Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When I began studying Bill C-393, I wanted to understand why Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, CAMR, did not seem to be working—meaning that it worked once. I took it upon myself to do an in-depth analysis of why that was. I was also aware that similar regimes in other countries had not worked. I would say I approached the matter objectively. Of course, CAMR was almost never used, except in the case of Rwanda, with Apotex.
I wanted to know why a system that had been put in place with such good intentions and that, I would repeat, was designed to provide very important medicines to developing nations—especially to treat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis—had not worked.
Let's consider the case of Rwanda with Apotex. I always come back to one thing. When Apotex applied for a licence to three pharmaceutical companies, the process took 68 days the first time. One year later, the first shipment of medicines arrived in Rwanda. Then, when they applied a second time, it took the pharmaceutical companies a week to authorize the application, if memory serves.
In my view, that does not explain why CAMR seems to be hampered or ineffective. The Liberal Party, which wants to provide medicines to the third world, where the need is greatest, has a proposal to guarantee that much-needed medicines will get to where they need to go. That is the approach the Liberal Party wants to adopt, one that does not include the proposed changes in Bill C-393.
Keep in mind, as well, that what this private member's bill, Bill C-393, inherently does is alter our obligations regarding intellectual property, our international obligations. Of course, there are arguments both in favour of and against that position. Some say that it could lead to problems with the international community, while others claim that would not be the case.
I think that Canada has to send a message about intellectual property, because it is crucial to research and development. After all, it is the pharmaceutical companies doing the research and development to come up with products that can then be passed on to generic drug manufacturers.
In short, we cannot lose sight of the real source of the problem. Everything I discovered regarding Rwanda has led me to believe that the problem does not lie with CAMR right now. It may be necessary to make some minor adjustments, but we need to find another way to accomplish what we all want to accomplish.
That is why I cannot support the proposed change in clause 4; I do not think that it focuses in on the real problem.