Industry Committee on Nov. 1st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting will come to order. It is meeting number 42 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

I introduced the witnesses at the last meeting.

I hope you'll allow your introduction to stand, just as it does for the members here.

We'll begin.

(On clause 4)

We left off last time with clause 4 and amendment Lib-2. We have a brand new package. I hope all members have the new package of amendments in front of them. They should have been distributed.

I will let Mr. Garneau explain the intention of the new package of amendments, and then, of course, I'll open the floor to any rebuttal or debate.

Mr. Garneau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you remember and as all of the members will recall, at the last meeting on Thursday, I had put forward what's called the old amendment Lib-1. It had created a certain amount of confusion, not only with some of the experts, but also with me.

Just to summarize, my intention had been to reinstate schedule 1 of medications that are in the Patent Act, to bring it into Bill C-393, and also to establish that any medications that would be used under CAMR had to have Health Canada approval.

Well, I didn't realize there were a number of other definitions that had been removed in Bill C-393 that were really required to be reinstated because they were called up, notably the definition of “patented product”, “WTO”, and things like that. It's also to make sure, as I said, that medications allowed under CAMR would meet Health Canada approval.

I got together with the legislative assistant on Thursday afternoon, which gave rise to a number of alternate amendments called Lib-1.1 through to Lib-1.6. That's really the new part of it, what is being introduced here this morning, which I believe will rectify the problems that were identified last Thursday afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you.

Mr. Brown.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a little bit of confusion amongst committee members on exactly what we did pass on Thursday. Maybe we can get an understanding from the clerk of what amendments did pass and if an amendment did pass and there's the wish of the committee to repeal the amendment that was passed. I'm a little unsure exactly what the status is, so could we get a clarification on that, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Sure. I'll let the legislative clerk just give you a rundown, but I think it's identified in your sheets.

[Mike MacPherson, Procedural Clerk]

Yes. In the new package that was distributed, it is indicated at the bottom of each amendment. If there's nothing indicated at the bottom of the amendment, it hasn't been debated or had any decision on it.

Lib-1 was withdrawn. Today we're resuming debate on Lib-2.

As Mr. Garneau indicated, Lib-1.1 to Lib-1.6 are new and haven't been debated yet. Lib-4 was adopted because it was a consequential amendment to Lib-5. Lib-5 was adopted, as was Lib-6. That's where we stand now.

The committee had also negatived clause 2 of the bill at the last meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll continue with--

Yes?

I'm sorry, Mr. Lake. I'll just allow Mr. Masse and then Mr. Lake.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I just want to make sure, Mr. Garneau. Are you aware that this amendment would restrict the list of drugs available back to 2004, even Health Canada drugs that had no objection back in 2004, including Moxifloxacin, which was lobbied by Bayer to stay off the list. My concern with this amendment is that WTO and TRIPS and the Doha didn't have a restricted requirement of drugs on the list.

We've already seen some active campaigning by the pharmaceutical industry. It actually made the headlines of the Ottawa Citizen back in 2004 because it defeated the whole purpose of lists. I'd just like to see if there are any reassurances or any changes because we would be restricting the list to what currently exists and the process for adding a drug is rather cumbersome.

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

Can I respond to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, Mr. Garneau.

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

In reply to Mr. Masse, there are really three things that I'm concerned about. One is reinstating the list that was approved back in 2004. Secondly, I am concerned with making sure that any additions to that list will have Health Canada approval. Thirdly, I am concerned that the process is one whereby new medications can be added. You say it's a cumbersome process. I can't speak to that.

I think it's important to make sure that any medication that Canada is going to authorize under CAMR is looked at and, in particular, that it has Health Canada approval. That really was my intent in making the amendments that I proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake and then Mr. Malo.

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

Is this regarding the clauses that passed? That's my question. We talked about the amendments, but where are we at with which clauses were actually passed or voted against?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Clause 2 was struck down. Clause 3 we didn't deal with. Remember, we were prioritizing on the clauses that had amendments. We're presently on clause 4.

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

Amendments were made on other clauses. Did we vote for those clauses, though, or did we just vote for the amendments? Can you remind me?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes. On clause 15, I believe, we passed that amendment as adopted.

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

The actual clause was as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes.

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

Okay.

As we go through the discussion, and if we're going to go back and get into some semblance of order, perhaps we should step back to clause 3 now that there are amendments on clause 3 and try to continue to go in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm at the behest of the committee always, Mr. Lake. We ended the day with Liberal-2, clause 4. If there's consent to move back to clause 3, then we'll certainly do that.

Mr. Masse, it looks like you have a comment you want to make directly on that issue. Then I'll go to Mr. Malo.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

We were just on Lib-1.1, were we not? We're moving around. We need to find a grounding base here. I'm open to whatever works.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

When we adjourned the last meeting, we were on clause 4, Liberal amendment 2. That's what we were debating.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay.

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

In fairness, this amendment, Liberal 1.1, is amending a clause that we voted against, that we defeated, so we can't even address Liberal 1.1, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's right. With unanimous consent we can do anything, but right now that clause has been struck down.

Mr. Malo.