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.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
(Clause 1 agreed to)
(On clause 6)
Now we move on to clause 6.
Mr. Masse, I'm advised by our legislative expert that the committee will have to defeat clauses 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 16, which you previously identified, to remove them. Is that correct?
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay. Actually, we can do something that we are very familiar with. Just to confirm again, for clauses 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17, we can vote on clause 6 and then we can apply the vote to those others identified, if that has the agreement of the committee.
Noon
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Noon
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Can you just go through those numbers one more time?
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Sure. I'll confirm them with you, Mr. Lake. They are clauses 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17.
Noon
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
That will leave us with clauses 9, 10, 13, and 15. Is that correct?
Noon
Some hon. members
No.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
(Clauses 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 negatived)
(On clause 9)
Noon
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Masse wiped out eight clauses, so obviously he has defended the clauses that he thinks are the most important.
Before I go to the officials, maybe he could give a justification for what clause 9 would accomplish that he's looking to accomplish here.
Noon
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
In my understanding, clauses 9 and 10 eliminate the two-year limit, so the actual drugs could be sent to the country in that timeframe. It gets rid of the two-year restriction.
Noon
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay. Again I'll ask the officials, if I could, for the purpose of section 21.09 in the first place. That would be the portion of the act that would be repealed through clause 9, which is a pretty short clause. What would the ramifications be? It's pretty clear what the impact would be if we just repealed the whole clause. What would be the ramifications of that?
Noon
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Mr. Masse is correct. Currently, section 21.09 of the Patent Act states that a CAMR authorization is valid for two years from the date of the grant. That was reflective of several WTO requirements in the decision, including paragraph 2(c) of the waiver, which requires a country that authorizes the export--so a country like Canada--of a pharmaceutical product under its regime to notify the WTO of the quantities for which the authorization has been granted and the duration. Reflective of that and other WTO requirements, section 21.09 of the Patent Act presently describes the duration of an export, and it says that it would be valid for two years from the date of grant.
Clause 9 of Bill C-393 would delete this section altogether. It's a short section, but it is an important section in the regime.
Noon
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Where did it come from? Why is it two years? What's the rationale for or origin of the two years?
Noon
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
When CAMR was developed and reviewed by Parliament, there was testimony by several pharmaceutical manufacturing companies that the duration of the average pharmaceutical supply contract was two years, so that was taken into consideration.
There was also the interest in making sure that importing countries that chose to use the decision to receive drugs wouldn't be tied to an indefinite contract. They could go out and seek the best price in the marketplace at that time and there wouldn't an unlimited duration of a contract under CAMR.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I just have a point of clarification, if I might ask.
You mentioned a two-year maximum duration for the licence. Is there a possibility of an additional or second two-year period? Is that included in there?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
It's in clause 10 of the bill, which speaks to the renewal of the authorization under CAMR. So yes, there would be the possibility, if the need were identified, that the authorization under CAMR could be extended for another two years to deal with any circumstances that may arise.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal