Evidence of meeting #42 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 c-393.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
If we all agree, we can go back to amendment Lib-1.5. I think if you seek it, you will find consent to go back to amendment Lib-1.5.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
(On clause 4)
So we're back now at clause 4, then. I'll remind you again that Liberal-1.5, Liberal-1.6, and Liberal-2 refer to that. I think Mr. Garneau is just going to move amendment Lib-1.5 and speak to it.
November 1st, 2010 / 10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair. In fact, Lib-1.5 and Lib-1.6 do the same as Lib-1.3 and Lib-1.4. They clarify that we're now dealing with schedule 2, that list of countries that used to be “the Schedule” in Bill C-393 but has now become schedule 2. It's really just a minor clarification.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I have a quick question for the officials. This clause 4 would amend subsection 21.04(1) of the Patent Act. I just want to start by asking you what the purpose is of subsection 21.04(1).
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
That subsection states that the Commissioner of Patents “shall...authorize the person to make, construct and use a patented invention solely for the purposes directly related to the manufacture of the pharmaceutical product named in the application”.
So it ties the authorization to a specific product named in the application. It also ties it to a particular country that would be listed in schedules 2 to 4 of the Patent Act—to the original three country lists also named in the application.
So there are two critical parts of subsection 21.04(1): that the product has to named in the application and that the country has to be named in the application. The authorization is tied to those two elements.
Clause 4 of Bill C-393 would significantly alter this authorization by the Commissioner of Patents. It would allow the Commissioner of Patents to authorize any person to manufacture more than one pharmaceutical product under the Patent Act and sell it for export to more than one country. It would also eliminate the requirements that the product be named in the application and that the country be named in the application. Again, it unties the process. It adopts what was referred to previously in this committee as a one licence solution.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Why is it so important they are tied one-to-one like that?
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Tying the authorization is important because this mechanism, the WTO decision that CAMR is based on and that Canada adopted, was carefully defined and limited.
It was not intended to be a broad-based infringement of existing intellectual property rights, but in the circumstances of there being a particular need identified by a particular country for a particular quantity of drugs, there would be a mechanism consistent with international rules allowing Canada to send drugs.
So untying the system from this particular need being identified in terms of quantity and by country is different from what was envisaged by countries.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Does the amendment that we are talking about deal with the issues you've brought forward as problems with Bill C-393?
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Are we talking about the Liberal amendment?
Conservative
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
No. As I understand it, that's simply a technical amendment that references schedule 2. So the country list would be referred to as schedule 2 rather than schedules 2, 3 and 4. That doesn't deal with the authorization—
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
So the amendment doesn't deal with the authorization issues at all.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
No, it does not.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Perhaps I could hear Mr. Garneau explain it again, if he could.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Once again, it is to allow for the fact that in the new amended Bill C-393, there is a schedule 1 for medications and a schedule 2, which is the old unique schedule. Now we have to allow for the fact that this original unique schedule is now renumbered as schedule 2.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
If I could ask Mr. Garneau this, does this amendment deal with any of the problems that Ms. Frendo brought up?