Industry Committee on Nov. 1st, 2010

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I just want to make sure I understand. We are indeed talking about amendment LIB-1.1 and those following, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

No. Right now we are on clause 4, Liberal amendment 2. That's where our debate ended when we adjourned the last meeting.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Then why did Mr. Garneau just explain the scope of amendments LIB-1 to LIB-6, and why did Mr. Masse comment on it? I thought we were going to go back to proposed amendment LIB-1, put that to bed and then move on to amendment LIB-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

If I created any confusion in your mind, I apologize for that, Mr. Malo. My reasoning to have Mr. Garneau speak right from the top was that there was an entirely new package of amendments. I wanted to make sure that everyone knew what the intention was and to make sure we had some clarity moving forward.

If everybody is agreed that we'll go back to clause 3, then we can do that, but we did end with clause 4, Liberal amendment 2, when we adjourned at the last meeting.

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, certainly the members of the Liberal Party would be quite happy to go ahead with Lib-1 to Lib-1.6 if it had the consent of the committee.

(On clause 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Members, that's back in clause 3.

Pardon me?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I think that's clause 4, according to the sheet I'm looking at.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

It's Lib-1.1 to Lib-1.6

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Oh. Actually, Lib-1.1 is with a clause that we've already struck down, Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

No. Amendment Lib-1 is what we struck down. Lib-1.1 to Lib-1.6 are the replacements. Just to repeat, Lib-1.1 to Lib-1.6 are the repair to be done on Lib-1, which has been withdrawn. It's to address the shortcomings of the old Lib-1 amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, Mr. Garneau, I just want to bring to your attention that Liberal-1.1 presently deals with a clause that we struck down.

Liberal amendments 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 deal with clause 3. We can deal with that now.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

All right. I'm easy.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Can I move that in the interests of moving along we start with Lib-1.2 on clause 3?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Is everybody agreed? It looks like we have consent. That's what we'll do.

Please turn to Lib-1.2 and clause 3 in your package.

I'll look for those who would like to speak to it.

Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I just need a clarification. If Lib-1.1 was indeed struck--and I'm at the behest of the chair on this--could the analyst explain if there is any effect on Lib-1.2?

It seems to me that the purpose for which Mr. Garneau brought forth these amendments was to address the initial concern in Lib-1, which was either (a) withdrawn or (b) struck down. If the essence of what Mr. Garneau is trying to achieve has already made redundant or moot, is there any point in proceeding with these amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Just to clarify, I'll go to the clerk right now.

The original amendment Lib-1 was withdrawn. Then the clause was defeated by the committee.

His question is whether these amendments make any sense without Lib-1.1.

[Mike MacPherson]

Liberal-5 from the past meeting had the effect of leaving in the original schedule 1 of the Patent Act, and the schedule in Bill C-393 would then become schedule 2. So most of the amendments--1.3 to 1.6--just correct references to schedule 2. I believe that Liberal-1.2 reinstates the minister's power to add drugs to the list, the schedule, but the officials at the back would be in a better position to speak to that.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I sense, Chair, that the purpose for asking the question might be to obviate the need for other questions on a similar matter. I notice some heads moving over there. Perhaps we could ask the officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I do want to clarify that, as I understand it, at some point we need to deal with Lib-1.1. I know it's clause 2, but it incorporates definitions that are required for the rest of the amendments to be acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Are there any other comments on this?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'll ask I guess a substantive question about Lib-1.2 without getting into Lib-1.1 on clause 2, which has already been defeated.

I'll ask the officials. In terms of the impact of Lib-1.2, could they first of all maybe speak to clause 3, because we haven't spoken about clause 3 yet at all, and the impact it would have on the existing legislation? Then, how would Liberal amendment 1.2 affect clause 3?

[Colette Downie, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

We're happy to answer that question.

The second set of Liberal amendments in our package don't have numbers on them, so it's a bit difficult to follow which is Lib-1.1 and which is Lib-1.2. Is Lib-1.2 the amendment that replaces line 1 on page 2 with some text? Is it subclause 21.03(2)?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Is that the case with all the officials? That none of them have numbers? amendments?

All right, Mr. Lake. We'll need to make sure they get copies. That's happening right now.

Madam Frendo.