Industry Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Right.

The information I'm reading on the Patent Act comes from the submission of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, actually. It was a helpful reference earlier, and I'm finding it helpful here now. Looking at the definition of “authorization”, I believe the previous wording referred to “authorization granted under subsection 21.04(1)”. The part that's struck out is “and includes an authorization renewed under subsection 21.12(1)”. That is the part you are talking about being struck out. Mr. Garneau's amendment doesn't address the striking out of that provision.

[Colette Downie]

That's correct.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I don't know if Mr. Garneau intended with his amendment to not bring back references to the TRIPS agreement, the TRIPS council and the WTO and whether he thinks those are not important definitions. Maybe he can clarify that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I think he does. He can clarify it right after Mr. Masse comments.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Why don't we just delete clause 2 of Bill C-393 and restore the current system?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That is one answer to our dilemma right at the moment.

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

If it's important for the interpretation for the rest of Bill C-393, as the experts seem to suggest, then it's an oversight on my part. My intent was to go to the “pharmaceutical product” definition. I have to admit that I did not realize that we'd left hanging some definitions here that might be important.

If they're really required for the rest of the act, which they appear to be, it would be good to bring them back in, although they weren't there with the current proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Just to be clear, your amendment did not remove all the definitions. The bill itself removed the definitions.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

That's what I thought.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Your amendment clouded it a bit, but—

[An hon. member]

It didn't put them back in.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's correct.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

In fairness, I sometimes find this process confusing, too, and it is tough sometimes when we're looking at Bill C-393. You see what is replacing what was taken out, but you don't see what was actually taken out. That's sometimes the problem that causes confusion.

In this case, Bill C-393 takes out all the references I was talking about, but we don't see that in Bill C-393 itself. I think that's what you're speaking about in terms of the confusion, Mr. Garneau.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Absolutely.

I want to remind you about Mr. Masse's suggestion on just defeating clause 2.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I will speak to that point.

My question is for the bureaucratic expert we have here in front of us today. If clause 2 is completely defeated, what was just mentioned by Mr. Lake as one of the issues that we're having problems with.... Would that then bring back the CAMR definitions that are already in there, in legislation that is already passed and is law and has been used? That would then eliminate that opportunity that Bill C-393 is trying to do in terms of the renewal aspects. So if clause 2 is completely defeated, the issue about renewal will not be an issue any more because we're using the CAMR definitions, which require a renewal.... That's where I'm getting....

I understand what Mr. Garneau was trying to do. I understand that he didn't try to put the definitions back in. The suggestion is to get rid of the whole clause altogether. I want to know what the ramifications are. One of the issues we've heard about at committee from all stakeholders was whether we want that renewal piece back in or not. It is an issue. Is it added back in if clause 2 is deleted?

[Mona Frendo]

Not alone, no. Clause 9, on section 21.09, of Bill C-393 and clause 10, on section 21.12, of Bill C-393 would also delete the renewal and that duration of the export, so--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So all those clauses would have to be deleted for that issue to go away, based on what side of the piece you're on?

[Mona Frendo]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I would like to ask our legislative clerk for clarification.

Mr. Garneau's goal was to only amend the definition of the term “pharmaceutical product” in order to make it consistent with those clauses that are amended by amendments LIB-4, LIB-5 and LIB-6, and specifically amendment LIB-5.

Once clause 2 has been completely deleted from Bill C-393, will the definition of “pharmaceutical product” still be adequate considering the amendments we have just passed?

[Mike MacPherson]

Could you repeat that please?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

We are currently discussing potentially deleting clause 2 of Bill C-393 and restoring section 21.02, as drafted in the current Act, and thereby bringing all the definitions back in. However, Mr. Garneau's intention, in amending the definition of “pharmaceutical product” through amendment LIB-1, was to ensure that it would be appropriate, given the amendments we have just passed, and thereby to amend the schedules.

I'm just wondering whether, by retaining the definitions as they appear in the current Act, the definition of “pharmaceutical product” will still be comprehensible and correct.

[Mike MacPherson]

I don't know that it is.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I didn't mean in the sense of being fair, but rather of being accurate.