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.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Masse.
I have a speakers list now: Mr. Garneau, Mr. Malo, and then Mr. Lake.
Mr. Garneau.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Well, in the interests of moving forward, even though it's imperfect, I'm certainly willing to entertain the possibility of just eliminating clause 2 as it exists right now, if that's something my colleagues would agree with.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Garneau, I'll take that as your seeking unanimous consent to withdraw your amendment.
Does Mr. Garneau have unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment?
12:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
(Amendment withdrawn)
The amendment is withdrawn and I'll go on to Mr. Malo.
You're on the list, Mr. Malo, or do you want me to go directly to...?
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
No, it's just because Mr. Garneau says he is going to withdraw his amendment. But that creates a problem, and I believe officials already referred to it. Withdrawing the amendment creates a problem.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Mr. Malo, no, we have withdrawn the amendment. It has been voted on. It's gone. He wasn't thinking about it; it's done.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Yes, I know, but we have just created a problem.
Perhaps I could just put a question to Mr. Masse. When we voted earlier in favour of amendment LIB-5, which put Schedule 1 back in, it was clear that other amendments would have to be proposed subsequently in support of that schedule.
We all know that it's getting late, and I understand that he may want to move on to other clauses. I also noted his suggestion, which was that the problem we have just created be fixed when the bill is reviewed in the House.
Because the fact is that we did create a problem, and departmental officials told us so. So, we really have to address this when the bill is sent back to the House. Section 21.02 will have to be reviewed with a view to again providing a mechanism whereby the person or entity with the authority to add or remove drugs from Schedule 1 is clearly identified. As one of the officials suggested, what is needed is a proper mechanism setting out the parameters to be followed by ministers for that purpose.
That's what I wanted to say. I think it's unfortunate that, simply because we are running out of time, the Committee is not going to try to resolve a problem that it has already identified.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
All right. Then we'll move on to the question on clause 2. We're going to vote on it right now. Those for clause 2? Those against?
(Clause 2 negatived)
Clause 2 is defeated.
(On clause 4)
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
A voice
Clause 3?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Clause 3 doesn't have an amendment. You wanted to do the amendments first.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment is to essentially reinstate the application process under CAMR, which of course, as you know, requires, in applying for a compulsory licence, including certain information: the version of the pharmaceutical product, the quantity of the product to be exported, the name of the patent holder, the name of the importing country, and the name of the importing entity. Deleting lines 15 to 18 in clause 4 will accomplish that purpose and will reinstate the original application process.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be as brief as I can, but this is critical to the bill. This essentially guts the bill. It takes the one licence–one drug application down to nothing and leaves things virtually unchanged. This would be the net result of destroying all the work that has taken place and all the attempts to get there.
In an offer of goodwill, I'm looking at withdrawing a series of clauses--clauses 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14, and then I also mentioned the food and drug and safety act--to clean up this bill in regard to the concerns of those who are in opposition to it. However, this clause right here essentially will remain status quo, which is not acceptable in my opinion, and which is the reason that so many Canadians and people care about making a difference and getting a change on this particular issue.
We've also heard testimony from the witnesses for WTO in a series with TRIPS. They said we were actually in compliance before this, but if there ever were a problem with anything in this bill we could immediately change it without any major repercussions. As well, we can also ensure that those things could actually be adjusted.
As for those concerns that have been expressed about copyright infringement, diversions, safety of drugs, all those elements are all taken out and cleaned up. I don't believe the concerns are always necessarily true, but the fact of the matter is that members are raising them as substantial barriers, and I will take those barriers out.
But taking this out essentially destroys the bill and the concept and I can't support this. We have to ensure that this Liberal motion does not go forward, because if it does, all the efforts from everyone trying to make a difference will have been exhausted.
For that, Mr. Chair.... I'm hoping that the intentions might be fair with this, but certainly we know the facts of the matter. Nobody can be fooled about the fact that this just basically destroys the concept and the bill itself.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Could I ask the officials to comment on the amendment? What impact would the amendment have on Bill C-393? What might it fix and what might it not fix?
12:40 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
As I understand it, Liberal amendment 2 would reinsert into the Patent Act a number of requirements for an application to a Commissioner of Patents for export to a developing country in need. Some of those requirements would be the name of the product for export, prescribed information on the version of product that would be exported if it was applicable, the maximum quantity to be exported and sold for export, the name of the patentees that would be involved and affected by the export, and the name of the importing country.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay.
Is there any other debate?
Monsieur Malo, is that your hand going up?