INST Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 22, 2004
| ¿ | 0905 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward—Hastings, Lib.) |
| ¿ | 0910 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark (Acting Senior Project Leader, Patent Policy Directorate, Department of Industry) |
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, CPC) |
| ¿ | 0915 |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| ¿ | 0920 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. David Lee (Director, Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. David Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
| ¿ | 0930 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais (Acting Director, Patent Policy Directorate, Department of Industry) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
| ¿ | 0935 |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, PC) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
| À | 1000 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1005 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
| À | 1010 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
| À | 1015 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
| À | 1020 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
| À | 1025 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
| À | 1030 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
| À | 1035 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
| À | 1040 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
| À | 1045 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
| À | 1050 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1055 |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
| Á | 1100 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
| Á | 1105 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. David Lee |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson (Director General, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1110 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
| Á | 1115 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
| Á | 1120 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Á | 1125 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Á | 1130 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Â | 1220 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Â | 1225 |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
| Â | 1230 |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
| Â | 1235 |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Â | 1240 |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Â | 1245 |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Douglas Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
| Â | 1250 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Ms. Joann Garbig (Legislative Clerk) |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
| Â | 1255 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Ms. Joann Garbig |
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1300 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
| · | 1305 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. David Lee |
| · | 1310 |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. David Lee |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| · | 1315 |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
| · | 1320 |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. David Lee |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
| · | 1325 |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1330 |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton |
|
Dr. Robert Peterson |
| · | 1335 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
| · | 1340 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
| · | 1345 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
| · | 1350 |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Éric Dagenais |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Christopher Armstrong (Senior Advisor, HIV/AIDS, Department of Foreign Affairs) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Christopher Armstrong |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Christopher Armstrong |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
| · | 1355 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Christopher Armstrong |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
| ¸ | 1400 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| ¸ | 1405 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
Mr. Christopher Armstrong |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Fontana |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, April 22, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0905)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): I'd like to bring to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology of April 22. We're going to continue our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-9, otherwise known as the drugs for Africa bill.
I'm going to start by giving you an idea of where we are, other than the room we're in. There are some subamendments that Monsieur Crête and Ms. Jennings have presented. They are in this package here. If you look in front of you, it's subamendments to G-9, G-11, and G-12.1. If you go to the first page of that, you have a new index, a working control sheet. If you turn to page 8 of that in your big white binder, you're still on page 33.
We're working on G-9. We're going to proceed momentarily to subamendments of Monsieur Crête and Ms. Jennings, starting with Ms. Jennings, in a moment.
I want to explain the schedule for this morning. Hopefully, we'll have a great day and we can report this tomorrow, but we'll see. We're going to meet from 9 to 11:30. I've allowed for a short lunch break, and if there's consent, we'll make that lunch break even shorter. Then we'll be back at 12:15 and continue to 3:30.
I'll let you know that if all goes well today, we'll start Bill C-2 on Tuesday and have a little business meeting after that, but we'll confirm that at the end of the day today.
If everybody has the right pages, we're going to proceed.
(On clause 1)
The Chair: Carol, are you okay?
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC): What page are we on?
The Chair: In the white binder it's page 33. On the index it's page 8 of the control sheet.
We're going to get right into business here. S-L-1 is Marlene.
I'm going to ask members—certainly you're entitled to speak to your amendments—to get to the point quickly.
Marlene, starting with you, are you moving S-L-1?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Yes, I am.
The Chair: Move it and then have a few words, please.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: As you can see, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify the question of the person or entity who is authorized to obtain a license. It's a matter of ensuring that the party is a representative of the government or an entity of the government, a physical person or an entity authorized by the government of the importing country. It's simply a matter of ensuring that persons or entities who apply for a license and who wish to enter into a contract with a pharmaceutical company to obtain a license and import pharmaceutical products into a country are authorized to do so.
[English]
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I understand where Marlene is coming from. I think it's inferred, or clear, at least by what the government had put forward in (f), as you know. In fact, we appreciate and essentially want persons and entities, including NGOs, who do it better and are valuable in the chain of delivering medicines to people.
In fact, the permission of the country, because this is a WTO agreement, needs to be country to country. Therefore, it's inferred, it's in the bill, that persons can be engaged in the system, but at the end of the day it's between a country and a country.
If it's for further clarification, I don't think we have a real problem in making it as clear as possible. I only wanted to clarify for the record that it is part of the bill that suggests that this is a country-to-country arrangement that needs to be put in place.
The Chair: Do you want to say something on this, Lyle?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward—Hastings, Lib.): Yes. I think this is a good clarification. I understand what Joe is saying as well. One of the problems we always have in writing legislation is that you'll read a clause and it's not really clear, and then you ask what it means.
When I read this originally I saw a person. I know this is a country-to-country arrangement, but it's people who make it work. They have to be people who are authorized from both sides, either as suppliers or users and providers on the other end.
I think it's a good clarification and it should be supported.
¿ (0910)
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hate to start the proceedings this way, but I actually agree with Mr. Fontana.
The Chair: Then we will be done by today.
Mr. Brian Masse: Maybe that's a good sign--with the Dalai Lama in town.
The Chair: Well, in the spirit of what I see, I'm going to call the question on subamendment S-L-1.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next one in your package is subamendment S-L-2.
Marlene, you set a good example in your remarks on the first one.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Given the wording of subsection (3), the Commissioner is under the obligation to authorize the use of a patent. I believe the Commissioner must either allow or authorize such use, unless he is convinced there is good reason not to grant the authorization. That's an important consideration, because we don't want to be in a position where the Commissioner, for extremely valid reasons, felt that authorization should not be given, but would nonetheless be compelled to give it in view of the wording of subsection (3). I think he should be allowed some minor discretionary authority. However, it must be made clear that he needs a valid reason for exercising this discretionary authority.
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana: I'd like to be able to say it makes sense, but I think it's problematic. Perhaps the officials could address this.
I know what Marlene is trying to achieve, but I think at the end of the day we want to make sure there is no question that a compulsory licence must be given to the contract and to the generic, if that is being done. And it's pretty clear when and how the commissioner shall grant this compulsory licence; it allows as little discretion as possible to the commissioner. As we get into the bill you will see that if there are concerns with regard to the licence, there are remedies built in that would safeguard a number of things. But I would think we would not want to put any sort of discretionary hurdles before the commissioner that would prohibit or at least encumber the issuance of the compulsory licence.
For further clarification, could I have the official, Douglas, give us his opinion?
Mr. Douglas Clark (Acting Senior Project Leader, Patent Policy Directorate, Department of Industry): As many of you may know, up until 1993 Canada used to have a compulsory licensing regime for medicine and food. Under that regime the language authorizing the commissioner to grant a compulsory licence was exactly the same wording we see here: “unless the Commissioner sees good reason not to grant the authorization”. Just the implication of this language necessarily entails some degree of discretion on the part of the commissioner, so people should know what the implications are.
That said, under the significant amount of litigation that was generated back in the day when we had that regime, those words never really amounted to much. Basically, the court found that the commissioner could grant a licence as of right, and the mere fact that he had the discretion not to grant one if he saw fit didn't bind him in any particular way in coming to a decision.
It does entail discretion; that's the necessary implication of this language. But to what extent it will make a difference....
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, CPC): I was just going to ask, if the commissioner obviously hasn't used this clause before, is that why the legal issues haven't...?
¿ (0915)
Mr. Douglas Clark: Back in the day of the compulsory licensing regime, this exact same language appeared in the provision that allowed the commissioner to grant compulsory licences in respect of patents over medicine.
Mr. Grant McNally: But did he ever use that discretion and turn one down because of that extra--
Mr. Douglas Clark: I'm actually not aware of any instance where he did, but I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of every case. There was an awful lot of litigation generated back then because of the fact that there was discretion vested in the commissioner--just as a cautionary tale.
The Chair: You get the last word, Marlene.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Well, I think Mr. Clark has just made my point, which is that exact language in the previous legislation...the commissioner in fact never had occasion to use that very minor discretion. Therefore, I don't see why there would be any objection to having exactly the same language here.
The Chair: Mr. Masse.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the concerns is that at the end of the day the strength of this bill will undoubtedly depend on whether or not the generic companies can use this; that's the reality. Whatever your position on generics in this country, whether it's a strong or a negative position, it makes no difference because the reality is that it has to be functional for them.
My concern with this subamendment is that it could create a window for another potential barrier. We know how much litigation has happened between the pharmaceutical industries and the generic industries. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter; laying blame makes no difference. My concern is that this could create another opportunity for litigation; that is the potential with this subamendment.
Mr. Douglas Clark: Because this would introduce some very limited degree of discretion, yes, there is that potential.
The Chair: Thank you, Brian.
I'm going to call the question on S-L-2.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I want you to look at the next two pages, pages 3 and 4, at the same time, if you would, before I ask Paul and Marlene to speak to them. There is a line conflict between Bloc subamendment 1 and Liberal subamendment 3. I will just bring that to your attention. Then we'll worry about the line conflict after we see what the vote is.
Paul, would you speak to your subamendment, please--S-BQ-1?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): We need to add that the notice must be sent by certified mail, to avoid a situation where some could argue that they never received the notice, which could result in a legal challenge. If proof of this nature is required, this eliminates the possibility of a legal challenge.
[English]
The Chair: Marlene, on Paul's motion.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I have a point of clarification
[Translation]
on Mr. Crête's subamendment. The text reads “by certified mail”. I want assurances that this still exists. If memory serves me well, Canada Post has done away with one type of postal service. I'm not sure whether to use the expression “courrier recommandé”, or “courrier certifié”, in the French version of my subamendment. Could someone tell us if Canada Post still provides these two types of postal service?
[English]
The Chair: That's a fair question.
Do any of the officials...? I know there's registered mail versus certified mail.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: What is certified mail? I've never heard of it. I've heard of registered mail.
The Chair: Order.
Paul, have you checked into it?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: My English isn't that good, but the expression in French is “courrier certifié”. Perhaps the English version should have said “registered mail”, instead of “certified mail”. I think the problem lies with the translation. To answer Ms. Jennings' question, of course there are ways of proving that mail has been sent and that's what I'm referring to in this instance.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Then we're both wrong. I believe I used the correct term in English, and you provided a literal French translation, that is “courrier certifié”. The term in English is “registered mail”. I used the expression “courrier recommandé” in the French.
¿ (0920)
[English]
The Chair: Before we get into a postal debate, Joe, do you have an absolute answer on that point?
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, can I just be helpful? There are different terms used for different kinds of delivery. If Paul would accept the use of the words “certified and/or registered mail”, that would cover both, and there should be no reason to get into a big long debate as to what exactly we mean. So if you say “certified and/or registered mail”, which is Marlene's suggestion too, that would cover both off.
The Chair: Paul, are you amending your motion to say “certified and/or registered mail”?
Mr. Paul Crête: Oui.
The Chair: Okay.
An hon. member: And registered mail?
The Chair: I'm sorry, “certified or registered mail”.
Now we have a line conflict with S-L-3. If we vote on it, are you saying that...?
Hon. Joe Fontana: We can support S-BQ-1. That's not a problem. I think we said that yesterday. For further clarification, it is a good suggestion. But I don't understand why we would have S-L-3. Unless we're doing them both together, why can't we treat S-L-3 separately from S-BQ...? Maybe you can tell me.
The Chair: I'm going to ask the officials to explain why there is a line conflict between the two. If we adopt Paul's subamendment it will have an impact on Marlene's, if she moves hers.
Just a moment.
Okay. The solution might be--before we go to your motion, Paul--that when we come to yours, if you delete that first part in deference to Paul's, we could deal with the rest of Marlene's, if it carries. Correct.
I'm going to read S-BQ-1 into the record, because we've had an amendment to the subamendment. So S-BQ-1 would now read: “sought from the patentee or, if there is more than one, from each of the patentees, by certified or registered mail”. Is that correct?
Mr. Paul Crête: Oui.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Chair: I understand, Marlene, that we will then amend your subamendment starting with “on reasonable terms”.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Are you moving S-L-3 as amended in paragraph (i), starting with the line beginning with “named”?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. It would read:
| named in the application on reasonable terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful, and |
The Chair: Then it continues as you have it on page 4.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.
The Chair: Do you want to take a moment to speak to your subamendment as amended?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. It's simply to bring clarity to the government amendment G-9, to ensure that all parties know what their responsibilities are at any stage of the game in the application of this legislation. It's also so that when interested parties--for instance, Canadians who are not party to these contracts--read this legislation and hear of negotiations going on with importing countries or whatever, licences being given, they have a good substantive understanding of the process.
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Any time any member can improve upon and make clear the government's amendments and/or intent, we support that. So we're supportive.
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: I have a question for Madame Jennings. It's a small concern, but I wonder if she would support changing the words “notice of intent” on the sixth line of the amendment to “application”.
¿ (0925)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You have me stymied. I'm looking for it.
Mr. Brian Masse: I might have the wrong one.
The Chair: I think you're on the wrong one.
Mr. Brian Masse: My apologies.
The Chair: Okay. Be sure to raise your hand when we come to that.
I'm going to call the question on S-L-3, page 4.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's S-L-3(i), because there's a second part--the (ii) at the bottom.
The Chair: It's all one amendment, so I thought when you made your remark you talked about the whole--
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My remarks for amendment S-L-3(i) would also be a response to S-L-3(ii),in the written request for a licence.
The Chair: And I take it that Joe's comments apply to the whole page?
Hon. Joe Fontana: Yes.
The Chair: All in favour of amendment S-L-3?
(Amendment agreed [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now on page 5.
Mr. Crête, your subamendment S-BQ-2.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I wish to remind people that the purpose of this subamendment is to ensure greater security during shipment of pharmaceutical products to guard against any chance of smuggling. The proposed subsection 21.06(1) reads as follows:
| ...and sold for export and the distinguishing features of the product, and of its label and packaging... |
I propose that the following be added:
| including all known participants in the logistical chain from Canada to the importing country, |
The subsection would then continue as follows:
| as required by regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act. |
In some respects, the aim is to provide a means of tracing the product in circulation. Security would thus be guaranteed. If the need arises to conduct an investigation to trace a product's whereabouts during shipment, the evidence will be on file.
[English]
The Chair: Have you moved that, Paul?
Okay, Marlene.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would support this subamendment from Mr. Crête because the language he is including is TRIPS language.
The Chair: Are there any further comments?
Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Just to be careful again, I don't think there are problems, but if I could defer to the officials with regard to this particular amendment, if you could--
The Chair: Through the chair, okay.
Is there an official who would like to comment?
David Lee.
Mr. David Lee (Director, Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health): I would just observe, to help understand what our regulatory boundaries are--because we're referring to the Food and Drugs Act and regulations--that if you look at division 8, which is the division of the food and drug regulations in part C that we would be really relying on, it's very geared to Health Canada regulating manufacturers, and the powers get weaker when you get beyond that into distribution chains.
So I would just draw to your attention that the power to be able to reach over interjurisdictionally may be extremely limited, given this language.
The Chair: That's to the point of making the bill inoperable?
Mr. David Lee: No, Mr. Chair, that wasn't my suggestion. I was just drawing to your attention certain limits in that division of the food and drug regulations.
The Chair: Okay, I will call subamendment S-BQ-2.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you, members, for your cooperation.
On subamendment S-L-4, Marlene, are you moving this?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, I am. I think it's important.
One of the objectives of this legislation is to ensure that the entire process is open and transparent, and in order to achieve that objective I think it's important that the Commissioner of Patents post and maintain on the website a link to each website that would be required by holders of an authorization under subsection (1). I think it's important to ensure that whichever way someone wants to access that information, they will be able to do so. Most people's instincts would probably be to go to the website of the Commissioner of Patents to try to find out what licences have been given and what's happening with that. So I think it's important that linkage be mandated by this legislation.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, let's be clear as to where the responsibility also needs to fall. While this might seem like a logical step, the fact is if you look at proposed section 21.06, the disclosure of information on the website and the obligation to maintain that particular website falls upon the holder of the authorization. Therefore, whoever gets this contract needs to post it, needs to create a website that will make it clear to the world and everyone else that these are the terms and conditions, the supply, and what they're going to be delivering at a particular time. Therefore, let's be clear, the total and full responsibility that the government may have through the commissioner, the responsibility to also have a website—because I believe that is what Marlene is talking about—should not preclude the fact that the website must be maintained by the holder of the authorization, who has the contract and must fully disclose the terms and conditions.
¿ (0930)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: There has to be a mandatory link.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think what Marlene is saying is in addition to that she expects the Commissioner of Patents to also maintain a website to disclose a number of things, or at least have a link.
I wonder if the administration could comment.
Mr. Éric Dagenais (Acting Director, Patent Policy Directorate, Department of Industry): Mr. Fontana's description is accurate. It's the holder of the authorization who has to maintain the website. This would be in addition to that. This is not something that's specifically mandated by the WTO decision or by the waiver.
The Chair: An additional point, a clarification?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. I think it's very important.
Mr. Dagenais, I would appreciate my words not being taken out of context. If you read my subamendment, it does not talk about taking away the requirement of the holder of an authorization under subsection (1) having to maintain a website. What this subamendment does is require the Commissioner of Patents to post and maintain on the website of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office a link.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: I understand.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Well, it didn't quite come out. It came out as the last little piece.
The Chair: Thank you, Marlene. Your point is made.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Could I just make sure? This is an addition, because subsection 21.06(3) does not exist. Let's just be clear that this is a new subsection. As Marlene has clarified that it's a link, and the administration has also clarified it, we would have no problem, but I think the amendment should properly read that 21.06(3) is a new subsection.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's to be amended to include as 21.06(3) the specified task.
The Chair: It's now clear, I would say. I am going to call the question.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we have S-L-5. Marlene, are you moving it?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, I am.
I will not repeat my argument, unless I see any confusion on this. It is another addition. It would create a subsection 21.06(4). It is to ensure that there's openness and transparency and that anyone who wants to know what's happening with the application of this legislation is able to do so.
The Chair: Are there any comments?
Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think I need further clarification from my colleague here as to what she actually means by the words “within 7 days of receipt, post on the website...each application for authorization”?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Instead of its being redundant, within seven days of receipt of an application for authorization filed under subsection 21.04(1), they shall post on the website each application.
Hon. Joe Fontana: But the seven days might be a problem. I think there are requirements in this bill, perhaps not in this section, regarding when the application, authorization, and information need to be provided to the Commissioner of Patents. We need to make sure the seven days is consistent with some other requirements we have within the bill. Can I ask the administration to comment on the seven days? I thought there was 15 days somewhere here.
Mr. Douglas Clark: That's for advising the patentee prior to an export shipment, and there's also a duty to provide a copy of the contract within a certain period of time. This is not necessarily in conflict with any other time requirements we have in the current version of the bill or the government's amendments.
¿ (0935)
Hon. Joe Fontana: I would also ask what the responsibilities are of the company that has an authorization. How long do they have to create the website and post on there? I'm just wondering whether, again, the seven days is consistent as a requirement for the government, as it is for the generic company that has to create the website and post that information.
Mr. Douglas Clark: The time requirement in respect of that particular act is that it has to take place prior to export of the product to which the authorization relates.
The Chair: James.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is this being a little ambitious, though? If I understand this correctly--and correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Jennings--this is asking that if the generic drug company files an application, within seven days that has to be...? Can you clarify it for me?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, it's within seven days of the Commissioner of Patents receiving an application for an authorization. So the generics file an application for an authorization on, say, May 1, 2005, with the commissioner for oaths. The commissioner for oaths would have seven days following that date of receipt to post it on the website.
Mr. James Rajotte: And that's just to let everyone know what's going on. That's the purpose of it.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Exactly.
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: It's not a problem. This is also an educational sort of exercise, right? Before it gets to the commissioners, we also know that the generic must have approached a brand company with regard to the request for a voluntary licence.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Are you moving amendment S-L-6?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, I am.
I think it's very important to bring, again, clarity to the government amendment, that it be each shipment, because one could be exporting a quantity of a product over several shipments. Therefore, I think it's “Before each shipment of any quantity...under an authorization, the holder of the authorization must, within fifteen days”...there again it's to provide clarity. Rather than it must, at least fifteen days before the product is exported, it would be within fifteen days of the quantity being exported, provide by registered mail the quantity that's being exported and “identifying every known party in the distribution chain from Canada to the final country of import”.
It brings it into conformity with a subamendment of Mr. Crête that we have already adopted, which is based on TRIPS language itself.
The Chair: Did you suggest that it was going to be by certified or registered mail?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Here it says “registered mail”, but we can bring it into conformity and say “by registered or certified mail”.
The Chair: It will use the same sequence; it's certified or registered mail, to be the same as Paul's.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. Okay, we'll do that.
The Chair: The Hansard got that.
On page 8, in the line that starts with the words “by registered mail” underlined, we're going to add just prior to “registered mail” the words “certified or”.
Any other comments?
Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to ask the officials this. I'm concerned about a couple of parts of the subamendment here, the “each shipment” and also specifically “identifying every known party in the distribution chain from Canada to the final country of import”.
That could be very onerous. Once a contract is signed, this could be another barrier, perhaps, of fulfilling that contract if there are some shipment issues. So can I get your comments on that? I'm concerned that this could be even more onerous if something has to change in the distribution at the last moment to get the drugs. It could be anything from manufacturing and distribution issues, from a very practical side at the plant, to even something through the actual rollout of the program that the NGO or the government is intending to do with the agent for them.
¿ (0940)
Mr. Douglas Clark: I confess that at first blush my reaction was the same. I was concerned about that. But the fact that you have the language in there, the word “known”, presumably there's no burden because you only have to tell what you know, right? So I don't see this as terribly onerous, provided that word is in there. If they don't know three steps down the distribution chain who is going to be taking care of transporting that product, then they don't have to put it in there. It's only what is known to them. I think that mitigates the burden a little.
Mr. Brian Masse: It's each and every shipment in particular that is troublesome to me. If there's already an agreement and there's an understandable link and chain that's already happening, why would each shipment...? I find that problematic if every shipment is going to have to go through this, especially if there is an issue with the amount of product that's being rolled out at different times.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: I don't think that's significantly different from what there is now, though.
Mr. Douglas Clark: Yes, that was the intended effect of our provision, more or less.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: The government motion is that before exporting any quantity of a product, you have to notify, each time, 15 days prior to the product being exported. That was the intent.
I don't think it's adding “each shipment” that would be onerous. If the word “known” wasn't there, that could be onerous, but otherwise it's not.
The Chair: Okay, Brian?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes.
The Chair: Lyle, then Joe, and then we'll take the vote.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I think this clarifies it. One of the concerns we had with this in the past we want to hopefully prevent in the future. Whether it's part of a shipment, a shipment, or the whole thing going in the wrong direction, this only clarifies that when there's a shipment made, everybody has to make sure it's recorded, as they've said they're going to and as we've said in other places. Everybody can find out who had it in transportation, in their hands, etc., so that it doesn't go down the wrong trail.
The Chair: Joe, the final word is to you.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think it's also in keeping with what BQ-2 said in regard to the logistical chain, making sure the drugs actually get to where they are intended to go and in terms of the people we know, everybody connected with the chain. We would have no objection, obviously, to clarifying the intent of this section.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question on S-L-6.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I want to point out that we now have to take the vote on G-9, as amended.
Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chair, I do have some subamendments for G-9.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Are these part of the original package or are these new?
The Chair: These are being presented now, right?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes.
The Chair: You have to give us a moment to see if there are line conflicts or what have you.
Mr. Brian Masse: What were we expected to do on this, if possible?
The Chair: Remove line 3 on page 34....
Excuse me, I need your indulgence. We have to suspend for a couple of minutes to make sure we don't do something that is in conflict with something that has already been done.
You have three minutes to grab a cup of coffee or a glass of juice.
¿ (0944)
¿ (0954)
The Chair: We'll bring this meeting back to order. I'll ask for quiet in the room, please.
Thank you for your cooperation. I want to especially thank Joann and Jean-Michel for quickly dealing with those just presented subamendments. I'm going to have to read them out. We're at page 34 in your binder. Very quickly, Brian, I'll ask you to explain your number 1.
¿ (0955)
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're asking for the removal of paragraph (g). I would ask that 21.04--right at the top of the page--and other information that may be prescribed--
The Chair: Quarante-deux en français. Go ahead, Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: I'll be quick. I don't want to hold up the proceedings here in any way, but I want to make sure that we at least have our amendments considered in due process.
This one here in particular just relates to 21.04(3)(c), where we believe the proof is already there and that this is just another burdensome part of the legislation. It's already covered off. The removal of this makes it more clear and will make it a better bill because it's already introduced prior to that. For that reason, we think this is a good amendment and it just eliminates a redundancy.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I heard you say (c). Is it (g) we're talking about or (c)?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, we're talking about (g), but I believe 21.04(3)(c) provides the rules, so to speak, that are already there, and any other information that may be prescribed is a little bit more open. This closes this off because it eliminates one small line there.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Are you talking about the total elimination of (c)?
Mr. Brian Masse: No, just (g), because we believe 21.04(3)(c) covers that all off and we believe (g) is just redundant.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question, which provides for the removal of line 3 on page 34, 21.04(2)(g). Is that clear?
Question, James.
Mr. James Rajotte: Could I perhaps get the officials to explain the rationale for including this and any other information that may be prescribed? Can you give examples to the committee of what may be other information? I know it's in there as sort of a safety valve.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: I think it's when we were with drafters...it's just an abundance of caution, to use a lawyerly phrase, and I'm not a lawyer. But, yes, I think as you're designing regulations you want to have that. If you need any additional information as you are designing regulations, you want to have that flexibility. Otherwise, it would require ensuing legislative amendments to have a regulatory amendment if this is not there.
It may not be necessary, but it may become necessary as the other motions.... We don't even know what the legislation will look like in its final form right now, so it may become necessary to add additional information as the regulations are being updated after the bill has been set in its final form.
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: We would agree with what the administration just said and everything else. We think (g) needs to remain there.
The Chair: I'll call the question on subamendment 1 from the NDP.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That means, Brian, on the same page, that what will be renumbered as NDP subamendment 2 is off, right?
Mr. Brian Masse: Sure.
The Chair: So what you have as 2 is now 3.
Mr. Brian Masse: Can we record that as two to one, because that's the best vote I've lost by till now.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: It is now recorded.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you.
À (1000)
The Chair: I'm going to get you to speak to your subamendment 3, which you have as 2 but is now 3.
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: By the way, we're all doing very well on this IQ test.
You're moving this motion?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, I'm moving this motion, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: It's on line 15 of page 34, or quarante-deux, en français.
Mr. Brian Masse: It adds the notation “within thirty days before”....
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. It would assist us if you don't just simply say line such and such, but you actually read the amendment out. Perhaps read out the government's amendment, which we all have on page 39, and then read his out, because we don't have a copy of his.
The Chair: On page 34, line 15, add the following in paragraph 21.04(3)(c). Then read your subamendment, please, Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: It is “Applicant had, within thirty days before”.... Wait a minute. Sorry, Mr. Chair, we just got the breakdown here.
The Chair: What's the problem, Brian?
Mr. Brian Masse: We have it on two separate pieces of paper here, that's all.
The full amendment would be:
| the applicant provides the Commissioner with a solemn or statutory declaration in the prescribed form stating that the applicant had, within thirty days before the prescribed time filing the application |
The Chair: You know where that is?
Are there any comments?
Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, if this is to imply.... I think we may have covered it off when I asked the question, how long between the voluntary licence to the compulsory licence. I indicated that the regs would probably say something with regard to the 30 days. If that's the intent of what Brian is asking or putting in legislation....
Is that what's intended, Brian? We're still a little unclear as to what you're trying to accomplish. I could ask the officials. I don't think it sounds like a bad idea. We would have no problem with it, but I need to get a clarification from Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: That's exactly it. It's because we haven't seen the draft regulations and these are some of the issues we've had. That's the full intent.
The Chair: I'd ask the officials, are you willing to comment on that?
Mr. Clark.
Mr. Douglas Clark: Our only concern with it would be the fact that the reason we had “prescribed time” in there--and 30 days very well may be what it turns out to be--is just that we wanted to have the opportunity during the making of the regulations to consult with the industry and hear from them as to what they considered to be fair. For example, I know that in most recent representations from some of the NGOs they mentioned 15 days. I've heard from other industry sources that a longer period would be more appropriate.
I think it precludes that dialogue from taking place.
The Chair: Lyle.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Chair, we know that this legislation is enabling legislation and it certainly gives a lot of direction, but I have a concern if we get down to those types of specifics in the legislation because I think that's the purpose of the construction of regulations following legislation. As has been said, 30 days may very well be where it ends up, but it might also be more acceptable to the industry if it's 24, or they may arguably come forward and say it should be a different number from 30. I think we're getting specific.
It does say there must be a prescribed time, and that's what can be determined.
The Chair: After Brian I'll take the vote.
Mr. Brian Masse: We just had an amendment from Madam Jennings with 7 days--specific timelines. I think this is a reasonable compromise to ensure some consistency for all those parties that are going to have to work with this legislation, whether it be NGOs, generics, or pharmaceuticals.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, if it was not more than 30 days I think it would be much more helpful. Again, we're trying to get this done as quickly as possible so that in fact we can get the medicines to the people. To tell you the truth, nobody has ever said more than 30 days; therefore, if we could accomplish 15.... But I think if Brian would say not more than 30 days, that would be positive.
The Chair: It says that. Within 30 days allows for less.
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, within 30 days.
The Chair: So it could be less.
(Subamendment agreed to)
À (1005)
The Chair: Let the record show that Brian got his first amendment.
Okay, Brian, on your subamendment number four.
Mr. Brian Masse: Number four is--
The Chair: I'll go to page 37, page 45, en français.See amendment NDP-26. Maybe later on you're going to....
So we're at, let's see, proposed subsection 21.04(3).
Mr. Brian Masse: We would be adding a new subsection.
The Chair: Okay, so this is page 37.
Explain exactly what you want to do and where, please, Brian, as quickly as you can. Are you moving it?
Mr. Brian Masse: I'll be moving it, Mr. Chair. It's a new section to proposed section 21.04, after (B); it's item (C). I can read the amendment, which is quite lengthy, or I can speak to it.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't want to be obstructionist, but I am really uncomfortable with dealing with subamendments that I do not have in writing before me. Would it be possible to suspend for 15 minutes, have someone make photocopies, and bring us back the rest of Mr. Masse's subamendment?
The Chair: Instead of suspending, I'm going to get copies of the others made while Brian reads this one.
Just a second. Hang on, Marlene. It's going to take the same amount of time anyway. At least he'll have time to explain his amendment.
Anyway, Brian, go ahead with subamendment four, and we're going to get these copied for members, if Paul will accept to see this without it being in French.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I would rather we set aside our study of G-9 and come back to it when we have received the necessary documents. It's already quite complicated to follow along when we do have them. When we don't, it's even more difficult, and when we don't have them in our first language, it's even harder.
[English]
The Chair: Brian, you're putting us in jeopardy.
Mr. Brian Masse: Amendment NDP-26 is almost the same in language, and it's in our books here.
The Chair: Amendment NDP-26 is at page 97, page 97, en français.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Are you talking about amendment NDP-26?
The Chair: That's correct, NDP-26.
[English]
So you have it there.
Brian, speak to your subamendment, please.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be quick on this.
The kinds of subtle changes that you'll see differently there on page 97 are, say, if you go down to(a), the government had changes to the word “notice”, and we have “application”. Aside from that, the intent is virtually the same.
We just believe this amendment is going to provide some strength for the generic firms, especially the WTO and the language of TRIPS, to be able to actually roll out the products. That's why we've introduced this motion.
I'll leave it at that.
The Chair: Carol Skelton.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: I have a real problem with doing it this way, Mr. Chair, and I think it's taking it at a disadvantage. It's hard to find out where we're going and what we're doing. With legislation, it's very important that we--
À (1010)
The Chair: I think Carol is right.
Basically, we have two choices in front of us. We suspend until Monday at 3:30 p.m., because, Brian, we have a rule of the committee that we cannot hand out a piece of paper that's not in both languages, or members agree by unanimous consent to continue the way we're doing it, which has caused the concerns that Carol and others have--
Hon. Joe Fontana: Excuse me. No, Mr. Chairman, there are other remedies. You just called the amendments out of order because they're not in compliance with the rules of the House of Commons, which is--
The Chair: Joe, I don't want to debate this with you. I can't just say they're out of order, because they're not out of order. It's every member's right to bring amendments forward in the language of their choice, Joe, so that doesn't in itself make it out of order.
As I see it the issue is if the committee wants them handed out in both languages, which means they have to get them translated, we can't come back to this business until Monday.
Hon. Joe Fontana: My point is this, though. Listen, this is an important piece of legislation. Things weren't handled as they could have been; they could have been handed out last night in both official languages and we could have had them here. But that becomes Brian's problem, not this committee's problem nor the country's problem. Therefore, if it's not ready, I don't think the committee should--I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman--just say we're going to suspend on an important piece of legislation till Monday.
It's simple: you just defeat it. He either withdraws it or, with respect, we'll defeat the amendments. We'll let him put them in the language of his choice without giving us a copy; then that's fine, and he'll take his chances.
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: Those comments are nice, Mr. Fontana, but the reality is that this has been delayed a long period of time and you introduced significant changes to this bill at the last minute with little notice for us. That's the reality and you can't escape that.
With this amendment I want to work through this like anybody else. We've been saying our party is prepared to go to an election already, and we know what this is about.
NDP-26 has the same intent as this with some minor changes.
I do not want to disrupt the tempo of this committee. I do not want to do anything that would not improve the bill or would have any negative consequences for this Parliament passing a very important piece of legislation.
I appreciate the difficulty, and I knew that in submitting it. I was an advocate of submitting documents in both official languages with this committee even prior to last year.
And I understand the circumstances; they're unavoidable for us because we're trying to do our job. I would just ask for the committee's patience to work through this with me, and if you disagree with it, that's fine.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Tell us what NDP-26 says; it's a full page. Maybe you can just explain it. You didn't do a very good job of explaining anything.
The Chair: Before we go to Brian, Paul, is it a point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Will only one amendment of this nature be moved, or will there be others over the course of the day that will not be tabled in both official languages? I'd like to know if this is an exceptional case, or if there will be other such instances.
[English]
The Chair: I think I know the answer to that. There are two more after this in other sections, Brian, right?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, and they're much simpler. This is the most difficult of the legislation; the other ones are strict--
The Chair: After we deal with this one, would you be agreeable to introducing the rest of this set altogether as one group, in a bundle?
Mr. Brian Masse: I'll be really brief on all of them. They're not one--
The Chair: Paul.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Do the other two subamendments pertain to an amendment other than G-9?
[English]
The Chair: I believe so. Is that right, Brian?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes.
The Chair: The additional two are not G-9.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: We'll listen to him present the subamendment to amendment G-9 and we'll get the translation on the fly. We'll go along this one time, but not for all of the others. We'll agree to it so we can get through G-9. In the case of subamendments to other clauses, the movers should arrange to have them translated in time for the committee meeting. Is that an acceptable compromise?
[English]
The Chair: I understand what Paul is saying. For your amendments to G-9, Brian, he'll accept that we hand out only English copies of the amendments, without French, this time only. If you have others after G-9, you'll have a couple of minutes to get them translated and copied.
We will hand out copies of these subamendments. The one we're talking about now, explain it, because we have it in NDP-26. The others Louise will arrange to get copies of and we'll hand them around, because Paul has made this compromise. Is Paul's compromise acceptable to everybody?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, Paul.
Brian, explain subamendment 4, which is very similar to NDP-26.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What it does is reintroduce some of the notions that were in the WTO agreement and the TRIPS agreement. It makes sure the bill is not going to get away from the actual objective of enabling the generics to get manufacturing up and running. That's one of the concerns we have. We feel that the TRIPS waiver in the WTO agreement was specifically designed for that. It wasn't something that just happened by accident; it was specifically designed for that. This language gets it back to that type of agreement, and that's why we're introducing the subamendment.
À (1015)
The Chair: Are there any questions? Marlene, do you have a question on Brian's subamendment?
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I really can't comment on his subamendment because his explanation doesn't tell me anything. As I see it, the aim of amendment NDP-26 is to create a separate system that would bypass the patentee completely. In my view, this would be a violation of the TRIPS Agreement. Bypassing pharmaceutical companies was not the aim of the TRIPS Agreement and neither is it the aim of Bill C-9. I've read amendment NDP-26 several times and as I see it, that is what it purports to do. Therefore, I have to assume that the purpose of the subamendment is to further bypass the system that our government is trying to put in place, in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
I'm going to call the question.
Mr. Rajotte.
I don't have the peripheral vision of Wayne Gretzky, unfortunately.
Mr. James Rajotte: Mr. Chair, I'm still unclear as to what the subamendment does.
The Chair: You have to comment based on NDP-26.
Mr. James Rajotte: I'm not understanding what your intent is.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: We'll deal with it to the best of our ability, not having seen the subamendment in writing. The first comment is that it amends proposed section 21.04 of the bill. We're proposing to remove that by G-9. So it's an amendment to a proposed section of the bill that we're proposing to remove.
The second comment is more substantive and calls into question the aspect of territoriality. It appears that the motion would allow for--
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: I'll withdraw this motion. It goes back to a difference of opinion on what we have and where this bill should lead. I don't want to delay things unnecessarily. It's clear that I won't get any support on this. I'll withdraw this motion in the interests of the committee.
Hon. Joe Fontana: We just indicated to Brian that we were going to be eliminating proposed section 21.04. Therefore, had we amended it, it would have been deleted. I think you might want to rethink that. I appreciate the fact that you've just withdrawn an amendment to something we were going to delete anyway.
À (1020)
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw NDP-4?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Go to subamendment 5. It's a very short one. Go to page 38 at the very bottom, page 46 en français.
Mr. Brian Masse: I move that motion, Mr. Chair.
The last word is “manner”, and then there's a period. We would change the period to a comma and add “not to exceed 4% of the value of the pharmaceutical products exported under the authorization”.
The Chair: What's the effect of that?
Mr. Brian Masse: The bill in its original form set a rate of 2%. The actual amount would have fluctuated with the value of the pharmaceuticals being exported. This would ensure that the royalty rate was capped at 4%.
The Chair: Are there any questions or comments?
Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I understand again where Brian is coming from. In actual fact we decided not to post or fix a particular rate.
I think as we get into the issue of royalties, if that comes up, you will note that the formula that has been derived by the government is to suggest that for the poorest countries and those who could least afford to pay for it, the formula would range anywhere from .01% or 0.2% to not more than 3.75%, or thereabouts. Therefore, rather than fixing a number in a piece of legislation, if one looks at the royalty schedule, I think it's in keeping with Canada...first, this is a humanitarian bill, and second, of the countries that are listed, those that are least able to pay should not pay very much of a royalty.
While I can appreciate where Brian is coming from, I think the effect is the same. Putting in 4% would be problematic, because that would mean that anybody then could charge up to 4%. I think that's the reverse of what Brian wants to accomplish, because there are about 20 or 30 countries--the administration might want to answer that--that are going to be paying very little in terms of royalty.
I wonder if could ask the administration just to clarify, because putting 4% means--
Mr. Brian Masse: It's not. It's not to exceed 4%.
Hon. Joe Fontana: But that's what I mean.
Mr. Brian Masse: So it can't go any higher.
Hon. Joe Fontana: But why would you want to even go to 4% when in some cases we're suggesting it needs to be less than 4%?
Mr. Brian Masse: That's available in the bill. It just says it caps it at 4%.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think it's problematic, Brian. I'm trying to be supportive.
The Chair: Is there any clarification by officials?
Mr. Dagenais.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: We actually do have the formula that will calculate the royalty rate. We have it in French and in English and we can distribute it to members. You will see from the formula what the intent is.
[Translation]
We're well prepared.
A voice:Like good boy scouts.
Mr. Éric Dagenais:That's right. Perhaps someone could pass these out, or I could do it myself.
[English]
The Chair: A last comment, Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: My office has been asking for draft regulations for awhile, and we were told they wouldn't be available. This is part of the problem.
All it's saying is simply that we're making sure it does not go over 4%. It can be 1%; it can be .0%; it can be 3.9%; it can be 3.6%. It can be anything, as derived. It just stops it from being 4.1% or 4.2% or 5% or 6%.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Maybe the administration could comment on that very point as the formula is being distributed.
As for the draft regulations, Mr. Chairman, I think on the first piece of legislation we had tabled the draft regulations. But as you know, this legislation is being amended as we speak today, so you can't draft regulations on presumption of what the legislation might be. Therefore, at some point we will be giving to the committee the draft regulations as they relate to this particular bill.
Maybe the administration could talk a little bit about the concept and the philosophy behind the royalty rate as we designed it.
Eric or Douglas.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: If everyone has the royalty formula in front of them, essentially, for what we are proposing, we were inspired by the United Nations human development index. The way the royalty formula would be calculated is by looking at the rank of a country on the United Nations human development index. You would, I guess, plug this rank or take this number and put it into the formula, where it says “the country's rank”. We would also add the total number of countries in the humanitarian index and insert it into the formula as well.
Basically, to cut to the chase, what you would end up having is a country, for example, Sierra Leone, which is the lowest rank on the UNHDI—it's 175 out of 175—that would end up paying a royalty rate of .02%, and every country ranked higher would incrementally pay a little more. The notion is that the higher you are on the UNHDI, the more you can afford to pay and the more developed you are. That's how the royalty would work.
In fact, Hong Kong is on schedule 4. It's one of the highest countries. Last night, I realized that Israel is actually on schedule 4 as well. It would be slightly higher than Hong Kong; I think it's around 3.5%.
À (1025)
The Chair: Mr. Rajotte and Mr. Crête, before we go back to you, Brian.
But the bottom line is that it can't go over 4%, according to this formula.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: No. Norway, which is number one, would pay 4%.
The Chair: Yes, it's 3.999%, or something like that.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: Yes.
The Chair: Okay.
James and then Paul.
Mr. James Rajotte: I'll amend my question slightly then, based on this information. Has this formula been agreed to by industry, by both the generics and the brand names?
Is this based on any guide in TRIPS or anything, or is this a Canada formula that we're coming up with here?
The third question is, can this be appealed? If, for instance, the brands or the generics disagree that South Africa is 1.48%, do they have an avenue to appeal this, or is this actually set in stone once the bill becomes law?
Mr. Éric Dagenais: The royalty formula itself was not circulated to the members of the industry, either the generics, the NGOs, or the brands. They were aware of the notion that a formula was being developed, but the formula itself, this particular one, was not circulated.
In terms of whether this is made in Canada, it is a made-in-Canada formula, but we are basing it, I guess, on a reliable international index for development. We are drawing upon the expertise of the United Nations in ranking development to assist us in setting the appropriate royalty rate for each country.
In terms of whether the rate itself is appealable, it is appealable. I'll ask my colleague, Mr. Clark, to take you through how someone could go about appealing the royalty rate.
The Chair: Do you want to hear that, James?
Mr. James Rajotte: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Mr. Clark will explain the appeal process for the rate.
Mr. Douglas Clark: Sure. So that I understand, though, before I delve into it, Mr. Masse is proposing to amend a motion that hasn't yet been considered and passed by the committee. Is that a problem?
À (1030)
The Chair: Keep going. Yes, go ahead and explain the appeal process.
Mr. Douglas Clark: I'll try to forget what I just said.
We've provided for a right for patentees if they disagree with the outcome of the formula Éric explained. They make an application to the Federal Court seeking an order varying the royalty rate as calculated by the formula. The court, in considering that application, must take into account the humanitarian reasons underlying the issuance of the authorization, the licence, and the economic value of the contract to the importing member. Those two requirements basically track the language in TRIPS.
Our reasoning in introducing a provision of this kind was to give effect to the requirement in TRIPS article 31, which states that decisions relating to remuneration, i.e., royalty, must be subject to some form of independent legal oversight or judicial oversight. It gives effect to that requirement in TRIPS.
The Chair: Monsieur Crête is next. We'll go on to you.
Hon. Joe Fontana: If I could just--
The Chair: Wait a minute, Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: --interrupt here because I think James asks--
The Chair: Joe, just a second.
Are you finished, James? Okay.
Paul and then Joe.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: First of all, can you confirm that if this formula is applied, no one will pay more than 4 per cent?
Mr. Douglas Clark: That's correct.
Mr. Paul Crête: Secondly, is the government undertaking to include this formula in the regulations?
Thirdly, if no agreement was reached, it would not stop the transaction from going forward or block the shipment of the pharmaceutical products. That's an issue quite apart from tariffs and sales will not be blocked because the percentage is being appealed. Is that correct?
Mr. Douglas Clark: The license per se couldn't be challenged, merely the royalty.
Mr. Paul Crête: The product would still be shipped. I want some assurances that this wouldn't simply interfere with the shipment of the product.
Mr. Douglas Clark: No, it has nothing to do with that.
Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think Paul got his answers--yes, yes, and yes--to those three questions.
But let me just indicate that we heard from witnesses. You will remember that the first bill talked about a 2% royalty for everyone. I think we've been very creative because we heard brands were giving away some drugs at no cost whatsoever while among the generics everybody wanted to drive the cost down as low as possible, so why would we impose 2% on countries that couldn't afford anything anyway? Therefore, we came up with this very unique model, one we believe may be used by others. As you can see, the countries with the least ability to pay are going to be paying practically zero, and it moves to no more than 4% for those who can afford to pay a little bit more.
I think this solution is a lot better, based on what witnesses said, because the brands were saying we couldn't give them a fixed rate and put it in print because that would create a problem. Yet we have commitments, including ones from generics and NGOs, who asked in some cases why any, even very little, royalties should be paid. I think we've listened to the witnesses and come up with a rather unique formula that satisfies all.
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: The concern here is that this formula can change within the next three years and we would have the possibility of exceeding 4% without Parliament having any input in that. Is that not a possibility?
Mr. Éric Dagenais: Changing the formula would require a regulatory--
Mr. Brian Masse: Right, so it doesn't have to come back to this committee or the House of Commons.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: That's not the regular way regulations are made, but you could always ask.
Mr. Brian Masse: And that's my point, Mr. Chair. Right now, as it stands, if this is going to be reviewed in three years, an external body or....
And I'm not saying it's a bad formula. I think it's a clever way of working on things, though I'm concerned about how some OECD and other nations out there that don't have rankings are going to fit in there. It's not an unreasonable attempt, but my concern is that if we pass the bill here, then we can lose control as members of Parliament, through an external decision that has no connection to us, to at least achieve the objective of lower-cost drugs.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Officials have given us some information. However, can the parliamentary secretary give us some assurances, on behalf of the government, that this formula will be included in the regulations? Is the government prepared to give us this kind of guarantee?
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana: I just said yes, the formula is going to be included in regulations.
Let me just address a question, if I could, for Brian. In three years this bill is going to be thoroughly reviewed by, hopefully, this committee or Parliament to see whether or not it's working in a number of ways and so on. Hopefully, if there are improvements that need to be brought in after the experience of actually having this legislation in place, then it will be done at that point in time. It's also to reassure them that no regulation ever gets changed unless it's posted, it's gazetted, and there's public information.
Having been the chair of a committee myself, I know that if a committee really wants to take on the job of always looking to see what regulatory changes are being made, it can ask for and comment on those regulatory changes before they are in fact completed.
À (1035)
The Chair: We will put NDP subamendment 5 to a vote.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now, you do have, with Paul's indulgence, the English version of Brian's subamendment, NDP subamendment 6. Look at page 39 in English, 47 en français.
Mr. Brian Masse:
We're on number (4) in the middle of page 39:
| “The Federal Court may, in relation to any authorization, make an order providing for the payment of a royalty that is greater” |
--and this is where we add something--
| or lesser than the royalty that would otherwise be required to be paid under subsection (1).” |
What we're saying there is that if the commissioner decides the royalty is too high, they could amend that appropriately. We feel that it's a fair way to deal with the situation. It would provide the commissioner with the ability to go up and down, depending on the circumstances and the evidence they weigh throughout the whole process. They will be getting into the substantial details about the selection of the rate. We feel that would be an appropriate course for the commissioner to take if the evidence warranted it through the judicial process.
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I think the same arguments that we just discussed would hold true. This is another way of imposing the 4%. We think that instead of legislation, it should be regulation. It says “determined in the prescribed manner, not to exceed 4% of the value of the pharmaceutical products exported under the authorization”. I think the same arguments could be made, but you're trying to put it in a different place.
The Chair: I think you're on the wrong one. It's subamendment 6.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Sorry.
The Chair: All in favour of NDP subamendment 6?
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: As a consequence, subamendment 7 is withdrawn.
Next is subamendment 8. We're on page 39 in English and 47 en français.
Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: The objective can be achieved in subamendment 9, so I'm willing to withdraw subamendment 8. The intent is the same as in the following amendment.
The Chair: So you're not moving subamendment 8.
Mr. Brian Masse: No, I won't move subamendment 8.
The Chair: I'll go to subamendment 9. We're on page 40.
Mr. Brian Masse: We're looking at the top of the page, 7(a) and (b). We're asking that they be reversed. The purpose of that is to have “the humanitarian and non-commercial reasons underlying the issuance of the authorization” as the first thing to consider. We believe that should be the spirit of the legislation and that the economic value should not be the first thing to be considered. So all we're talking about is reversing those two, and we feel it's a reasonable change.
Hon. Joe Fontana: We agree.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The last one is subamendment 10. We're on page 40 in English and 47 en français.
Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: We're looking at proposed section 21.09. It's right below the one we just did. We are adding the following:
| An authorization granted under subsection 21.04(1) is valid until the date of the first of the following: |
| a) the length of the contract referred to in the application; or |
| b) the date that the pharmaceutical product authorized for export is removed from the Patent List |
The period could be greater than two years. It could be two and a half years, or whatever it might be. The agreement they're seeking would be appropriate for the diseases they're treating in the nations. Diseases such as malaria, for example, might require an increase in products or dosage. We're concerned that having to go back and reapply or having extended periods of time would be a restriction.
Second, we could have drugs in Canada that during this agreement come off the patented protection list for the generic producers. We think (b) is a reasonable way of identifying that. It provides some clarity and gets closer to the ability to provide the treatment to the people. We're concerned that the types of products we're using here and the way it's being done might restrict the actual benefit.
À (1040)
The Chair: James.
Mr. James Rajotte: If in the subamendment under (b) it's removed from the patent list, then it wouldn't be affected by the legislation. I don't quite understand why (b) is even in there, Mr. Masse. Am I correct in that analysis?
Mr. Douglas Clark: From my understanding of this, your intent is that the product in question be no longer protected by a patent. Then by operation of law, the licence would become redundant anyhow. You're just stating the law as it exists, notwithstanding this provision.
Mr. Brian Masse: We're just concerned about some crossover and maybe some other litigation that might take place that would prohibit the flow.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I understand what Brian might be getting at, but I think there is a consequence to his action that might not be to the benefit of the countries.
The legislation speaks about a two-year term with a renewal for an additional two years. The intent of this subamendment is essentially to get rid of the two years. But have you thought that in two years there might be more effective drugs, and the price of the drugs might even come down? Why would you want to fix the rate for a period of greater than two years, when in actual fact the benefits might accrue much more, in terms of another drug coming on the list that might be much more effective and less costly?
Second, let's hope the price is always going to be driven down because of competition, and after two years, when a renegotiation has to take place, the price will come down. I think there's a consequence to what you're doing. I know you're thinking about the upside, but on the downside I think you'd lock in prices and lock in a medicine that might be problematic down the road.
Mr. Brian Masse: I'd like to respond to the questions. I think they're valid questions too.
We have this because we're empowering the NGOs and those developing countries that want to enter into agreements with the generics to make their decisions. They will have the opportunity and the sovereignty to decide exactly what relationship they want to have and the best way to actually roll out the programs necessary to treat the people they're responsible for.
We believe this amendment is important because it gives the onus and empowerment to them to make their decisions, negotiate their agreements, and have the ability to do the things that are necessary for the treatment of their citizens.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
À (1045)
The Chair: Now we can go back to the main amendment, G-9. I need to point out that you've already passed G-4, which is related. Amendments L-1, BQ-2, C-4, NDP-9, L-1 to L-32, BQ-2 to BQ-20, C-4 to C-8, and NDP-9 to NDP-34 cannot be put if this is adopted.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Does this go through my amendments that cannot be put?
The Chair: It's on your index. Do you want me to read it out?
James.
Mr. James Rajotte: I have questions on G-9, but go ahead.
The Chair: I can call the question?
Mr. James Rajotte: No. I want to ask questions before you call the question. I want to ask the officials a question.
I think the concern was raised in public by some of the groups over the role of the Federal Court. For the benefit of the committee, can you outline the role of the Federal Court? Can you describe exactly what can be appealed and what cannot be appealed?
In particular, on page 39, can you just go through items 4, 5, and 6 for us and identify any standards or guidelines that the court will be utilizing? How early can the appeal process begin? Is there only one appeal per contract?
The Chair: Did the officials want to comment? Mr. Clark.
Mr. Douglas Clark: There are two provisions in the government's motions that would provide for an application to the Federal Court to seek a particular relief, depending on the nature of the application. Proposed section 21.08, as we've touched upon, relates to the royalty rate. The outcome of the formula that my colleague described to you is not satisfactory to the patentee. They can make an application to the Federal Court seeking an order to vary that royalty rate—clearly, to increase it. The court must take into consideration the two factors that were just switched in terms of their order, the economic use of the contract of the product to the importing member and the humanitarian nature of the authorization. So that's the royalty rate in proposed section 21.08.
Then there's an entirely separate application that you can make under proposed section 21.17. We haven't really discussed that provision yet, but that's the so-called good faith clause. Under proposed section 21.16, the applicant for a licence—or the licence holder, I guess, at that point—must provide a copy to the patentee of its contract with the importing country and include in that information the total monetary value of the contract and the number of units being sold. The patentee can take that information and calculate the average price of the products being sold under the terms of the contract to which the authorization relates. If the average price is 25% or higher than the average price for the equivalent brand-name product in Canada, based on a number of formulary listings, both public and private, the patentee can make an application to the Federal Court for a number of different remedies, on the grounds that the agreement to which the licence relates is commercial in nature.
The threshold test to get standing to make that application is that the average price has to be 25% or more than the brand-name price in Canada. That's the first question the court will look at in determining whether it can hear the merits of the application. So that's the threshold test; if that is met, then the court has to determine whether in fact the agreement to which the licence relates is commercial in nature. There are a number of criteria that it must look at, including the need for the licence holder to obtain a reasonable—
An hon. member: Is this amendment G-9?
Mr. Douglas Clark: Actually, we're over G-9.
The question was what forms of—
The Chair: We're still debating G-9.
Hon. Joe Fontana: No, the first Federal Court on the royalty was G-9 and now he's explaining the other Federal Court thing, which is the good faith clause that comes later. He was doing a good job of explaining it.
Mr. James Rajotte: For simplicity's sake, if he could do it in one....
The Chair: Continue, Mr. Clark.
Mr. Douglas Clark: In determining whether the patentee's arguments have merit and the agreement is commercial in nature, the court will look to the ordinary levels of profitability in Canada of commercial transactions relating to pharmaceuticals. They'll also look to the need for the licence holder to gain a reasonable return sufficient to sustain continued participation in a humanitarian endeavour.
The third thing they look at is United Nations trends for the prices of pharmaceutical products sold in a humanitarian context.
If the court, on the basis of those three criteria, decides the agreement to which the licence relates is in fact commercial, they can make a number of orders. I'll get to those in a moment.
Notwithstanding the outcome of the court's analysis and the fact that the price of the licensed product is 25% or greater than the brand-name price in Canada, the licence holder, which is the generic company typically, still has an absolute defence to an application of this kind if they can establish to the court's satisfaction, on the basis of an independent audit, that notwithstanding the price of their product, it's still cost of production plus 15%. It's under that threshold. That's to accommodate situations where a drug is particularly expensive to produce. There are drugs of that nature out there.
For the two figures, the 25% of the price or cost of production plus 15%, there's an international precedent. We took that from Europe's access to medicines program. They provide protection from reimportation for tiered price products sold by European companies to the developing world. Those are the same figures they use in deciding whether the product should qualify for that protection.
If at the end of the day the defence doesn't succeed and the court decides that the licence is commercial in nature, they can order either a termination of the licence or a continuation of the licence but with compensation to the patentee for the commercial use of the patent. If termination is ordered, the court can also order delivery of any remaining stockpiled licensed product to the patentee or, alternatively, with the consent of the patentee, they can order the continued delivery of that product to the country in question.
One thing I should add is that notwithstanding that there's litigation going on under that provision, the licence has been authorized and is valid and is not held up in any way.
À (1050)
The Chair: I'm going to call the question on G-9 as amended.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The good news is that we now jump to page 136 in English and 137 en français in your white binder. We're on government amendment G-10.
Mr. Fontana, are you moving that?
Hon. Joe Fontana: I am. Just give me a moment to find out where I am.
The Chair: We're on page 19 of your index.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think it's technical in nature, if I'm not mistaken. I'll get the officials to clarify that.
The Chair: Could we have an explanation from the officials?
Mr. Clark.
À (1055)
Mr. Douglas Clark: It's a very technical amendment to ensure consistency between this provision and some other minor changes elsewhere in the bill. It's just a renumbering of the references to various provisions throughout the bill that this provision makes mention of.
The Chair: It's fairly technical then.
Mr. Douglas Clark: There are two aspects to it. The other aspect is that--
The Chair: Some of the numbering is consequential to G-4 as well.
Mr. Douglas Clark: That's right.
The Chair: And there's a line conflict with NDP-35 and 35.1.
Hon. Joe Fontana: There is a second point the administration was trying to make, and it was that additional wording has to be added to clarify that both the original and the renewed licences have a maximum duration of two years. I just want to be clear on that.
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: You've changed the 60 days to 30 days. I just want to know the reason for that.
Mr. Douglas Clark: This provides for expiry of the licence on removal from the corresponding schedule of the country or drug to which the licence relates. If any change of that nature were made, it would be in the form of a regulatory amendment. Making a regulatory amendment requires that you pre-publish, and this is followed by a certain pre-publication period during which stakeholders can comment. We think that with the addition of that 30 days to the pre-publication period the licence holder would have ample notice of a country or drug being removed.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question on G-10.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: I'll just point out that BQ-21--your motion, Paul--can't be put because of G-9.
So we're now at NDP-35; go to page 20.
A question, Paul?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: BQ-21 was a reference to...
[English]
The Chair: It's consequential to G-9. For the record, BQ-21 is consequential to BQ-18, which was impacted by G-9.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Amendments BQ-18, BQ-19 and BQ-21 had to do with the colour of pharmaceutical products. In our view, to guard against smuggling, companies should be required to manufacture pharmaceutical products in a certain shape and colour. At the time, I thought this was something totally different. I hadn't realized that it was an amendment to G-9.
[English]
The Chair: I just want to make sure with our officials that G-9 and BQ-18 and 21 are in fact consequential.
Paul, we can't put the amendments BQ-18 and 21.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: As far as G-9 is concerned, here is how I understand matters. The only difference in BQ-21 is the reference to the requirements in subsection 21.05(3.1). The wording of BQ-21 needs to correspond, but this shouldn't preclude the possibility of...[Inaudible -- Editor].
Á (1100)
[English]
The Chair: For the record, Paul, I understand you would have had to put a subamendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: It's just that all of these amendments have certain ramifications. I'm trying to see how it's possible to examine the question and to make the colour of a product a condition. That's quite different from anything we've discussed so far. I'd like to check with our counsel to see how this idea could be properly presented.
As far as we're concerned, clearly this is not covered in G-9. Perhaps we have to accept responsibility for this oversight. The fact remains that the issue of the colour of products must, in my view, be discussed, as it could help to reduce smuggling. I don't know if you can shed any light on this for us. Could we possibly get the committee's consent to study this question, along with these three amendments?
[English]
The Chair: Marlene.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We have unanimous consent to allow Mr. Masse to submit one copy of his subamendments in one language and to debate these subamendments in light of any verbal explanations given. In my opinion, Mr. Crête has made every effort to follow procedure by tabling his amendments and subamendments on time. However, it seems that all committee members haven't had time to review at length the subamendments that were tabled along with the amendments and the original bill.
Therefore, I would ask for the committee's unanimous consent to allow Mr. Crête to propose an amendment to the clause in question, with a view to ensuring that the colour of the pharmaceutical products manufactured by the generic drug companies differs from the colour of the products manufactured by the patent holders. In my view, that's very important.
[English]
It's really important because it's a crucial aspect to ensuring there is no diversion. And when we say it's not on the part of the generic companies...it's through the chain, at one point in the logistical chain the medication shipments will go through. I would ask that the committee give unanimous consent to allow Mr. Crête to make the adjustment to the pertinent article.
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: First of all, I think there might be a better explanation and a better way of getting to exactly what I think Mr. Crête wants to do, what this committee wants to do, and what Marlene wants to do in terms of anti-diversion. There are some specific things, not only in the legislation but more particularly in the regulations, that will require that medicine being exported to a particular country be different in many respects from the brand drug that is distributed elsewhere in the world. It could be individual stamping or it could be individual colouring, but that should not be addressed in the legislation; it will in fact be addressed in the regulations.
And if I could, I'll just have the officials touch base on BQ-18 or 21 or call it what you will, those issues that will be dealt with. We would agree with Marlene and Paul, but I think that's better placed in regs, and maybe I can have the officials talk a little bit about it if I could.
Robert or David?
The Chair: Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I'd like to know if officials intend to include a reference to colour in the regulations.
Earlier, you pulled a formula out of your hat and I was wondering if you had something similar to propose in this instance.
Á (1105)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We want an undertaking on your part so that it's entered in the record. It's not that we don't believe you, but...
[English]
The Chair: Paul asked a question. Are there any comments by officials on regulations and the colour of drugs?
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Please give your name. Each member should identify himself or herself and personally undertake to...
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Quiet please!
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana: I wish you'd let him talk.
Mr. David Lee: I'm sorry to say, Mr. Crête, I don't have anything up my sleeve today, but we have been studying the issue of colour and what's viable. It can grow quite complicated, because under the regulations there are certain dyes and so on that you can use. We want to make sure we can distinguish between primary and so on. We're getting down to the detail, but we have committed to colour and would do that in the regulations.
Some of the difficulty in the wording proposed here also goes for dosage forms, and I would turn to Dr. Peterson, who knows those more intimately, to describe what kinds of challenges we would have.
Dr. Robert Peterson (Director General, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health): I'll begin by affirming the fact that we recognize the importance of colour in diversion as has been represented to us many times and we will address it in the regulations.
The difficulty with the inclusion--and I'll refer to amendment BQ-19 as well, which attempts to introduce colour into the act--is that there are dosage forms that cannot be coloured. There are injectable medications that would be included in the medicines to be supplied. These are clear in solution. We would not be able to see that type of product altered in its colour easily. The same would apply to powders and other substances.
So if one is able to refer this issue to the regulations, we can deal specifically with solid dosage forms such as tablets and capsules distinguishable by colour, and deal by other means with those products for which colour will not be an appropriate measure that would have impacts upon possible diversion. But we will certainly address them.
The Chair: Paul, are you satisfied with that?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I understand, but how will the committee be apprised of the regulations?
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana: The chair or the committee can request to see the regulations before they're posted or when they're posted.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: If we could have that guarantee, and more specifically, assurances about colour, the area of interest to me, then we could go to comments. I appreciate the argument put forward concerning injections. I agree that it's disconcerting enough as it is to get a shot, without having to deal with colour to boot.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I would like the regulations to be forwarded to the committee. I'd be satisfied with that.
[English]
The Chair: On behalf of all of us, I am requesting that the regulations be submitted to the committee when drafted--prior to adoption...as soon as they're gazetted, let's say, and that we get a copy of the Gazette and we'll look for the solutions that Mr. Crête has referred to.
With Mr. Crête's indulgence, then, we're going to move to--
Hon. Joe Fontana: Are you going to withdraw amendments 28, 29, or...?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I understand that they were out of order, but I'm pleased nonetheless that we were able to debate the matter.
[English]
The Chair: There's no need to withdraw. Because of amendment G-9, they can't be put.
Amendment NDP-35 can't be put because of G-10. It's the same with NDP-35.1.
We'll go to amendment L-33, on page 140 in English,
[Translation]
and on the same page in the French version.
[English]
Now, Ms. Jennings, amendments L-33 and L-33.1 are similar. Are you putting both of them or are you going to try to reconcile them?
Á (1110)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay. Let me get to--
The Chair: Amendment L-33.1 is in the package that was given to you separately this morning.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, I'd like to keep this, but with a slight subamendment.
The Chair: Is that amendment L-33.1? Is that what you're trying to do, reconcile the two?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would withdraw amendment L-33, but I would like to move L-33.1.
The Chair: Okay, so amendment L-33 is withdrawn and L-33.1 is in that separate package you were given this morning, page 140.1.
Marlene.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: This, again, is to provide clarity to ensure the entire process of application of this legislation is clear, available, and transparent to anyone who is interested.
Therefore, as you can see on the second line, I would add:
| receives notice from the importing country that the importation of the product into the country, or WTO Member to which the pharmaceutical product was, or is to be, exported, is illegal, or infringes patents in the country of the import; and |
Then we go down to proposed paragraph 21.13(g), which remains “the day on which the contract between the licensee”, and I add “and the person or entity”.
It's simply to bring it into conformity with the amendment we've already adopted and to add a little bit of clarity. That's it.
The Chair: Okay.
Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Can I ask the officials whether or not it's in conformity with what we're doing? Again, I think it's whether or not it's workable. It adds two additional paragraphs to the termination part of the bill, which is proposed section 21.13. It would add paragraphs (f) and (g).
I wonder if I could ask the officials to comment on this. I don't think they've had an opportunity...because that was tabled this morning, wasn't it, amendment L-33.1?
The Chair: That's correct.
Hon. Joe Fontana: It is a little different from amendment L-33.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: Well, we just received it 30 seconds ago, so if we could either have a moment or come back to it....
The Chair: While you're having a quick look, are there any comments by others on amendment L-33.1? Otherwise, we'll just take a minute to catch our breath while the officials have a glance at it.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I thought we had covered it off in proposed paragraph 21.13(e). Again, in regulatory stuff, I know the same argument we've used before is that paragraph (e), which says “on any other day that it is prescribed”...because no one knows what those eventualities, those conditions, might be or how they might change. But I'll just wait for the officials.
I think what Marlene is trying to do is get a little more clarity, more specificity with regard to that thing. But I think it would be covered in proposed paragraph 21.13(e), because we can't, obviously, contemplate all the conditions that might change, where a termination might occur.
Á (1115)
The Chair: Are you ready, Mr. Clark?
Mr. Douglas Clark: I think we're concerned that the triggering events here...this is a motion that proposes to add additional triggering events to the termination of a licence, an authorization. I guess our view is that these two triggering events that you're proposing to add here are quite nebulous. I'm not sure what the fact that the exportation of the product has become illegal means. Illegal where? Illegal how? Is it illegal under the food and drug regulations? What exactly does that mean?
And the second trigger, the contract between the licensee and the importing country ceasing to exist--I don't know how that would be established either. I'm not quite sure how that's relevant.
The Chair: Are there other comments?
I'm going to call the question on L-33.1.
Oh, Marlene.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. Mr. Clark says he finds it quite nebulous. If you look at proposed paragraph 21.13(f) carefully, you see that it's a notice from the importing country and for the legally constituted government of that country, that the importation of the product into that country....
Let's take Kenya. A generic company here, or a person or an entity who has contracted with that company or with an agent authorized by the government of that country, gets a licence from Canada, and it turns out that the person who purported to be an authorized agent of the government of Kenya in fact is not. The government of Kenya becomes aware, in which case it means it's illegal. They inform the licensee that it's illegal. The contract immediately ceases.
Or there's a patent within the country of Kenya, and the licence that has been issued violates that patent, so they don't want these drugs coming in, because they have their own patent.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: If they don't want the drugs coming in, I think that's a private matter between the country and the licensee. I would say, though, that there are already provisions in the bill as proposed to be amended by the government that provide for termination of a licence where documents have been falsified in the application process. I'm not sure if it that's—
A voice: If you make a statement claiming that you have the authorization of the country as amended and that's false, that is already grounds for termination.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, but in order to prove that it was false you would need the country to say, “We didn't give authorization.” Proposed paragraph (f) covers that.
The Chair: Speak through the chair, Marlene, please.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Oh, I'm sorry; through the chair, all that I just said.
The Chair: I think we can call the question on amendment L-33.1. Points have been made.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're still on page 20 of your index. We're going to amendment G-11, but we have a couple of subamendments to G-11. Marlene, you're up to bat with S-L-7.
In the little subamendments package handed out earlier today, Marlene, you're on page 9. Will you speak to G-11 first or wait till we deal with the subamendments?
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think we have to introduce G-11 before you can deal with the subamendments.
Á (1120)
The Chair: Are you going to move G-11?
Hon. Joe Fontana: Yes, I'll move G-11.
This follows up on the question James had put with regard to the Federal Court as it relates to that other issue. Let's talk about it again. Douglas did a good job of outlining that particular section.
Proposed section 21.14 provides that the patentee may apply to the Federal Court for an order terminating a licence on a number of grounds. Those grounds are, as presented in 21.14, by making the following five changes.
First, proposed paragraph 21.14(a) is rendered more comprehensive in scope by adding that any inaccurate information in any of the documents provided to the commissioner in relation to the application also constitutes grounds for terminating a licence. I think that gets to the point Marlene was talking about and Douglas addressed.
Second, proposed paragraph 21.14(b) is revised to account for a new obligation on the licensees under the amended subsection 21.06(2) to maintain a website on an ongoing basis.
Third, proposed paragraph 21.14(c) has been added to reflect the new obligation on licensees under the amended section 21.07; in other words, to notify the patentee, the importing country, and the purchaser with at least 15 days' notice prior to shipping any licensed product.
Fourth, proposed paragraph 21.14(g) has been added to prevent the licensed products from being exported to a country other than the one identified in the authorization. That's to make sure, as Marlene has tried to say, that if it ends up in another country wrongly, obviously there's this termination.
Fifth, proposed paragraph 21.14(i) has been added to reflect the new requirement under proposed section 21.03 that a non-WTO country seeking to import licensed pharmaceutical products must state that it agrees not to use the product for commercial purposes and undertakes to adopt anti-diversion measures within the meaning of the article of the general council decision.
It's all of these sections that deal with safeguards for anti-diversion and the cancellation or termination of a contract.
The Chair: Okay, so we'll go to the subamendments and come back to G-11 after.
We have S-L-7. We have Brian's NDP-11, of which you have a copy. There's an overlap of lines, so either Marlene considers yours or you amend Marlene's to deal with it. I think Brian's NDP-11 has the words “or implied consent or participation”, in addition to yours, “the knowledge and express”.
NDP-11 was handed out as a single sheet.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Are you on G-11?
[English]
The Chair: It's G-11, a subamendment. You have three on a page. It's the top one.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I have it.
Given that my subamendment was available or tabled through the chair and the clerk to the committee, a subamendment that comes afterwards normally would not be....
The Chair: The short answer is that if yours is adopted, Brian's can't be put. So let's deal with yours. I wanted to bring it to members' attention so at least they had a choice--you had the option.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.
My subamendment, for everyone, is on page 9 of the subamendments.
Basically, I'm in total agreement with government amendment G-11. I love sections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i). I think section (f), which is what my subamendment deals with, needs to be slightly changed. After the word “decision” on the third line we would delete “and in quantities that are significant, considering the quantities exported”. The semi-colon would be after “the General Council Decision”.
(Subamendment agreed to)
Á (1125)
The Chair: That means your NDP-11 can't be put, Brian.
Now we can go to the main amendment G-11. Is there further debate on G-11, as amended?
Hon. Joe Fontana: Okay, so NDP-11 is off.
The Chair: Yes.
I'll just point out that this is consequential to G-4. If you pass this, according to your index, NDP-36, NDP-37, and L-34 cannot be put.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you. You'll indulge my wanting to be extra careful.
We can't put NDP-36 on page 143, NDP-37, or L-34. So go to page 146 in the white binder, L-35.
Are you moving L-35?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Give me a chance, Mr. Chair. Would you remind me, Mr. Chair, of which one we're on?
The Chair: It's L-35 on page 146 in your white binder.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I will withdraw that amendment.
The Chair: Marlene, you have L-36 and L-36.1. They're on pages 147 and 147.1.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would move this.
The Chair: Which one?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I move L-36.1.
The Chair: So L-36 is not moved.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No.
The Chair: Do you want to make a comment, Marlene?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I think that L-36.1 is pretty clear. All of my amendments have been brought with the objective of providing clarity to ensure that the parties to--
Á (1130)
The Chair: Everybody said that.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So far, most of my amendments have gone through, if I have not voluntarily withdrawn them, because the government has seen the light of day and the wisdom to change its own amendments.
Hon. Joe Fontana: It must be due to the spirit of the Dalai Lama.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Exactly.
The Chair: I'm getting hypoglycemic.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: We're going to do this one, Marlene, and then we're going to have a short sandwich break.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Seriously, I would urge the members of the committee to support this amendment. I think it's a good one. I think it brings clarity to the legislation, particularly to the government amendments.
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I understand where Marlene is coming from, but I don't think we want to introduce offences to the Patent Act. I think there are other ways of getting to the problem if we need to. I'll ask Éric or Douglas to comment on that. I think there is a better explanation.
Mr. Douglas Clark: With regard to paragraph (b) of this amendment, I should just point out that section 76 of the Patent Act already provides for an offence in the case of false representation. It says “Every person who, in relation to the purposes of this Act and knowing it to be false, (a) makes any false representation”, and a number of other violations are enumerated. It then goes on to say “is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both”. So there already are criminal sanctions for what you're mentioning in paragraph (b).
As for paragraph (a), I'm not sure it's appropriate to provide for criminal sanction in respect of what is essentially a civil matter.
The Chair: Lyle.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Chairman, I haven't decided whether or not I agree with the amendment. But I don't see how it fits in the bill before us after proposed section 21.15, which says:
| The Commissioner shall, without delay, notify the patentee, or each of the patentees, as the case may be, in writing of any authorization granted in respect of the patentee's invention. |
Then we all of a sudden say “Every person commits an offence”, and we start talking about re-exporting. I don't see the connection between proposed section 21.15 and L-36.1. Maybe I could get a clarification on that.
The Chair: Marlene.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It would be an entirely new section. So in the same way that you see this, it would be a new section, proposed section 21.15.1.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: All right, because in amendment L-36.1 it didn't specify that it would be a new section, so I didn't--
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think Lyle's right. It should have been handled under proposed section 21.14, if anywhere, but you know....
The Chair: Okay, I'm going to call the question on amendment L-36.1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're going to take a short break for you to get a quick lunch, and we'll reconvene at 12:15 p.m. in the same place.
So we're suspended until 12:15 p.m.
Á (1134)
 (1216)
The Chair: I think there's a will to be done by 2.
If Marlene is ready, we're on amendment L-37, on page 148 of your binder.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, I am prepared to remove L-37 as long as I get a commitment on the part of the government that the substance we have here will be addressed in the regulations. As you can see, the substance of this amendment is to ensure that a patented invention authorized under this bill—meaning that it's abrogating the patent medication law—“cannot be imported into, manufactured for sale, used or sold in Canada at any time during the terms of the patent or after the expiry of the patent”.
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, we think this is redundant because it's carried off, but the assurance the member is seeking is that in the regs.... I believe that Marlene doesn't have to be concerned, as it's in the bill or is inferred in the bill. It's there. So we would suggest that it's redundant, because it's covered off in other parts of the bill, including the regs.
The Chair: Is amendment L-37 withdrawn?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: In the understanding that it will be addressed in the regs, because I don't believe that it's redundant with the legislation itself.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think I made that clear.
The Chair: Okay.
Amendment L-38, Marlene. It's similar to L-38.1.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I will withdraw L-38 and instead move L-38.1.
 (1220)
The Chair: That's in the package given to you today, on page 149.1.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: This would create a new section after new section 21.152. It is to ensure clarity, so that once there is a “grant of an authorization under subsection 21.04”, it “affects the patentee's rights in Canada only to the extent necessary to permit the holder of the authorization to manufacture and export the patented product according to the terms and conditions prescribed by legislation and/or as set in the authorization”.
I simply want it to be clear that the patentee's rights in Canada are affected only insofar as they are prescribed by this legislation or the authorization itself, the licence that is issued.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to wait for the officials on this one, because it tends to be very technical in nature. While I understand what Marlene is trying to get to, I want to be careful, because it sounds like a very technical amendment. I'm sorry, but I need the guidance of the officials, because we haven't seen this one, and I don't know if they have the actual wording before them.
The Chair: Did you get a chance to read L-38.1, gentlemen?
Mr. Douglas Clark: Is it one of the motions we received this morning?
The Chair: That's right.
Hon. Joe Fontana: It is the same as L-38.
The Chair: Yes, it's pretty well the same as L-38, gentlemen.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It is the same. It just changes the subsection mentioned in my L-38, which was—
The Chair: You refer to your L-38 notes. It's essentially the same.
All right. Any takers?
Mr. Clark.
Mr. Douglas Clark: Members can refer to amended section 21.04. Actually, both the old bill and the new bill have the language that I'm going to refer you to, but subsection 21.04(1), I think, essentially replicates the intent behind this.
This is simply saying that the licence insulates the licence holder from infringement liability, provided they are using the licence for a particular purpose that is directly related to the manufacture of the pharmaceutical product in order to sell it for export to the country for which the authorization relates.
I don't see much of a difference between what's proposed here and what's already in the bill. I don't know if I see a real need to reiterate it. It offends drafting convention to do so, I would think.
The Chair: I might call the question.
Hon. Joe Fontana: In other words, the changed language is covered in another section, section 21.04.
The Chair: Marlene.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. I consider that it is important when we're being told it's already covered, but the section to which the individual is referring to does not provide the kind of clarity that one sees in the amendment I'm proposing. What I'm saying is that there should be this new section that really spells it out. I think if you think it's covered, then mine is better than yours.
We add mine to ensure that there is no mistake as to the rights of the patentee in Canada when an authorization is granted. Those rights are affected only inasmuch and insofar as the legislation prescribes for terms and conditions, or as are set out in the actual authorization, so that the holder of the authorization is clear, the patentee is clear, anybody reading the licence is clear, the importing country is clear, and any person along the chain of export is clear.
 (1225)
Mr. Douglas Clark: It's the same concept. It arrives at it from a different angle, but we did talk about the distribution chain this morning. Now that language is in the bill, as the motion was carried.
I would argue, respectfully, in section 21.04 that language certainly accommodates different people down the distribution chain passing the product along, whereas this is not so clear in terms of accommodating that process.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, I think it is.
The Chair: We've heard both sides. I'm going to call L-38.1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you, Marlene.
NDP-38 has been withdrawn. I'm not going to move that one.
G-12 is withdrawn in favour of G-12.1, and that's in your package today. G-12.1 is on page 158.1 at the bottom.
Are you going to move G-12.1, Joe?
Hon. Joe Fontana: I so move.
This is a fairly significant section.
Mr. James Rajotte: I have a point of order for clarification.
To clarify, G-3 is in abeyance until G-12.1 is approved or not.
The Chair: We've actually passed G-3, but because we got into that little dilemma, the committee has the option of re-opening G-3, if necessary, if G-12.1 is not adopted.
It's moved. You can speak to it if you want, now or later, Joe. We could do the amendments.
Hon. Joe Fontana: No, I'll speak to it.
The Chair: You can speak to it when we come to that before the vote.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, in order to promote greater transparency, the present motion introduces a new section, which is 21.16(1), which stipulates that the licensee must provide the Commissioner of Patents and patentees with a copy of the supply agreement relating to the licensed product within 15 days of the licence being granted or the agreement being entered into, whichever is later.
Essentially that's what G-12.1 states. And if I could, because it is a fairly significant section, I would ask the administration to take the committee through it if they would like.
The Chair: Clarification, Lyle?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Help me again, Mr. Chairman. In the bill on page 12, 21.16 refers to the advisory committee, and in this G-12.1 I don't even see the words “advisory committee”. It says at the top of page 158.1--and correct me if I'm wrong here--that this replaces lines 40 to 44, which is the 21.16 in the bill referring to advisory committee. Are we taking that out? Could you explain that?
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, the officials could perhaps clarify. The difference between 12.1 and 12 is technical in nature, but perhaps they could just point out where that technicality is and then we can deal with G-12.
Mr. Douglas Clark: There were two minor changes made to the original motion that was G-12, now G-12.1.
The second, I'll start--
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: First of all, I'd like some clarification with regard to Mr. Vanclief's question. In my opinion, it relates more to 21.15 than to 21.16. It has nothing to do with 21.16. Could someone explain this to us?
Mr. Éric Dagenais: Clause 21.16 is not being amended in any way. This motion is fairly lengthy and we have had to make some amendments of a technical nature to 21.17 in the French version, and to 21.19 in both the French and English versions.
Mr. Paul Crête: Therefore, the reference in G-12 should be to 21.17. In the text we have here, the reference is to 21.16.
 (1230)
Mr. Douglas Clark: We need to start at the beginning, and that is with 21.16. Even though we're proposing to amend only 21.17 and 21.19, we're limited by the fact the motion deals with four clauses.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: The full text of the motion should be reprinted as an amended motion. In G-12, the reference is to 21.16. There should also be another reference to this provision in G-12.1
Mr. Paul Crête: This is an amendment to G-12 only.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: Precisely.
Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you.
Mr. Éric Dagenais:
The only difference in the French is...You asked a question. Previously, it read:
| 21.17(1) Dans le cas où le prix moyen du produit à fabriquer au titre de l'autorisation dépasse d'au moins vingt-cinq pour cent... |
A substitution was made in the French version to ensure that the amount was equal or greater to 25 per cent of the average price, to ensure consistency with the English version. I believe there was a misunderstanding with the drafters. Now the two versions correspond. Mr. Clark can explain it to you further in so far as 21.19 is concerned.
[English]
Mr. Douglas Clark: The other change we made was to 21.19.
[Translation]
We've made the change in both the French and English versions.
[English]
Let me just look through it here.
The Chair: We can proceed now to Marlene's S-L-8. Marlene.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would ask for the unanimous consent of the committee that on the section....
[Translation]
Subsection (1), the French version, which begins with the words “ Dans les quinze jours, contains a reference to “autorisation envoie par courrier recommandé”. I ask for the committee's unanimous consent to substitute the expression “courrier certifié ou recommandé” for the expression “courrier recommandé”, to ensure consistency with the amendments and subamendments that we have already adopted. The English version reads:
[English]
it would read “authorization must provide by certified or registered mail”.
So I would ask for unanimous consent to simply tidy that up.
Then I will go to the substance, and the substance is to ensure that there is a link between the applicant's request for a licence and the agreement that is eventually reached between the applicant and the country of origin.
I think it's very important that this information is provided and that the information provided is in fact in all material respects identical to the information that is previously provided in the paragraphs I numbered.
If one looks at the bottom section, which is under i., it's to ensure that we clarify “the total monetary value of the agreement” as it relates to the product authorized to be manufactured and sold. I think it's very important to add this specification, or these details, to ensure that link is made, number one, and secondly, so that when we talk about total monetary value, we explain what we mean by that, what is to be used to determine the total monetary value.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, we just received this today. It's late, and while it sounds like it might not be problematic, I need to get the officials to confirm that, because I know it's for greater clarity.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: May I just add, in the section where I add on to the monetary value, there may be an agreement that covers more than one product. Therefore, this would ensure that the total monetary value relates to the product, each product, for instance.
Hon. Joe Fontana: We would agree that it should be for each product and therefore it's for greater clarity. We have no problem. I just want to get it confirmed. Is that okay?
 (1235)
Mr. Éric Dagenais: I think this goes well with the intent of the legislation.
The Chair: I'll call the vote then on S-L-8.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We'll go to S-L-9, next.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My subamendment, S-L-9, which amends the government's amendment, G-12.1, is to ensure that everyone has been in agreement that this legislation and the activities that will be permitted under this legislation, which is granting licences, either voluntary or compulsory, that allow non-patent holders, manufacturers, to manufacture drugs that are under active patent, are not to be commercial.
The object of this legislation is to ensure that it has humanitarian and compassionate objectives. It's to ensure that developing countries, least developing countries, are in a position, if they so wish, to address public health emergencies, life-threatening epidemics, etc., and to try to grapple with the health problems within their countries. In some countries, as we know, they're decimating the populations.
So I completely agree with the government when it says, in regard to the authorization, that the average price of the product should be actually equal to or less than 25%, and therefore if it in fact is equal or greater than 25%, there should be the specification that in that case the essence of the agreement is deemed to be commercial, and then the burden would actually fall on the licence holder or the manufacturer who has the authorization to show that in fact it is not commercial.
The Chair: Joe.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll defer to the officials, but I can tell you, this is problematic. As you know, there are two parts to this to determine whether or not something is commercial. The 25% is one rule we've established to determine whether or not something is more commercial than humanitarian. The other one is--and I think James had raised it before and could take us through the steps--if in fact someone has a problem and says this is much more commercial than humanitarian, that's the 15% above the cost.
So I think it's problematic just referring to proposed subsection 21.17(1) and adding the words “the essence of the agreement is deemed to be commercial”, perhaps because it is a complicated formula. We all know that under this section there is the application of when an agreement is commercial in nature. Therefore, I agree that you might want to get it clarified much more, but I think the wording put in here causes more problems than it's meant to solve.
Perhaps I could ask Douglas to take us through that.
Mr. Douglas Clark: Well, 25% of the brand-name price is a pretty generous threshold; I think most people in the industry would recognize that. But that having been said, under normal circumstances and in all logic, it's the person making an application to the court who would have carriage of prosecuting it and would have to prove their case. Here we're reversing the burden on the generic to disprove something. There are precedents for provisions of this kind, but I think our view is that we'd be more comfortable if the burden stayed with the entity that made the application.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: And we've provided guidance to the court on what they should look at under proposed paragraphs 21.17(2)(a), (b), and (c) as to what would constitute a commercial licence.
The Chair: Go ahead, Marlene, on S-L-9.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Given that the legislation itself sets le barème--I don't know what you call it in English--
A voice: The bar.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: --the bar at equal to or greater than 25%, then it is inherent in that government amendment that anything over that is commercial--
Hon. Joe Fontana: Not necessarily. That's what I said, that there was.... I'm sorry.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: --and that if it's not commercial, the holder of the authorization or the licence will be in a position to show that it's not commercial. So in my view, my subamendment simply states what is already inherent in the government amendment but states it clearly.
It's not unheard of for legislation to place the burden, when there are in fact bars that are set, on the party that goes above the bar to show they have not violated the spirit and the law. I think this is quite important.
 (1240)
Mr. Douglas Clark: I acknowledge that there are provisions of that kind, but they are usually quite controversial, and I don't think this would be any exception.
The Chair: I think we've heard both sides of the argument.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you, Marlene.
Now, Brian has his subamendment 13; it's the third one on that page of three. Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's on proposed section 21.18, “The Minister and the Minister of Health”. The current wording is “may establish”, and we're just suggesting “shall establish”. I think it's more housekeeping than anything else. It just replaces the word “may” with “shall” to ensure it actually happens.
We all know how complicated this legislation is. I think the advisory committee should be instituted so the minister does have that to rely upon to be able to bring forth changes to schedule 1. It's just simple wordsmithing, and I would ask that it be changed.
The Chair: Mr. Fontana.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I don't think it's a problem. Again, we haven't seen these things and maybe a “may” or a “shall” sometimes has great consequences, but I don't think it's a problem.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: It's still the decision...the “shall” is left because the advisory committee doesn't necessarily have to be in place in order for...this is for products to be added to schedule 1, so here you're ensuring that the--
The Chair: It's “the Minister of Health shall”.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the advisory committee.
Mr. Douglas Clark: Are you talking about the Governor in Council “shall” versus “may” or the minister “shall” versus “may”?
Mr. Brian Masse: The advisory committee “shall establish”, not....
Hon. Joe Fontana: Brian, if I could, I'll just add to that. The last thing we want to do, obviously, is encumber or slow down the process of approving certain medicines and so on. Therefore, we put in “may” because the advisory committee was contemplated in the first piece of legislation as a way of being able to get expert advice. But at the end of the day, if we want to move fairly quickly, I can tell you that advisory committees, as good as they are and as useful as they are, sometimes take time.
Mr. Brian Masse: That's a fair point, Mr. Chair. Maybe I can just suggest “shall within three years establish”. It has to be up and running before the legislation comes back to the committee.
Hon. Joe Fontana: That's not a problem.
The Chair: All in favour of NDP-13 as amended?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Well done, Brian.
We're on S-L-10. Marlene.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Again, it's a matter of ensuring that the country seeks a supply of a particular product in a particular quantity. It's merely to clarify that information must be posted on the website. The specifics of the application filed by the country through diplomatic channels must be made public.
 (1245)
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I think we may have done better than Marlene on this one. I'm only indicating that I think she may have limited what we intended and what is covered off. If I can, I'll just get the officials to confirm that we have covered it off and in fact have added more to it.
Mr. Douglas Clark: We are seeking to accomplish the exact same thing here in the government's motion as Ms. Jennings is in her motion. We have been a little more explicit about the notice to which we are referring here. In the government's amended version of proposed section 21.19, we talk about the notice referred to in proposed subparagraphs 21.04(3)(d)(ii) and (v), and that's exactly the same notice that is being described in your motion. I think it is safer to have an explicit reference than to actually describe it.
The Chair: Are you withdrawing it?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'll withdraw it.
The Chair: S-L-10 has been withdrawn, and now we are back to the main government amendment, G-12.1. Remember, you've already passed G-3.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: James, we're on C-9 on page 159.
Mr. James Rajotte: I move it, Mr. Chairman. It certainly follows our party policy and the government's policy now of having this standing committee, or the standing committee on industry, assess the candidates for appointment. I think both the government and the opposition are certainly supportive of this type of initiative.
The Chair: Mr. Fontana.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think James is correct. This is what the government has signalled in other appointments; therefore he's being consistent with that. We would have absolutely no objection to putting that in.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Next is C-10.
James.
Mr. James Rajotte: I move C-10 as well. It amends page 13 of the bill to say “by the Minister two years after this section” instead of “by the Minister three years after this section”. I know the argument is that two years or one year is too soon. We had asked for an annual review and the government has decided on three. But we think two years is a reasonable time period.
There are a lot of concerns about this bill. There were a lot of concerns initially about the right of first refusal. I think we've addressed a lot of those. But as we know, there have been some additional concerns about even some of the amendments. If we change it to two years, perhaps those people who are opponents of the bill will be comforted a little by the fact that this will be reviewed sooner rather than later.
The Chair: Mr. Fontana.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I share some of the questions James may have, but two years is going to be unworkable. There is no way we're going to be able to assess anything. I'm not sure whether two years is going to give us an awful lot of opportunities. In fact, some people might question whether or not we're really serious about this if we talk about two years.
We need at least three years, but can I suggest something to James? Obviously we want to learn what is happening, because we're going to be the first in the world to do this. We want to see who all the players are going to be, what other countries are going to be passing similar legislation, and whether or not countries like India and Brazil, which as you know don't have IP policies, and so on, are going to be the only players in this.
We hope we are taking the lead and will inspire the rest of the world and other countries to do such a thing. The committee may want to review the findings on an annual basis by calling in the officials and asking how many applications and countries have come forward, and so on. I think two years is too short a time to give us a good indication, but that doesn't preclude the committee from asking formally to review it to see whether or not it's actually working after one year, and see what happens from there.
 (1250)
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: I'm supporting this motion. I understand where the government is coming from about the timeframes, but I think this will be helpful to keep the pressure on and the tempo up to make sure we can tinker with it or change things as need be. That might actually get more cooperation between the two industries that'll make this successful. So I'll be supporting this.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're going back to G-2, which is the purpose clause. It is on page 3 at the very beginning of your white binder. It was stood for good reason until now. I'll never really understand the reason, but....
Hon. Joe Fontana: I move it, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: James.
Mr. James Rajotte: Can I ask the clerk or someone if this amendment is actually in order?
The Chair: I believe it has been checked and it is in order.
Mr. James Rajotte: Can I get a legal opinion on that?
Ms. Joann Garbig (Legislative Clerk): This is an amendment in clause 1 to the section dealing with the purpose.
Mr. James Rajotte: Should I ask this about G-1?
The Chair: You should ask about G-1.
Mr. James Rajotte: The question is, can you name a bill after a person?
The Chair: That's a G-1 question, but do you want to ask it?
Mr. James Rajotte: If you pass G-2 and G-1 is out of order...?
The Chair: Let's go to Paul and Brian, and then we'll illuminate that.
Paul.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: In my opinion, if we were to put someone's name in a bill, we would be setting a rather dangerous precedent. Each member could request that his or her name appear after each amendment. It could pose quite a problem.
Having said that, I don't wish to argue the point unnecessarily. We should vote on the amendment. If we are voting on the principle of G-1, then that should be made very clear. By voting on G-1, are we voting on the principle of the bill, and will everything be adjusted accordingly if any changes arise?
[English]
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chair, I just want to speak briefly. I don't want to get into too much of this, but I want to give an alternative that I think this is really about: to give effect to Canada's pledge to the world by facilitating access to pharmaceuticals. I think that's really what this is about, and I think we can avoid some of these things and be better representative of what we're trying to achieve here.
 (1255)
The Chair: Joe, then James.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the facts are clear. Canada and the former Prime Minister did make the pledge in Kananaskis. It inspired a number of other countries to make certain commitments. I can tell you we've spent so much time on this that the news will be that they argued more about the name of the bill than about the substance. Let's be clear that the name of the bill, in implementing this, recognizes historical fact.
The Chair: James.
Mr. James Rajotte: The question is, can you amend a bill to name it after a person?
The Chair: With the committee's indulgence, I'm going to ask Ms. Garbig to answer that.
Mr. James Rajotte: Is this amendment in order? That's what I want to know.
Ms. Joann Garbig: Procedurally, the title of a bill should be descriptive of the bill. It's not admissible to amend a bill's title without there having been a corresponding amendment in the bill. Does that answer the question?
Mr. Grant McNally: So if we pass this, then G-1 is admissible.
The Chair: That's right. If you pass G-2, then G-1 is admissible. If you don't pass G-2, G-1 is not admissible.
Mr. James Rajotte: I want to make two main points then.
The first point is that to call it “the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa” in fact is not an accurate description of the bill, because in schedules 2 to 4 there are more nations that are not in Africa. So we're not actually being accurate about the bill we're passing here. That's a logical point.
The second point is, we've been very supportive in this party from day one and have been as constructive as we can be. I think all opposition parties have been, and the government members have been very constructive as well. I think we have to decide, are we doing this—all parliamentarians, the Parliament of Canada, Canada as a nation—or are we going to do what frankly I'm very afraid of, which is try to use this as a partisan issue, or try to use it as a political issue in the upcoming campaign, or try to make it one person's or one party's legacy? That's what I see the title doing.
We could name this bill after Stephen Lewis. He did a tremendous job raising—
Hon. Joe Fontana: How about Bono? I like that a lot better.
Mr. James Rajotte: It's a serious point. Stephen Lewis did more to raise this issue with me than any other Canadian. I mean, he certainly did it for me.
I just think it's a dangerous precedent here. I think all parties have worked together on this. Why don't we say this is an act by the Parliament of Canada—the people of Canada—rather than try to make it a partisan issue.
The Chair: Marlene, then Brian.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: A friendly amendment would be to give effect to Canada's and Jean Chrétien's pledge to Africa, because I think that recognizes the legislation is Canadian legislation—Parliament's legislation—but at the same time it's an issue that came to the fore and became a pledge made by a previous Prime Minister. That's all. I think that would encompass the desires of all.
It's certainly not going to be a political wedge or tool for me in any election, regardless of when the election is called. If I'm going to get any political benefit, it's going to be that I was in favour of the legislation and the contents of it.
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: I'm looking down the road and how this affects everything.
I have a suggestion here. I would like to move a motion, “to give effect to Canada's pledge to the world by facilitating access to pharmaceutical...”, because it does incorporate more than just one country, and I recognize what the former Prime Minister has done—
The Chair: Would it be a subamendment to...?
Mr. Brian Masse: It would be a subamendment.
The Chair: Can you give it to me?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We already have one; I just moved one.
The Chair: Did you actually move it?
· (1300)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.
The Chair: Then I missed that. I'm sorry.
Brian, before we deal with yours, can you write yours out and give it to me, Marlene?
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think it's just “and Canada....”
The Chair: I'll read Marlene's subamendment into the record. I'll read the whole of proposed section 21.2: “to give effect to Canada and Jean Chrétien's pledge to Africa by facilitating access to pharmaceutical”.
[Translation]
Let me read the text to you in French:
| donner effet à l'engagement du Canada et de Jean Chrétien envers l'Afrique en facilitant |
[English]
The Chair: Paul.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I'd like to comment.
Let's seriously think about what we're about to do for a moment. Let's take our time about this and not set a precedent. The undertaking wasn't made by an individual, because we don't have a monarch here in Canada. Under our system, undertakings are made by the Prime Minister of Canada, not by any one individual in particular. This is an election argument. You can include his name in your election campaign material if you like, but putting his name in legislation minimizes the role of Parliament and of the Government of Canada. There's a substantial difference between the bill we studied last fall and the one we're preparing to pass today. It's as if we've cobbled something together. In my opinion, it's most inappropriate to include a person's name in draft legislation. We need to remove it somehow. Otherwise, whether we vote for or against the bill, we're all going to look a little ridiculous.
[English]
The Chair: Grant McNally.
Mr. Grant McNally: Well, I would agree with my colleague James that it's technically inaccurate, because there are other countries involved.
Secondly, on the political side, as has been mentioned before, history will show that Jean Chrétien initiated this. I think we actually tarnish his image by setting a parliamentary precedent by putting his name into the bill. Let history speak for itself on his accomplishment in this. In doing it this way, we're making this a much bigger issue and actually detracting from his initiative in this regard. For us to do it this way I think lessens the impact the former Prime Minister had in putting this forward. It's almost as though we have to say that we have to put his name in to remind people what he did. We know he drove this.
To put this into the bill in effect lessens the impact, in my opinion.
The Chair: I think I'm going to call the vote on the subamendment, which I'll read in English only: “to give effect to Canada and Jean Chrétien's pledge to Africa by facilitating”, etc.
(Subamendment agreed to)
The Chair: Now I'm going to call amendment G-2 as amended.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)
(On schedule 1)
The Chair: Now we're on to schedule 1, page 161.
Brian, I'm sorry, but amendment NDP-39 is inadmissible until you move it. Are you moving NDP-39?
Mr. Brian Masse: I'm withdrawing it.
The Chair: Now to amendment NDP-39.01, Brian, on page 162.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If we move this we'll be able to withdraw some other motions we have. It basically allows for more flexibility, and I think it also clears up some of the other overlap we have in the bill related to the actual drugs in schedule 1.
· (1305)
The Chair: Mr. Fontana.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Again, I know what Brian is trying to get to, but I think there's a requirement by Health Canada that we actually have to do what we need to do. I wonder if I could have Dr. Peterson address that issue.
Dr. Robert Peterson: I can attempt to shed some clarity upon this.
There is the same drug or product that may be used for different diseases or conditions based upon what the dosage form is. So the intent of fulfilling the requirements of a contract under this act would require us to pair the drug and the dosage form of the drug with the intended use. It is the case that we believe we can, through the approval process, allow for different dosages that might not be specified on the schedule at the present time to be done in the manner that we typically do with abbreviated new drug submissions. It is a policy known as proportionality. So if we have approved a low dose and a high dose and there is a dose intermediary to that, it is very easy for us to accommodate that dosage.
The difficulty comes when we have recognized certain dosage forms and someone comes in for a dosage that may be quite excessive. We would have difficulties providing the recommendation to the commissioner, perhaps, under those circumstances. So it is for those reasons. I understand that they are technical, and I may not be giving you the clearest explanation of this, but we feel strongly that wherever possible, we would wish to have the dosage form and the strength indicated.
The Chair: Are there any further comments or questions?
I'm going to call the question on amendment NDP-39.01.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: Thanks for trying, Brian.
Now we go to amendment G-13. That's on page 163.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I move amendment G-13.
As you know, in listening to some of the witnesses and taking a thorough look at what we could include, we've added some additional drugs to the schedule, five additional products, all of which are patented antiretroviral products that are approved for sale in Canada. Two of these, of course, are fixed-dose combination products. Therefore, in keeping with what we've heard and our attempt to try to expedite, have a list and move fairly quickly...that's what the essence of schedule 1 is, and the additional medicines that we are putting on schedule 1.
Also, just to indicate to the committee, as I think we've discussed before, if there are any that are in fact approved by Health Canada as quickly as possible, we can move very quickly by virtue of the GIC to get them done and added to the schedule 1 list.
The Chair: Do you want to go on the record with something, Brian?
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have amendments for all of these as well, and we've asked that we split them with the government.
The Chair: What was that again, Brian?
Mr. Brian Masse: We have amendments for all of these as well, and we've asked the government to split those amendments so that--
Hon. Joe Fontana: Split which amendments?
The Chair: Do you mean the actual drugs themselves?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, all of them. We have individual amendments on all these drugs.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: They want half for the NDP, and half for the government.
Mr. Roger Gaudet (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): They want the name in French that goes along with this.
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana: In the spirit of cooperation, are every one of your amendments the same as our list of drugs?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Wait a minute. Let me just get an explanation from Dr. Peterson.
Nice try there, Brian.
Mr. David Lee: Mr. Chair, we have tried to parse through them to the extent we can, and we're pretty much okay with the motions as brought by the NDP, with a few exceptions. There are three instances where we'd make observations, if this would help the committee in its process.
There are a few extra that have been added by the NDP that are not on our list in particular.
· (1310)
Hon. Joe Fontana: Can you just tell us why they're not on the list? I think it would be essential to inform the public and the committee for that purpose.
Mr. David Lee: None of these drugs was originally on the list because the list was initially generated by Industry Canada's just sifting through the WHO essential drugs list and then interposing that with the patent register maintained by Health Canada under the patented medicines notice of compliance regulations. We've been looking at requests to add in very key therapies along the way with an eye to making a basket that would be acceptable under schedule 1.
In looking at these particular drugs, I would ask Dr. Peterson to make observations on three in particular that we've had some observations on.
Dr. Robert Peterson: There are three we have concerns with, but there are additional medicines being proposed, by way of amendments, that are not on the list now.
We might be able to go through this very quickly, just page by page in the book, and I can indicate which ones are already on the list and which would be new and then make a comment.
On page 165, abacavir is on the proposed list under G-13. That accommodates page—
Hon. Joe Fontana: Do you want us to accept your amendment, or will you accept that one? Why don't we just say “government” or “NDP”? Isn't that incredibly—
Mr. Brian Masse: That's right. I guess what I won't do is for the drugs we disagree with I won't speak about all the reasons why we disagree about their being there.
To move this along, I won't go through every single one of my drugs and talk about the reasons why I believe they're important. I'll accept that there will be a difference of opinion on that; then we can move this along.
The Chair: What we'll do is accept the NDP amendment to include that drug.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Save and except those three or four we're trying to get an explanation for.
The Chair: Exactly. What we'll do, colleagues, is ask Dr. Peterson to go through, as he is, page by page. Keep your fingers on G-13. If it's acceptable to the group, as we go along I'll ask for the committee's support for the NDP motion that matches G-13's—the government's—drug list. Would that be acceptable?
Dr. Peterson has mentioned that abacavir is on the government's list and on the NDP list.
Do you want to move it, Brian?
I thought that was the agreement.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Let them go through each one, and then we'll come back. If they say it's on the list, we'll just put a little check mark, and when we come back, you ask if it's to be adopted or not. Because if you take a look, yes, 39.02 is on the government's list; then we go to 39.03, which gives the actual dosages. We need to make sure that not just the name of the product but the dosages that are in—
The Chair: I thought we were going to let Brian have the amendments that matched the government's—
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: After we hear them, because he split his, whereas the government's is all in one. We need to do at least two amendments—
· (1315)
The Chair: If it's easier for the committed, we'll go through the whole list, Dr. Peterson, as you were doing. We're at page 166 then.
Dr. Robert Peterson: Yes. I'd like to just mention the fact that while the drug abacavir on page 165 is on the list, we do not agree with having a drug without its accompanying dosage forms be added to schedule 1. This is simply a point we had that ties to the previous discussion.
While that drug is on the list, it would actually not be the case that we would recommend having the drug without its accompanying dosages be approved for addition; rather, the same drug with its dosage forms, on page 166—which is amendment NDP-39.03—we would agree with.
Each of the drugs is paired in this fashion as we go through the list. My suggestion is I would refer only to the drug with its dosage forms and would remain with reservations about adding a drug without its accompanying dosage forms to the schedule.
The next drug, then, would be amprenavir capsules or tablets 150 milligrams, which are on page 168, and they are on the list. Page 168.1 adds an oral solution form to that, which is agreeable.
The Chair: I was talking to the researcher.
Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Robert Peterson: Page 168 and page 168.1 are closely tied.
Page 169--ceftriaxone is an antibiotic not on the list. It would not be inappropriate. We would have no objection to adding that to the list. As a consequence, we would move page 170 as the dosage form.
The Chair: Page 169 is no. Page 170 is yes.
Dr. Robert Peterson: Under those circumstances, we would say no to page 170.1.
Page 170.2, again, is another general antibiotic that is not on the list. We would not have an objection to that.
Page 171 we would object to because it does not have dosage forms for the specified components.
Page 172 is the same product with its accompanying dosage forms. It is on the list already on the motion of G-13.
Page 173 we would object to.
Page 174 is the same drug with the dosage forms that are already on the list, and we have no difficulty.
Page 175 we would object to.
Page 176 is the same drug with dosage forms that are on the list.
Page 178 is okay. I believe that's on the list.
Page 179 is one of the three products we had indicated we have some difficulty with. Lopinavir, on its own, has very low potency. It is typically not used in monotherapy and single therapy. It is recommended for use in combination therapy. There is a product approved in Canada, presently a brand, that has lopinavir in combination with another drug, another antiretroviral, which is called ritonavir.
We would therefore recommend that page 179 be modified to be lopinavir and ritonavir, which is a brand name called Kaletra. I could provide the appropriate dosage forms for that.
If that is not possible, then we would object to lopinavir by itself going onto the list and would suggest that in the facilitated process that would allow for schedule 1 to be amended after the act has been passed, we would use that.
Hon. Joe Fontana: You would confirm before we report it, and I think Brian is of the same thinking. In your opinion, if it should be lopinavir with—
Dr. Robert Peterson: Ritonavir.
Hon. Joe Fontana: —ritonavir in the dosage forms, or whatever, you would confirm that and then we would add it to the schedule.
Dr. Robert Peterson: Page 180 would be objectionable then as well, but accommodated by the previous decision.
The Chair: What were you saying about page 180? No?
Dr. Robert Peterson: Page 180 is no. We have accommodated that with respect to the discussion around page 179.
Page 181 is moxifloxacin, again, a broad-spectrum antibiotic. It is not on the list. We would have no objection, except that we would request specification of the appropriate dosage form for this, which we are able to do.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Then we would add it.
· (1320)
Mr. Brian Masse: With dosage.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Thanks, Dr. Masse.
Dr. Robert Peterson: Keep the 400-milligram number in mind because we'll come back to that.
On page 182, nevirapine is already on the list. We would object to nevirapine by itself because it doesn't have dosage forms, but it is a drug that is on G-13 with the appropriate dosage forms.
The Chair: Is 183 okay then?
Dr. Robert Peterson: Number 183 is already accommodated by the list. In fact, our list specifies an oral suspension form of this as well, so it is broader than this motion, and I would suggest that we do not accept this.
Mr. Brian Masse: I'll withdraw this one.
The Chair: It is withdrawn.
Page 183--
Dr. Robert Peterson: Excuse me, 183 is the one we just dealt with. That has been withdrawn, I believe, and 183.1 is already on the list. I don't believe you need that one.
On page 184, these are new drugs. They're not on the list. We would object to specifying this because there are no dosage forms. However, page 185 is the same combination therapy. This is used in the treatment of tuberculosis. There's no objection, and it does have the appropriate dosage forms, so 185 would be acceptable and 184 is not.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Can I ask a question of Dr. Peterson?
I know we're adding these things now as they are. Have we checked whether or not they're on the WHO list? Do we need to do that, confirm that, and are we in a position to be able to do that ourselves without making sure they're on the WHO list, or not on the list, or whatever the case may be?
Mr. David Lee: They were not required to be on that list, so in terms of indexing them to the list it wouldn't be required to include them, from our point of view.
Dr. Robert Peterson: Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, I'm not attempting to specify drugs that should be on the list. I'm simply responding to the motions--
Hon. Joe Fontana: I would hope not.
Dr. Robert Peterson: This would be your decision.
On page 186--
Hon. Joe Fontana: We're asking for your advice and guidance, Doctor.
· (1325)
Dr. Robert Peterson: All right, here comes some guidance.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Dr. Robert Peterson: On page 186 there is a large problem. Let me simply preface this by saying this is another antiretroviral. These drugs are very unforgiving. One has to be very technical and very cautious about the specification of the dosage form. A dosage of 400 milligrams of stavudine would probably provide serious neurotoxicity to virtually every patient who would receive it, so while this may be a typographical error, we would agree with stavudine, which is already on schedule 1, but in a different dosage form. The appropriate dosage for use in an African nation with an average adult who weighs less than 60 kilograms would be--
Hon. Joe Fontana: I wouldn't want to hold the NDP liable for anything.
Mr. Brian Masse: There is a mistake somewhere in here, so we withdraw that.
The Chair: We'll move on.
Dr. Robert Peterson: This would represent approximately a 15 times overdose of an unforgiving drug.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Be careful what Brian prescribes to people.
The Chair: Dr. Peterson, are we on page 187 now?
Dr. Robert Peterson: Yes. We have difficulties with tenofovir. This is a product that has just recently been approved in Canada. It is not currently on the Canadian market or is just appearing on the Canadian market. In order for us to accept an abbreviated new drug submission, we must be able to have confidence with respect to the safety and efficacy of the brand. Because there has been limited or no post-market experience with this product, it is our recommendation that this come later and be put onto the schedule by the accepted amending process after the fact.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Can I ask one question? I appreciate that good doctorly advice, but have we approved it?
Dr. Robert Peterson: This brand name has been approved in Canada.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Is it in usage in Canada?
Dr. Robert Peterson: It was recently notified for marketing. There will be a letter going to health care providers discussing the important issues with respect to prescribing this drug.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I understand that while we've just approved it we want essentially to do more due diligence. Could you just explain to us what this particular drug does?
Dr. Robert Peterson: This is a drug that is used in the treatment of AIDS. It is not used as first-line therapy. There is difficulty in putting it in combination with certain other drugs because there is rapid resistance by the HIV virus to this product in combination with certain other drugs. It does have some serious kidney toxicity. It has specific specifications about taking it with food. We need to have some additional experience with this product on the after market before we could follow readily an abbreviated new drug submission.
Hon. Joe Fontana: That explanation I think has been most useful to the committee, and I think we can appreciate the complexity of some of these questions that are being asked.
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chair, we're going to be revisiting this in two years, so I'm more comfortable withdrawing that if there are major objections at this point. That helps.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I hope you're not suggesting for two years, because I think based on what Dr. Peterson said, it could probably go on a little sooner, once they've done some additional--
Mr. Brian Masse: But my point is that the worst-case scenario is there.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Just trying to help you out, Brian.
The Chair: Same thing? All right, withdrawn.
Page 189.
Dr. Robert Peterson: Pages 189 and 190 are the same drug, with the specified dosage forms. It is already on the list on G-13.
Page 191 is an objection. Page 192.1 shows the dosage forms of this drug. It is in the government motion. It is on G-13, so no difficulty.
The Chair: All right, so 192 is out.
Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: If there's consensus on the ones that can all be approved, perhaps they can all be done at once through my amendment, and then for my other ones, where there isn't consensus, we could put them together, package them, because I know I'm going to get defeated on those, probably.
So if that makes it easier to move through the process....
The Chair: I seek the advice of the experts around the table here. We want to get this right. It's possible to make corrections at report stage, but let's try to get it right here, if we can.
Is there is a way...if we just stood this for a few minutes and let the officials...just a second, here.
Marlene.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: This might be so simple, but maybe it's not possible. I would suggest that we simply adopt G-13, and then for all of Mr. Masse's amendments that add on--the experts know which ones are not on G-13 and they would simply pull them out, give them to you and to Mr. Masse, or list them for Mr. Masse, and then we just deal.... I think that would be a heck of a lot easier.
So, Mr. Masse, you'll get your credit because--
Mr. Brian Masse: No, I want to get the amendments through. I want to move quicker. I'm looking at ways to do that.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That would be the quickest way, I think.
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes. It's the quickest way I can make sure my amendments get in, because there are different ones.
The Chair: Just a moment here. I'm getting lots of advice. Hang on.
Some of Brian's amendments appear to have equality or similarity to G-13, but they're not always exactly the same.
I'll ask Dr. Peterson. We want to get this as accurate as we can out of here. If we took Mrs. Jennings' idea and dealt with G-13 as a tableau, we could then fly through Brian's amendments and you could flag for us those that are acceptable and not covered by G-13. Would that work?
Dr. Robert Peterson: Yes.
The Chair: We're going to try that.
So I'm going to call the vote first on G-13, and then I'm going to run through yours, Brian.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
· (1330)
The Chair: With Dr. Peterson's help, we're going to start. I think the first one is NDP-39.03 on page 166.
So you have to tell us whether it's covered. We're just going to do this with Dr. Peterson. I'm just going to listen to one person. So just tell me if we--
Dr. Robert Peterson: It is covered.
The Chair: It's covered, so not moved.
Page 167 is not acceptable.
Is NDP-39.05, on page 168, covered or not?
Dr. Robert Peterson: It is covered. No, we do not specify the tablet, so the addition of the 150-milligram tablet would be okay.
The Chair: So we can....
Dr. Robert Peterson: The capsule is on there. The tablet is new, and we would be without objection.
The Chair: So I can call for a vote on NDP-39.05.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: And we're referencing that to G-13.
The Chair: Yes. The difference between that and G-13 is the 150-milligram tablet? I guess the dilemma is, because it's already in G-13, it really becomes a subamendment to G-13.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Just do it. If we all agree we'll add that tablet to it, do it.
The Chair: Wait a second. I have both ears working at the same time in different directions and one brain in between the two.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Tough luck.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I just want to be sure when our staff prepare this for reporting to the House that we haven't created a problem for them that prevents them from reporting to the House. Because we've adopted G-13 but NDP-39.05 is really only dealing with part of a line on G-13, we haven't given our staff a clear path from A to B.
Do you have a helpful suggestion, Lyle?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: I have a question I hope will be helpful. Why can we not in reference to this drug, as we go through with Dr. Peterson, make a subamendment to G-13 in reference to this drug and then move on to the next drug?
The Chair: Except that we've adopted G-13.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: I'm talking about a subamendment to G-13 in reference to this drug.
The Chair: We'd have to reopen G-13; we passed G-13.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Let's backtrack for a moment and adopt the subamendment to amendment G-13 moved by Mr. Masse. That way, we'll have passed amendment G-13 after the subamendment and no one will have a bone to pick with us.
[English]
The Chair: With unanimous consent, we are going to open G-13 for the purpose of making the appropriate subamendments to G-13 where needed as we run through these amendments. In the case of NDP-39.05, that's a subamendment, so are we in agreement that G-13 is open again?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Good.
We have a subamendment to the appropriate line on G-13, subamendment NDP-39.05. It basically adds the 150-milligram tablet.
(Subamendment agreed to)
The Chair: So it's that G-13 be amended by adding in alphabetical order the 150-milligram tablet dosage to the amprenavir capsule or tablet.
We're only adding the tablet, right, Dr. Peterson?
Dr. Robert Peterson: Mr. Chairman, this is going to get very complicated if we specify quantities in different dosage forms that are related. In the manner in which we dealt with the lopinavir/ritonavir combination, where we suggested we could specify the appropriate dosage, would it be possible for us to allow you to acknowledge and approve the amendments based upon the new drugs, the new ingredients that are being proposed by the NDP, with the provision that we supply the appropriate dosage forms to accompany those drugs for the schedule?
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: I'll accept that.
The Chair: Carol.
Mrs. Carol Skelton: I just wanted to clarify this for my own mind. Are these drugs, with the dosage and everything, suitable to the WHO rules and regulations and everything?
Dr. Robert Peterson: Yes. They are not on the essential medicines list, but that is a more restrictive list. If you look at drugs that have been recommended by WHO for the purpose of treating the medical conditions these are intended for, the answer is yes.
· (1335)
The Chair: James.
Mr. James Rajotte: I'm a little uncomfortable with this as well. I don't know any of these medicines, and I doubt whether any of the people around the table do.
Maybe Dr. Peterson could answer this, but would it be helpful...? We've adopted G-13, and then I think what Brian suggested earlier is that perhaps Dr. Peterson can identify the ones that are acceptable to Health Canada. We'd put those on a list, except for the ones that are not acceptable. We'd put those on another list, and then at report stage you'll have, I think, the consent of all parties to say.... That's just a simpler way, and I think it's easier for Dr. Peterson. We're putting him in a hard spot here.
The Chair: That sounds like a good idea to me. We've passed G-13--
Hon. Joe Fontana: At report stage in the House of Commons we'll add those other amendments and we won't have to do it here. Okay? The clerk should be satisfied.
The Chair: I did reopen G-13, so we're going to have to pass G-13.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Brian Masse: I'm not necessarily comfortable with that. I'm fearful that we're not going to have an opportunity to talk about some of the ones where we feel it's very important that they should be on the list, and I'm concerned that they're not there.
The Chair: But you can at report stage.
Mr. Brian Masse: Well, it makes it very difficult--
Hon. Joe Fontana: You have a whole bunch of drugs that you asked for, you have the good faith of the committee here, and you may want to argue about some of those other drugs we're not in a position to say anything about. We have medical evidence here; you may have some other medical officials who can tell you what might be right or wrong. Surely to God we don't want to get into that here.
We've already moved G-13 plus some additional drugs you've suggested. For those we can't agree on because there may be some serious issues, I think James suggested separate lists, and you can move them at report stage if that's when you want to do it.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: May I seek a little bit of authority?
The Chair: Well, you can seek it.
· (1340)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: With the one brain between the two ears, I think you'll be able to handle it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I don't know.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm having fun, Mr. Chair.
If I understand it correctly, G-13 is adopted with the additional drugs by the NDP and dosages...our experts here will have gone through all the NDP...and will put together all of the medication and dosages that do not actually appear in writing at this point on page 164 and in the English version on page 163. We've put all of our confidence in these experts; they will provide that, and we've blindly adopted it. Those medications they do not add to the list are the ones Mr. Masse would bring to report stage. Yes? No?
The Chair: That's not my understanding at all. My understanding is that we have adopted G-13, that we have asked the officials to assist us by preparing for report stage a group of amendments proposed by Brian that we will adopt at report stage in Parliament and a list of drugs that aren't acceptable that we would vote down at report stage, and Brian would have a chance then to speak to them. That's my understanding, because we can't really blindly adopt something here.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's why I wanted clarity.
Mr. Brian Masse: That's okay.
The Chair: We've done G-13 and we're going to now go to NDP-39.06 because of similarities in the intervening ones. No more drugs.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I'm off drugs; we're off drugs. So with the understanding that this is going to be reopened at report stage, shall schedule 1 as amended carry?
(Schedule 1 as amended agreed to)
(On schedule 2)
The Chair: It's NDP-40 at page 193.
Mr. Brian Masse: Remove that.
The Chair: It's not moved. Now we're at page 194, NDP-41.
Mr. Masse.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to add East Timor. We move it.
The Chair: Do you want us to vote on each of these countries or are you willing to...? How many are there?
Mr. Fontana, please.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Can I just suggest...we get into these country-by-country ones. We've already made provisions in this bill that other countries could be added, if they desired, by formally, diplomatically, asking Canada to be added. Surely to God we can appreciate the sovereignty of another country by saying if it wants to be added all it has to do is ask through diplomatic channels.
We're adding Myanmar in G-14, but to go through country by country, as the NDP is suggesting, will be problematic. The bill is already permissive and would allow those countries to be added, if and when they decided they want to be added.
The Chair: Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thanks, Mr. Chair.
This is important. They can, but they have to go through a specific line or channel, and they can only get on for a particular product. We are suggesting some amendments, and I have a suggestion here that I could read out that might help things. The countries are from the OECD list that the government has used, but it has also left out.... So I have a suggestion here that is a compromise, I believe, and I would be willing to propose it.
The Chair: What if we just vote on these countries?
Hon. Joe Fontana: For further clarification, with respect, I'm sure Brian would understand that we've got three schedules that relate to countries--schedules 2, 3, and 4. They all serve a particular purpose, whether or not it's a least developed country, non-WTO, and so on. To just essentially say all countries in the OECD...there are different classifications. That's why I think it's clearer....
I understand what Brian is trying to do. In fact, if the officials can address how we got to those particular lists, and so on, I think he will find there's comfort in why we've chosen schedules 2, 3, and 4. If I could ask Éric to take us through that, I think there would be better clarification for the committee.
The Chair: Mr. Dagenais.
Mr. Éric Dagenais: To follow up on the question, all the countries named in the NDP motion, starting from NDP-41, are on the OECD's development system committee list. So they are all eligible. We checked, and they all appear on this list. They do have to go through diplomatic channels to be added, but they're all admissible under our motion.
Mr. Brian Masse: So why wouldn't we just include them now?
Mr. Éric Dagenais: They're eligible. They have to specify that they are faced with situations of emergency; they have to approach the Government of Canada via diplomatic channels and then certify that they're going to abide by the WTO decision, even if they're not WTO members.
The Chair: Paul Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that pharmaceutical products are available as soon as possible in designated countries, in accordance with the legislation. Bearing that in mind, if we include the list of countries right away, we're speeding up the process. There has to be a way of continuing to do what we did in the past. We should be able to append a list to the bill right now, which would spare many countries that are rather disorganized, administratively speaking, from having to go through useless procedures. Let's give them a chance. Several of the amendments moved by the NDP and several moved by the Bloc can be grouped together because fundamentally, they are the same. There has to be an easy, straightforward way of adding these countries to the list immediately.
· (1345)
[English]
The Chair: I think we can call the vote on NDP-41.
Mr. Brian Masse: I want to speak to this one. I do have a right to speak.
I think East Timor is a good example of the problems we have. This nation has historical problems and a number of different issues. I think it's almost unconscionable that East Timor is not included in this list. There was a genocide in East Timor, it's a developing country, and it could specifically be helped with its malaria problem. We know we have a lot of different agencies involved in East Timor, and I think it needs to be added to the list. It's a good example.
This bill fails if it leaves places like East Timor off its list.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I am very sympathetic with what Mr. Masse is talking about. We would all like to see certain countries on this list, but who is he or the NDP to suggest which countries—
Mr. Brian Masse: Who are you?
Hon. Joe Fontana: Excuse me, which countries should be—
Mr. Brian Masse: Don't say who are you and ask a question. I'll answer it.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Wait a minute. It's being rather paternalistic to suggest that a particular country needs to be added to the list. We've said--and I think Paul and others around the table have said--that this bill is designed to be a response to a call from a particular country that it is in need of medicines because of a public health issue or an emergency. To suggest we should now pick nations.... I suppose one could make a good case for East Timor. As I said, East Timor could get on the list if it wanted to get on the list. It is eligible, just like Algeria and other countries. That's what I suggest.
The Chair: I think we've had enough information out there that we can bring this to a vote.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: Are you moving amendment G-14, on page 195, Mr. Fontana?
Hon. Joe Fontana: Yes.
The Chair: I'm going to call the question on G-14.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Because of G-14, amendments BQ-22 and NDP-42 won't be put.
Mr. Brian Masse: [Inaudible—Editor] It's outrageous. Unconscionable.
The Chair: Shall schedule 2 as amended carry?
(Schedule 2 as amended agreed to)
(On schedule 3)
The Chair: Brian, are you going to move amendment NDP-43?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, I'll move it.
The Chair: I have to render it inadmissible, because you can't delete a schedule, but you can vote against it. You can vote against it at the end. How's that?
Paul, are you going to move amendment BQ-23?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Has Mr. Masse's amendment been defeated? So then, I'd like to move amendment BQ-23 which calls for Algeria to be added to the list of countries.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Masse's was out of order, or inadmissible.
Mr. Crête, you are moving BQ-23. Did you want to speak to it?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: No.
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, where are you?
The Chair: Page 200.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I just want to say something to Brian, because I think he has just raised a good issue.
First of all, I'll apologize, but we've just added a country because Foreign Affairs and Industry Canada asked us to do so. In looking through the LDCs, East Timor is the only nation in that column that isn't.... I'm prepared to make a decision that it be added.
So if we need to reopen that NDP amendment, I'd be prepared to do so with unanimous consent.
I think you raised a good issue.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you for the courtesy.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?
Hon. Joe Fontana: If there is some flack, Éric....
Mr. Éric Dagenais: I'm going to clarify it, but East Timor is not an LDC as defined by the United Nations.
Perhaps it could go on a different schedule. There's a list of 49 countries, and we had all of the 49 countries on schedule 2, the least developed countries as defined by the United Nations.
· (1350)
Hon. Joe Fontana: [Inaudible—Editor]...the UN list, but it is the official development list.
The Chair: Do you stand by your comments, Joe?
Hon. Joe Fontana: Well, I'll hold those comments in abeyance, but just for clarification—
The Chair: We're trying to help you.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I think we want to make sure that it gets on the right schedule. Schedule 2 is the LDCs, and that's what I just want to make sure.
The Chair: Mr. Rajotte, please.
Hon. Joe Fontana: We do have Foreign Affairs and International Trade officials here who might want to speak to that, because I think Brian raised a question and I just want to make sure....
The Chair: On this subject, Mr. Rajotte.
Mr. James Rajotte: Mr. Chairman, we don't have any objection to adding East Timor to the Pledge to Africa Act--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. James Rajotte: --but I guess I understood Mr. Fontana to say that because we had amended the bill to add nations, which was his argument against Brian adding East Timor, which I accepted.... But then the government added a nation right after that.
If we amended the bill to add nations in a very easy manner, why are we going through each nation here? Why did the government decide to do both, is the question.
Hon. Joe Fontana: That's why I wanted a clarification for the committee, because we had said no. Then we added Myanmar, and I had indicated, because I had asked the officials, that that was done on the basis of a request from Foreign Affairs and International Trade to essentially do that. I thought it would be proper for me then to raise the issue that Brian raised as to why not East Timor, even though there is a permissive system in place. If you would like to ask that question about East Timor, I have the officials here who will answer the question.
The Chair: Mr. Dagenais, do you have anything on East Timor on the LDC?
Mr. Éric Dagenais: No, I think my colleagues from Foreign Affairs are--
The Chair: Please identify yourself, sir.
Mr. Christopher Armstrong (Senior Advisor, HIV/AIDS, Department of Foreign Affairs): Just to clarify, Myanmar is classified by the United Nations as an LDC, a least developed country, and is a WTO member. That was why it was put forward by Foreign Affairs to be added to schedule 2. My understanding is that East Timor is not classified as an LDC, so it would fall under what's now been put forward, namely, that through diplomatic channels they could put forward a request to be added to schedule 4.
The Chair: On that basis I just--
Hon. Joe Fontana: On that basis could I just suggest, unless there are any objections between now and report stage, that we would add them to schedule 4? If there's any flack, I'll take it.
The Chair: We'll discuss it when we get to schedule 4, if we get there.
Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I missed that. I have different documents going here.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I've indicated that we're prepared to add it, or at least I'm prepared to add it, to schedule 4 because that would be the appropriate place to put it.
The Chair: When we get to schedule 4.
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes.
The Chair: We won't be re-opening schedule 2, so we're back to page 200, which was Mr. Crête's of the Bloc. He moved Algeria, so I'm just going to call the question.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: I guess that means NDP-44 is out.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, again, these are all eligible under schedule 2.
Mr. Christopher Armstrong: Or an amendment.
Sorry, may I?
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Christopher Armstrong: The government amendment, I believe it was G-6, indicated that at the request of the country, through diplomatic channels, it would be added to schedule 4.
The Chair: A point of order, Mr. McNally.
Mr. Grant McNally: On the last vote there were three opposition members who put their hands up when you indicated the vote and--
The Chair: I saw four over here.
Mr. Grant McNally: Four?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Grant McNally: Well, I saw--
Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chair, I can't agree with--
The Chair: Mr. Armstrong, have you finished?
Mr. Brian Masse: I want to, for the record--
· (1355)
The Chair: Just a second.
Mr. Armstrong, have you finished your comments?
Mr. Christopher Armstrong: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: I'm sorry. I got confused with some of that schedule stuff. I can't agree to East Timor as schedule 4. We want it with the other least developing countries, the other LDCs.
The Chair: Then bring it as a report stage....
NDP-44 can't be brought forward because of BQ-23.
NDP-45.
Can I just call the questions, Brian, on these as we go through?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes.
The Chair: Can I have your attention now, folks? We're going to be doing some votes on countries here rather quickly.
I'm going to ask you to move it.
Mr. Brian Masse: I move the motion.
The Chair: NDP-45.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Are you going to move NDP-46, Brian?
Mr. Brian Masse: I move NDP-46.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Paul, are you going to move BQ-24?
Mr. Paul Crête: Oui.
The Chair: Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: NDP-47, Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: I move NDP-47.
The Chair: Oh, it's identical to BQ-24, so it's discarded.
BQ-25.
Mr. Roger Gaudet: I so move.
The Chair: Monsieur Gaudet moves BQ-25.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: NDP-48, Brian.
Mr. Brian Masse: I move NDP-48.
The Chair: Brian moved it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: BQ-26, moved by Monsieur Crête.
You're talking about schedule 4. This is schedule 3.
Hon. Joe Fontana: No, I know, but this should have been out of order because we've already dealt with it. It can't be on two schedules, for God's sake.
The Chair: It's not out of order.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
¸ (1400)
The Chair: We're up to NDP-50 now.
Are you moving NDP-50, Brian?
Mr. Brian Masse: NDP-50 is moved.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment NDP-51.
Mr. Brian Masse: I move NDP-51.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment BQ-27.
Mr. Paul Crête: I so move.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment BQ-28, on page 214.
Mr. Roger Gaudet: I so move.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Paul, are you moving BQ-29?
Mr. Paul Crête: Yes.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment BQ-30.
Mr. Paul Crête: I so move.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: That one is the same as the Bloc motion, Brian.
Now we're on page 219, NDP-55.
Mr. Brian Masse: I so move.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: We can vote on all of the amendments up to number 61 as a package. All of them are NDP amendments.
[English]
The Chair: The next one I have is NDP-56.
Mr. Paul Crête: NDP-56, NDP-57, NDP-58, NDP-59, NDP-60, NDP-61.
The Chair: Do you want to move all of those...?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, I'll move them as a block.
The Chair: If there was unanimous consent to move those as a group, would you, Brian?
Mr. Brian Masse: I think we can buck the trend.
No, that's fine.
The Chair: Brian is agreeing to move NDP-56, NDP-57, NDP-58, NDP-59, with the exception of NDP-58.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, let's continue as we've been doing and tally the votes as if we had voted in favour of the amendments, and as if government members had voted against them. That way, we'll go through the entire list.
[English]
The Chair: Are you saying apply the votes?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, right up to the last one.
[English]
The Chair: My conscience is telling me what, Joann?
Mr. Paul Crête: I'm sure it's not Chuck Guité.
The Chair: Lyle.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: I only want to clarify that the government is not opposing these countries getting the aid that is provided to them by this bill. What this bill allows these countries, and what we are saying, is that all they have to do is apply through the availability that is in the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, they did vote against country by country registration. That was the final outcome. They'll try and argue their point of view at the report stage, just as we will do. They won't be able to say that they voted in favour, because they voted against the motion.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. I'm going to just list a number of motions and put the question once. I'm going to put the question on amendments NDP-56, NDP-57, NDP-58, NDP-59, NDP-60, NDP-61. We'll go to there.
Mr. Brian Masse: So moved.
The Chair: Those are moved by Brian.
(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment BQ-31 is moved by Mr. Crête.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
¸ (1405)
The Chair: Now we're on amendment NDP-62.
Mr. Brian Masse: I so move.
The Chair: Moved by Mr. Masse.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendments BQ-32 and BQ-33.
Mr. Paul Crête: Oui.
The Chair: Moved by Mr. Crête.
(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Brian, I'm going to ask about amendments NDP-63 and NDP-64.
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes, it's moved.
The Chair: Just amendment NDP-64?
Mr. Brian Masse: Yes.
The Chair: It's moved.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Is amendment NDP-65 moved, Brian?
Mr. Brian Masse: It's moved.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment BQ-35, Mr. Crête and Mr. Gaudet.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Okay, we jump to amendment BQ-36.
I'm going to ask, Paul, for amendments BQ-36 and BQ-37 together.
(Amendments negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: And then we jump to amendment BQ-38.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall schedule 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Now, it's 2:07 p.m., colleagues. We have very little to go. Is there unanimous consent to go for a few more minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We have schedule 4, and then I just have to do the title and the bill and report it.
Hearing no objection, I'm going to try.
(On schedule 4)
The Chair: We have amendment NDP-69, page 241.
(Amendment withdrawn)
The Chair: Shall schedule 4 carry?
Hon. Joe Fontana: Hang on a second here.
You didn't want East Timor added anywhere now, I take it? You wanted it in schedule 2; we were prepared to do it in schedule 4.
Mr. Brian Masse: I wanted it in schedule 2, yes.
Hon. Joe Fontana: You won't take it in schedule 4? It's up to you. I thought you had raised a good motion, but if you don't want to--
Mr. Brian Masse: I can put it in schedule 4, and then I'll amend it to put it in schedule 2.
Hon. Joe Fontana: Well, there's a reason it's not in schedule 2. I don't know if it's philosophical, Brian, but the fact is it can't be in schedule 2 because it is not an LDC according to the other countries and other lists. You can't make it something it's not.
Mr. Brian Masse: Well, we'll put it in schedule 4. It doesn't change the fact that there are other ones that have been moved around, but I'm not going to....
Hon. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, an official wants to speak.
Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Christopher Armstrong: I would just express a concern with adding one particular country to schedule 4, granting a special addition to schedule 4, when that hasn't been done for other countries. It might cause some concerns with respect to Foreign Affairs.
The Chair: Shall schedule 4 carry?
(Schedule 4 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Okay, now we have to go back to amendment G-1, which is the title of the bill.
I need a mover, Joe, on G-1.
Hon. Joe Fontana: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour of amendment G-1? Opposed?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall the title as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Joe Fontana: You're not going to be the only one to vote against it, are you, Brian?
The Chair: Was it unanimous?
Hon. Joe Fontana: It was unanimous.
The Chair: To everybody's credit.
Shall I report the bill as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I'd like to thank all of the officials for their great work on this.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I'd also like to thank the clerks, Joann and Jean-Michel, and all my colleagues around the table for their great work. Well done.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: We should say thank you to the chair for putting up with all of us.
The Chair: Congratulations, and thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.