Yes.
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.
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.
12:05 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Yes.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you.
Just to be clear, that's clause 10 of this bill you are talking about, not the section in the existing legislation
12:05 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Right, it's clause 10, which deals with section 21.12 of the Patent Act.
Clause 9 deals with section 21.09 of the Patent Act and clause 10 deals with section 21.12.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Just to be clear, clause 10 allows the extension of...not the quantity of drugs. It just provides more flexibility and consistency to apply the drugs to the country. That's why we have both clauses 9 and 10 in there.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Because Mr. Masse is talking about clauses 9 and 10 together, I just want to get some clarification on how they work together.
How do sections 21.09 and 21.12 work? I understand that under section 21.12 the authorization may only be renewed once, so that's one of the restrictions in section 21.12. I know we're dealing with a different clause for that, but they do work together.
Again, what would be the effect of wiping out section 21.12 altogether? What would that do? It seems as if it is unlimited at that point, right? Am I missing something?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Yes, if you read clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-393 together, they would allow a CAMR authorization holder to produce and export the drugs authorized in the application indefinitely. That is the consequence of clauses 9 and 10 read together, because there would be no limit to the duration of a CAMR authorization and no need for renewal because it would be indefinite.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
So if clause 9 were rejected and did not carry, would that make clause 10 a moot point?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
If clause 9 were struck down? Is that what you're suggesting?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
If clause 9 were struck down.... I'll just take a look at it.
12:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Justice Canada, Department of Industry
If there is no section 21.09 then section 21.12 doesn't arise. If you don't have an initial term, you would not have a renewed term.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
If clause 9 carries, but clause 10 does not, what is the bottom line there?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
If clause 9 carries, then the licence is indefinite, because there is no limit to the duration of the licence. Clause 9 is the provision in the Patent Act that deals with the original duration of a CAMR authorization. Section 21.12 only deals with the renewal, in the circumstances that it is needed, but section 21.09 is the original provision that deals with the original duration of the licence.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I'd like to follow up on that line of questioning because this is kind of tricky. So if clause 9 passes, then, you'll never get to the point of needing a renewal, because it would be indefinite right off the bat. Is that accurate?
12:05 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
That's my understanding. Yes.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
So section 21.12 of the Patent Act becomes useless anyway. If we defeat clause 9, then we still have the two-year limit and you could still pass clause 10. But the ramifications of passing clause 10 would actually be the opposite of what Mr. Masse intends, because you would have no option for renewal at all if clause 9 were defeated and we passed clause 10. Could you just clarify?
12:10 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
My understanding is that if clause 9 is defeated--
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
No, because if clause 9 were defeated it would leave the duration intact, and then if clause 10 were passed you'd actually lose all rights for any kind of renewal.
12:10 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
That's right.
12:10 p.m.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
That's right. The key provision on duration is clause 9. Clause 10 deals only with the renewal. If there is no limit on duration as a result of clause 9, then there is no consequence for clause 10.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
I have one final question, then. If there is an unlimited timeframe during which these medications can be exported, does that in any way dilute intellectual property rights? And if so, how?