Industry Committee on Oct. 4th, 2012

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses appearing before us today.

I am the member for the riding of LaSalle—Émard, which is located in southwestern Montreal. As you know, Montreal was a hub for pharmaceutical research labs. Unfortunately, over the past several months, we have seen many research centres close. Many researchers and families have lost high-quality jobs. Obviously, these job losses trouble me a great deal, and I am told that Canada is no longer an attractive destination for pharmaceutical research and development investments. Is this true and, if so, why?

Would you like me to repeat that?

[Jim Keon]

Could I ask you to repeat the last part, please?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I'll briefly say that my riding is in a place where they did a lot of laboratory R and D. The research centre has closed, there has been the loss of jobs.

Apparently Canada is no longer an attractive destination for pharmaceutical research and development investments. Is that true and, if so, why?

[Jim Keon]

With regard to the generic pharmaceutical industry, Quebec is an attractive market. We have major plants in Montreal, specifically Pharmascience, which is the largest pharmaceutical manufacturer in Quebec. Our industry continues to invest in that province.

The problem you referred to applies more to brand-name pharmaceutical companies who have seen patents on a number of their products expire. At present, it is extremely difficult to encourage the sector by giving patent extensions, particularly because not enough products are in the pipeline.

I believe that the solution is to establish a fair intellectual property system. We will make some suggestions to improve the situation. A fair system for brand-name companies and manufacturers of generic products would be the best option and would help to increase investments.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Keon.

Mr. Dixon, I would like to have your opinion on that issue, as an outside observer of sorts.

Is Canada a suitable place for research and development activities, particularly in terms of pharmaceuticals?

[George Dixon]

My apologies, but I'll respond in English, if that's appropriate.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

That's quite all right.

[George Dixon]

I'm not all that well versed in the pharmaceutical industry. Most of the experience that I have is with IT and medical devices. Frankly, if you have an environment where you have ready capital, you can probably do the commercialization of this type of activity anywhere.

There was talk about the pipeline and what's in the pipeline. It's where the disclosures come from and how many there are.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Dixon.

Ms. Garland, I would ask you the same question.

[Gail Garland]

Our view in the human health technology and bioscience industry is that the role of intellectual property is to protect inventions and encourage inventors so that we can commercialize technology here and allow companies to stay here and grow here. Then we as Canadians can reap the economic benefit.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Garland.

What is your opinion, Mr. Siebrasse?

What is your point of view on that?

[Prof. Norman Siebrasse]

This is a little bit outside my area of expertise, which is focused on the purely legal issues.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

That's quite all right.

Mrs. Garland, I wanted to come back to you because you talked about double patenting. Could you elaborate on that? You were mentioning that we don't have that in Canada. What does it consist of and why do we not have it in Canada? How does it facilitate your business?

[Gail Garland]

I should inform you that I'm not a lawyer, so my reference to it was simply to make a point. I'm not qualified to comment on double patenting.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Right. That is not a problem.

I want to go back to Mr. Keon and Mr. Gray now.

As we know, there are many differences between public policies that would like to see pharmaceutical research companies and brand-name manufacturers on the one hand, and those that would like to see companies that develop generic drugs, on the other.

Is common ground or a consensus with regard to intellectual property between the two providers of pharmaceutical products possible?

[C. Benjamin Gray, Vice-President, Legal and General Counsel, Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association]

My apologies as well; I will answer the question in English.

I would hazard a guess that there would be agreement that improvement could be made to our system to provide greater business certainty. As it stands, the PMNOC regime, which is unique to our industry sector, has some faults. Its largest fault is a lack of certainty. You can proceed through the PMNOC regime hearing, get a result, and be subject to a subsequent patent infringement hearing. That uncertainty is a very difficult matter to deal with for businesses trying to figure out whether they're going to invest a dollar in Canada or not. That's probably an area where our brand colleagues could agree that some corrective measures could be taken.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Would you just confirm that acronym, PMNOC?

[C. Benjamin Gray]

It's the patented medicines notice of compliance regulations. Forgive me for—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you for that. It's just for the record.

We live in a land of acronyms. Don't worry, we're flooded with them.

Mr. Lake, go ahead for seven minutes.

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

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today. My head is already swimming.

I'm going to start with Mr. Dixon. The first observation that you made was that work suitable for protection should be disclosed within the university system, or something to that effect.

How would you explain that to a student just coming into the university? You're giving him an overview of what IP is and how it works within the university. How would you explain that to someone who didn't really understand it, but was going to be affected by it there?

[George Dixon]

The first comment I'll make has to do with whether or not it's disclosed within the university. That would imply that it would be the university that would be active in protecting it and commercializing it. That's not really what I mean. I just want to make sure that it's disclosed to someone, so that they can effectively move on it. It could be done within the university. If the student takes it to a lawyer, protects it himself, and commercializes it, that's perfectly fine by my view of the world as well, as long as we get it out.

How we start with an undergraduate student is that we effectively have a module on IP that explains what it is and what the opportunities are if you have something you think you're going to protect. At the undergraduate level, we often refer them to someone they can talk to in confidence about whether it is an idea to move forward with. At the undergraduate level, there is a lot of nurturing on what IP is. It's an educational process.

As you move further and further along the chain and into graduate students and post doctorates, etc., they are usually aware of it sufficiently that they know they have something and would make an appropriate disclosure. They just don't know how to go about doing it. It's more that I lead them in the right direction.

I don't want to take up too much of your time, so I'll stop there.

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

No, I want you to take up time. This is good because what you have to say makes sense.

Less than a month ago I had a chance to visit the University of Waterloo and have this conversation. How does the University of Waterloo treat IP differently than other universities in Canada?

[George Dixon]

At the University of Waterloo, IP is inventor owned. The intellectual property belongs to the inventor, whether it be a graduate student, an undergraduate student, or a faculty member. There is often co-ownership, where there'll be two or three people involved. Individuals are free to take that IP to a patent lawyer, protect it, and commercialize it in their own right without involvement of the university.

There is also a second pathway within the university where they can work with the university. We will protect it and effectively assist in commercialization. Under those circumstances, the individual retains 75% of the revenues and the university takes 25%.

In truth, I actually don't think it matters who owns it. It's a matter of who controls it, and that they actually do something with it, as opposed to sitting on it.

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

We had some witnesses here the other day who talked about Canada potentially using a system where universities treat IP the same across the board, that there needs to be a common approach to IP.

Why is it that different universities might make different decisions on IP? Do you think it would make sense for Canada to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach as it relates to IP?