Lib-1 and Lib-6, or at least according to my....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
No. I think Lib-4 is essentially part of it as well. Lib-4 has references to the schedule as well, Mr. Garneau.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
So in voting on this amendment, we're not actually voting on Lib-4 at the same time, are we?
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Because it seems to be a different amendment. It may be tied to this one, but it's not the identical amendment.
Mike MacPherson Procedural Clerk
It's because of the consequential relationship. In a vote on Lib-5, because of the changes to the schedules, we would have schedules 1 and 2, whereas I think in Lib-4, the part it's deleting refers to “the schedule”, and if you've removed them, then that doesn't make sense anymore. So it's just consequential.
Lib-6 is just changing the title of the schedule to read “Schedule 2,” which seems a little more obvious.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
May I suggest a potential solution, then? Could the other clauses refer to “the schedules”, plural?
Procedural Clerk
No. I think several parts of the bill refer to the countries “listed in the Schedule”, and if one of the schedules is a list of pharmaceutical products or drugs, or whatnot....