Evidence of meeting #9 for International Trade in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was generic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The previous witness said that if this agreement were to go ahead with a stronger IP regime in Europe it would delay generic competition for two and a half years. Do you want to comment on that?
12:45 p.m.
President, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx & D)
I will ask Declan to comment. We are saying there are a lot of discussions that aren't comparing apples with apples. There is a lot of misinformation. In fact, Norton Rose has just done an analysis, which we can table. There were 22 products studied, and for well over the majority there was no extension and it was substantially less. There is a lot of misinformation out there. I'd be pleased to submit that later on.
12:50 p.m.
Declan Hamill Chief of Staff and Vice-President, Legal Affairs, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx & D)
We will submit it to the committee. It demonstrates that in many cases there isn't an extension of time in Europe or in Canada as a result of the patent terms being equal to or longer than the increase due to date of protection.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Thanks very much, Chair, and my thanks to our guests for attending today.
Mr. Masswohl, it's good to see you. The inference by my colleague was that somehow there wasn't a close contact with your association as it relates to what we're trying to do with CETA. Could you clarify the interaction you have had with our negotiators that has allowed your industry to get its points on the table?
12:50 p.m.
Director, Government and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
We are always engaged in trade negotiations. Market access is extremely important for the Canadian beef sector, and we have a number of mechanisms through which we engage with the federal government. There is the Agricultural Market Access Secretariat. There is the Beef and Cattle Trade Advisory Group. We have the Beef and Cattle Market Access Committee. I believe there is also the Agriculture Trade Negotiations Consultations Group. We participate actively in all of those, and many of those fora are broader than beef—we discuss many things there. Of course, we also take the opportunity to meet one on one with the negotiators. This way, rather than being in a room with different producers and going over details, we can go over details directly with the negotiators.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Not that I'd ever want to put words in your mouth, but would it be fair to say that your participation with our negotiators has been thorough and inclusive?
12:50 p.m.
Director, Government and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
Yes, on this negotiation we have a lot of confidence that the negotiators understand what it is we need to get for the beef sector.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
It is interesting that you speak about confidence. We have confidence in our negotiators. I'd like to ask you to touch on how this affects your interactions with our negotiators. How have you felt about that process?
12:50 p.m.
President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
We have had good dialogue with the negotiators. Of course, they're the negotiators. We don't know everything, and we don't always know the context of what's being said. But I have confidence that at the end of the day the dairy industry in Canada will be protected. A positive outcome for us in this negotiation would be to produce high-quality product for the Canadian market and to protect our cheese makers from the geographical limitations that could harm them.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Mr. Williams, I've done some reading, and it is fair to say that you've been critical of the CGPA study, particularly as it relates to the importance of IP improvements. Can you comment on that?
October 27th, 2011 / 12:50 p.m.
President, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx & D)
It's based on the fundamentally flawed premise that weak IP can be used to control health costs. A number of studies have shown that a lot of what they talk about has not come true.
During the last 20 years, in the 1980s and in 2006, when the government has moved forward on data protection, it has been positive for generics, for the pharmaceutical industry, and for patients. There are new products in Canada because we have improved the IP protection.
The other argument is that Europe has better IP than Canada, which lags behind Europe and the U.S. Yet their health care costs aren't out of control. In fact, most of the countries are spending less of their GDP on health than Canada. So this argument doesn't stand up. The figures don't stand up. There are a number of studies that we'll be pleased to submit to the committee saying there isn't the extra extension of 100% of the products that they seem to suggest. There's been a lot of fearmongering, but it's not between us and them. There's room for both of us to work for the good of patients.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Thank you very much.
I want to thank you for coming in and sharing your expertise with the committee. We may well have to have you back.
I apologize for the brevity of the question-and-answer part of this committee, but we did our best with what we were given.
We do have to go in camera. We have to clear the room for some business of the committee.
I'll suspend for a very short time, and I'd ask members to stay in their seats, if possible.
[Proceedings continue in camera]