Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to add my remarks with respect to Bill C-393.
I will try to make myself as clear as possible. I firmly believe that a nation as well off as Canada has to do everything in its power to facilitate access to and distribution of medicines in countries that are suffering terribly from the crippling impact of diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
That is why a Liberal government—needless to say—introduced legislation to establish Canada's access to medicines regime, otherwise known as CAMR.
That piece of legislation was passed unanimously by Parliament because it reflected our Canadian values, and the compassion Canadians have for those less fortunate in particular.
As we know, Rwanda was the first and only country to test CAMR by importing HIV/AIDS drugs from the Canadian generic drug manufacturer APOTEX.
We also know that three separate pharmaceutical companies holding the appropriate Canadian patents answered the call and authorized APOTEX to manufacture and deliver the requested product without having to pay any royalties. Incidentally, I should point out that these three companies recently reiterated their offer, again, royalty free.
After receiving the authorization, it took Apotex about one year to manufacture and ship the product and an additional year to ship the remaining amount permitted under the licence.
The fact that it was the only application of CAMR in Canada, and that no other country with a similar system has ever provided generic drugs to developing countries, leads us to the following question: why is CAMR not used more?
Unfortunately, rather than carrying out an in-depth analysis of the problem, some have concluded that the problem was that the legislation, although well intentioned, had shortcomings and that amending it would make it easier to apply. This resulted in Bill C-393, which puts forward the solution of a single licence system.
If we look at the facts surrounding the shipment of generic drugs to Rwanda, we see that the patent-holding pharmaceutical companies reacted very quickly when they were contacted. From beginning to end, the mandatory licensing process took 68 days.
I am pointing this out because it is extremely important to establish whether the licensing process caused the undue delay in shipping the drugs to their destination.
From what I have just outlined, it does not seem that the CAMR legislation, in its current form, is the cause. It seems that the problem lies elsewhere.
Why did it take one year to send the first shipment if the CAMR legislation was not at issue? It is important that we be fully aware of this fact given that we are attempting to determine the true causes of the problem.
Much has been made of the issue of intellectual property rights. Some claim that the pharmaceutical companies are hiding behind our international obligations under the WTO agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights, known by the acronym TRIPS, in order to hold back the flow of generic drugs.
Recognizing intellectual property rights is crucial for the future discovery of drugs that will save lives. If we do not protect intellectual property rights, we will deprive ourselves of key research, not only in the pharmaceutical sector but in all sectors driven by research. This will have extremely negative consequences for Canada.
Dozens of new drugs to treat HIV, malaria and similar illnesses are currently being tested. Related research is absolutely critical and is being carried out by patent drug manufacturers.
In testimony he gave on October 20 before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce about a similar bill, Bill S-232, a lawyer for the pharmaceutical industry said that the amendments proposed in Bills S-232 and C-393 are not in keeping with Canada's international trade obligations regarding intellectual property.
Are we going to ignore that conclusion? That said, let us focus on some of the known causes of the current problem.
More than 90% of the 319 drugs on the list of essential drugs for developing countries are not patented. Less than 10% are patented. It is important to understand that.
A recent study of 65 countries by Dr. Amir Attaran, a biologist and lawyer with the University of Ottawa, found that the main barrier to access to drugs in developing countries is not the granting of a single patent licence, but poverty. Yes poverty, always poverty.
Let us look at some other realities.
If we look at the necessary drugs that reach developing countries, we see that most of them come from countries like India, China and South Africa. Why not Canada? Certainly not because of the CAMR. It is because these drugs are available for less than what Canadian generic drug manufacturers charge, which is higher because of our higher labour costs.
This is certainly one of the reasons why developing countries do not turn to Canada for drugs under the CAMR. They have cheaper options.
The challenge at present is not the supply of drugs. The supply is there. But how are we going to deal with the very real challenge posed by the fact that recipient countries lack the infrastructure to make a proper diagnosis and to deliver, distribute, administer and store drugs?
We need to turn to organizations such as Health Partners International Canada, which have extensive experience in the field in managing the distribution of drugs in developing countries that have very little infrastructure.
I firmly believe that we can work productively with these organizations to get drugs to where they are needed. I also believe that this is a much better way to achieve our objectives than what Bill C-393 offers.
According to Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General, “Health systems are the tap root for better health. All the donated drugs in the world will not do any good without an infrastructure for their delivery.”
This bill offers no solutions to the problem of drug distribution infrastructure. It should have proposed the following measures: the creation of partnerships between the private sector and NGOs, which have a lot of experience in this area, to ensure effective drug distribution; and accountability and transparency of the access to medicines regime and distribution. This bill leaves out some important requirements in this area, which could make it easier for drugs to be diverted to recipients other than the developing nations they are meant for.
Health Partners International Canada has also recommended that the government take all reasonable measures to ensure that drugs from Canadian suppliers are not diverted from their intended recipients.
The problem of counterfeit and poor quality drugs will only get worse if Canada's Access to Medicines Regime is amended as set out in Bill C-393.
Therefore I call upon my colleagues in the House to clearly focus on the problems before us and send developing countries the drugs they desperately need, but also help those countries improve their infrastructure.
This bill makes no mention of the many different aspects of poverty, but rather talks about one licence. Instead of being a disposable, limited-time measure, agreeing to one licence would eliminate the voluntary licence step in agreements on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, or TRIPS, within the WTO.
I believe that intellectual property rights are essential in our society, and this bill offers no guarantee that those rights will be protected. In conclusion, I cannot support Bill C-393.
