Evidence of meeting #51 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Is there a concern that changing that language, the “directly” or “indirectly”, could have an impact on the case law, that it could impact previous cases?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
The intent is to ensure that we've actually given ourselves the authority so that parties cannot potentially use this provision to suggest that we don't have the regulation-making authority to move forward.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
You mentioned the stakeholders that were involved. Were the generics involved? Were they one of the stakeholders that you engaged with around this particular change?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
We've engaged with stakeholders of every nature in the pharmaceutical industry, including the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, in trying to ensure that we get the balance right and can implement effectively.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 39 agreed to)
(On clause 40)
The NDP has amendment NDP-6. If it is adopted then amendment LIB-1 cannot be moved as they amend the same lines. Are there any comments?
Go ahead.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
This speaks about the repeal of section 62. It's our understanding that's already pending from the previous budget, so is this required by CETA in order to have this recommendation, or is that covered in the budget? I just want some clarification.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
In consultation with stakeholders, with respect to section 62, there has been previous action to repeal this clause. We have come to the conclusion, following our consideration, that a portion of it is useful to us and is necessary. The coordinating amendment is in line with drafting convention and gets at the same aim. We're in line with the spirit of this, but we believe that we're following modern drafting conventions as to how we would frame it.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
All in favour of the amendment?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to amendment LIB-1.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Our amendment LIB-1 regarding article 40 is actually the result of some conversations we had with both the generics and the innovative medicines. We came up with what I know is an accepted compromise between those two stakeholders, so we're hoping it's acceptable to the committee as well. It does address some of the problems in section 62, but I think it addresses them with a more balanced approach than did the previous amendment.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Are there any more comments on this amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 40 agreed to)
(Clauses 41 to 58 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 59)
We have a few amendments here. Amendment NDP-7 is first.
Go ahead, Ms. Ramsey, if you want.
4 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
This is an addition. First of all it replaces line 2. Currently it says:
sued on or after the prescribed day
It would say:
sued on or after the day on which this section comes into force.
It's just a small change to the language.
Then we propose the addition of a paragraph 106(1)(c.1) about specific details of the scope of the combination.
With regard to proposed subsection 116(3.1), most countries have a maximum cap on the monopoly. The cap in the U.S. is 14 years. The cap in the EU is 15 years. There are some improvements we can make to bring us in line with that. This seeks to have 14 years put in there to be in line with others around the certificate of supplementary protection.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
The only point I would make is that the negotiated finality of what we did with the EU has a certain term, and now you're trying to change that arbitrarily. I'm not sure that's possible or that we can even—
4 p.m.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I'm going to ask Steve how we do that. We have this, which we've negotiated and now we're starting to fine-tune these negotiations over here. Can they actually be dovetailed or is this a no-go simply because we have an agreement in principle?
December 14th, 2016 / 4 p.m.
Chief Trade Negotiator, Canada-European Union, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Yes, it's not consistent with what was negotiated in the treaty, so that does present a problem.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you.
Are there any more comments on NDP-7?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to amendment LIB-2. Are there any comments?
Mr. Peterson.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Again, by way of background, this amendment was reached after taking into consideration the generics' perspective and balancing it in consultation with the innovative medicines, and to deal with the retroactivity, of course, in clause 59. Again, we think we've reached what is.... We know that it's an acceptable compromise to the stakeholders, and we hope it will be acceptable to the committee as well.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Are there any more comments on LIB-2? Shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay. On LIB-2.1, are there any comments?