Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm speaking against this amendment. This virtually guts the one licence solution. We heard testimony from witnesses who, first of all, explained that what we did created a regime that wasn't necessary. It wasn't required under the WTO to create some of the barriers that we have.
One of the problems that we faced in the access to this legislation is pure-out intimidation and threats. Some of them have been public, as in the Indonesian situation, for example. Others have been impossibly difficult to get over, requiring a series of attempts to move, to get CAMR to work, especially the one in the Rwanda situation. We heard that, yes, some elements from the technical aspect, once it got through, were okay, but because of the process involved in terms of identifying the country right away, identifying the drug right away, and identifying the quantity, it restricted the interests of those who wanted to use this legislation. Hence, the Canadian model, which is sometimes proposed as being very effective, really isn't being accessed.
It's also important to know that for some of the things that were contentious in this bill, we've decided to drop those clauses. Some of the things I don't think are necessary, but at the same time, there have been some good concerns raised on everything from the food and drug and safety act--that's the Health Canada provisions--to others as well, relating to diversions. But this particular element here would create the same system that exists today. We have our only customer--that being Apotex, which looked at this as a potential thing--saying they won't do it. They've also identified that they would actually, if we'd traded a different regime, look at getting pediatric drugs immediately overseas as well.
It's very important that this part of the bill be defeated in terms of this amendment. I believe we won't see the wanton abuse of patent elements in Bill C-393, which has the one licence solution in it. I don't think any evidence of that has been produced. I haven't seen any evidence from the generic companies or from the pharmaceutical companies that there would be problems.
It was interesting, though, because when we had GlaxoSmithKline testifying in front of us here about how they wanted to ensure safety and a series of products that weren't substandard, they were actually settling a $760-million lawsuit in the United States for having products that were deficient, including baby ointment.
We've set up a system here that clearly isn't working. It's one that we've designed. This is a critical part that I hope gets defeated. If not, we will see similar situations take place, in my opinion, where the licensing won't be granted.
Once again, I think the best evidence we have is from the one company that actually tried to use this bill. We had incredible testimony here from a number of different NGOs about the restrictions and the problems. We had some other good testimony from experts like Mr. Abbott who were there and who know we're not violating anything by going ahead.
I'm hoping this motion will be defeated. I would call for a recorded vote when it is appropriate.