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.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question for me, please?
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
In terms of the Apotex case, Mr. Masse referred to how time-consuming it is to add on if you guess the number wrong, using Mr. Masse's words, how time-consuming it is under the process to add on and get the number “right”, in a sense.
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
I guess we're dealing with the hypothetical, because it didn't happen in the Apotex example.
Conservative
Director, Patent and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
If we use that as an example, Apotex had already gone through the approval process with Health Canada for that particular drug; that was met. When it applied for the first time for its authorization under CAMR, it took less than two weeks for the Commissioner of Patents to issue that authorization, so it was an extremely timely response, very quickly done.
Had the situation arisen that another country wanted that same product and Apotex was able to respond to that need, I would assume that it would simply be reapplying for that particular drug. They had all the information done, they had done all the checks they needed to do with the patentees, they had received all the information they needed, and they had filled out all the forms. It would just have been a resubmission. That didn't happen in this case because no other country notified.
But assuming that all of those requirements were met, it would have been a very timely response, I would imagine.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I have just one final question, because we do tend to get caught up--and I've heard this from some of the witnesses--in this discussion about intellectual property. It sounds very dry and it doesn't sound like a very good excuse for not doing something.
How important are the rules around intellectual property, the sort of strictness of the regime in terms of development of new treatments or of the very treatments that we talk about, the first-, second-, and third-generation treatments for pharmaceuticals? How important is a good intellectual property regime in encouraging the development of new treatments for not only HIV and AIDS but for cancers and other diseases that people around the world would be faced with?
I think that's the crux of some of our hesitation with this bill, and I sense some of the hesitation of some witnesses towards this legislation: that it's around IP, which tends to be a dry subject. But it's a question of getting our heads around how important good IP policy is to the development of the pharmaceuticals we need.
It's a pretty broad question, I know.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
I think we all agree that it's a pretty dry subject area, but it's an important area, because basically the patent system is set up to reward investment, particularly in the area of medicines, where the investment can be huge to develop new medicines and bring them to production. The idea is that in exchange for investing in the development of those products, companies get a 20-year exclusive period to sell the particular results of that investment.
The idea with CAMR, though, is that there is an exception to that, so it's structured to make sure that you continue to have incentives to invest and develop products and actually sell them in Canada, while at the same time allowing for the provision in emergencies or in a situation of a particular health crisis to make an exception to that particular regime.
That's the reason why.... Preserving that incentive for investment is the reason why CAMR is delineated in the way that it is. The restrictions are designed to make sure that the definition is very clear, while at the same time preserving incentives to continue to develop products and sell them in Canada.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Chair, I've tried to restrict my interventions over the last two days because I was conscious of the time. I hope we're going to agree to finish this bill.
The WTO talked about expected quantities, not CAMR's maximum. So I find it hard to believe that you'd actually have a WTO challenge if, for example, Rwanda went back and asked for another $200,000 in pills for children for the treatment of HIV, tuberculosis, or malaria. I hope we can move on.
November 1st, 2010 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Seeing no other comments, shall clause 5 carry? I need a show of hands, please.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
Clause 5 carries.
(On clause 13)
Moving along in the spirit of dealing with the amendments first, the last clause we have is clause 13, with amendment Lib-4.1. However, then we will have to deal with the oft-talked about withdrawal of certain clauses, but first let's talk about Lib-4.1 in clause 13.
Mr. Garneau.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
One moment, please.
Well, as I mentioned before, Chair, the purpose of the amendment to clause 13 was to restore the existing section 21.16, which is connected to the restoration of the existing application process, in accordance with the amendment that was defeated, amendment Lib-2, which deleted subclause 4(2). So I'm not 100% sure at this point whether it still needs to be debated.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay. Is there any debate on that, or any comments, or will we go right to the question?
Mr. Lake.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Again, I would want to understand the impacts. Dealing with clause 13, what is it that clause 13 would change in the act? It impacts section 21.16. Starting with what the purpose of section 21.16 is, what would clause 13 do to change it?
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
I'm not an expert on it, but as I understand it, if amendment Lib-2 had been adopted, then it would be important to make this change, but since it wasn't, it's really a moot point at this stage.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Then, Mr. Chair, obviously we are on clause 13, so can I suggest that we move back and go in the proper order and get back to clause 6 now? We'll come back to clause 13 in order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
We'll come back to clause 6, then, I believe. Clause 5?
The first clause without amendment is clause 1.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Clause 1 is just the purpose, the intent, of the bill.