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.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
From a procedural point of view, Mr. Chair, if we vote on this and it passes, we still have an opportunity to debate clauses for the sections they're dealing with. We just assume those amendments that take place in this one are applied, but we could still ask officials about those clauses.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
I think they essentially make no legal sense in the bill, unless after you pass Lib-5, Lib-4, and Lib-6, they're done as well.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
This probably highlights the importance of having our amendments in a little earlier. We just got these the night before, which makes it a little difficult.
But if we can talk about amendment 4 for a minute, I just to clarify. If we're voting on it as well, maybe I could ask the officials again to comment on the effects of Lib-4 on the legislation in question.
11:25 a.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
If we understand the amendments in Lib-4, what they do is reinsert into CAMR the grounds on which the Federal Court can terminate an authorization under CAMR. Those grounds are where the product is diverted without knowledge of the patent holder, and the second one is really the connection to Lib-5 and Lib-6, which is where the product is exported to a country not named on the list or lists, and where more than the quantity authorized is exported, or where the product is exported to a non-WTO member country and then used for commercial purposes.
So it's linked to Lib-5 and Lib-6, but it also makes additional changes to reinsert this Federal Court challenge process back into the legislation.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
If this is done, what problems remain in this regard in Bill C-393?
11:25 a.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
There is still a number of other issues, which we discussed when we appeared before. It still leaves the lack of a mandatory Health Canada review, the unlimited nature of the duration of a licence under CAMR, and some of the other transparency and enforceability safeguards would remain untouched.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Are there any other comments?
We'll go to the question, then, on Lib-5, clause 15. Shall the amendment carry? Could I have a show of hands, please? In favour? Opposed?
(Amendment agreed to)
The amendment carries. Shall clause 15 carry as amended? In favour? Opposed?
(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I'm just a little bit unclear there. Mr. Bouchard--was he in favour or opposed?
11:25 a.m.
A voice
Pour.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
So clause 15 has carried as amended. We'll go back to clause 1, then, and Lib-1.
Shall clause 1 carry? I apologize--clause 2.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
We had a suggestion earlier that we do the amendments first. Is that what we're doing?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Yes, thank you very much for reminding me. It's okay, it's just our communication here.
(On clause 2)
So we'll go to clause 2, then, with the Lib-1 amendment.
I should bring something in the bill to your attention. I guess as long as there's consent, we can change it. We need somebody to move the change. There's a typo in the bill, the actual bill. You'll see that at the beginning of clause 2, it says “210.02”, and en français it's “21.02”. It should be “21.02” not “210.02”.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
It's moved by Mr. McTeague, and it sounds like there's consent. Okay. We'll change that.
So for Lib-1, I assume, Mr. Garneau, that you are moving that amendment.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Could Mr. Garneau explain the amendment and give his rationale for it?
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Yes. Essentially what happens here is that we are... As you know, in Bill C-393 there's a description of a pharmaceutical product, and we are now referring to pharmaceutical products that come under the new schedule 1 that we just finished talking about, that came from the Patent Act. There's the additional point that these are at the recommendation of the Minister of Health. So there's that fact that this is a list of medications approved by Health Canada.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Can I first get the officials to comment on the effect of the amendment? Or maybe on the clause on the whole? Maybe you can do both, if you would.
11:30 a.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Clause 2 as it was put forward in Bill C-393 would have deleted the reference to schedule 1 and would have expanded the scope of eligible products for export under Canada's access to medicines regime to any drug as defined under section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act. That would have been the impact of clause 2 of Bill C-393. It would also have changed the definition of authorization under Canada's access to medicines regime to delete a reference that's currently in the act and that talks about a renewal system.
So together with other clauses in Bill C-393, it would have had the impact of removing any limits on the duration of an export authorization in CAMR. That would have been the impact of Bill C-393's clause 2.
In terms of the Liberal amendments, it does not affect Bill C-393's proposed changes to the definition of authorization, hence the issues with regard to no limits on duration continue. It also does not reinsert other definitions that were deleted by Bill C-393.
Currently the act defines things like “General Council Decision”, which is the WTO decision on which CAMR was based, and the meaning of “patented product”. There are a number of other technical definitions that, together with other elements of the regime, add clarity and help define what in fact the purpose of this regime is.
