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, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 3, 2002
| ¹ | 1530 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Bruce Bergen (Legal Counsel, Department of Industry) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1535 |
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gaëtan Champagne (Lobbyist Registration Adviser, Department of Industry) |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Gaëtan Champagne |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Gaëtan Champagne |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
Mr. Gaëtan Champagne |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bruce Bergen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| ¹ | 1540 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1625 |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
| º | 1630 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
| º | 1635 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1640 |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1645 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
| º | 1650 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| º | 1655 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1700 |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1705 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1710 |
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Nick Discepola |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Bachand |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1715 |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, December 3, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1530)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.
We are dealing with Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. We have people here from the Department of Industry, Mr. Bruce Bergen and Mr. Gaëtan Champagne from the lobbyist registration area.
Do you want to make some opening remarks or wait for questions?
Mr. Bruce Bergen (Legal Counsel, Department of Industry): I'll mention that I'm actually from the Department of Justice. I'm with the department of legal services with the Department of Industry and Mr. Champagne is with the Ethics Counsellor's Office. We're happy to be here.
The Chair: We will proceed under clause-by-clause.
You do have a package that was handed out prior to the meeting. Unfortunately, it only came today. I suppose we should have one meeting instead of three.
Mr. McTeague, we are waiting for you.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Thank you very much.
The Chair: Can we proceed under clause-by-clause?
(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)
(Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to on division)
(Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive agreed to)
(Clause 12 agreed to on division)
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't mind you speed-reading through this, but I wonder if you could perhaps read just a little slower so that my fingers match the numbers you are calling.
The Chair: We'll do that.
(Clause 13 agreed to)
(Clause 14 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 15 to 17 inclusive agreed to)
On clause 18--Coming into force
¹ (1535)
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Clause 18 is not on the list, it's coming into force.
The Chair: Clause 18 is on the last page. It says “This act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor In Council.”
Which document is incorrect?
The bill is correct.
On page 36 of the handout , instead of 17 it should be 18.
I take it number 17 should be 16, but the bill is correct.
Mr. Masse.
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On a matter of process, I had this document provided to me of 33 pages, and this one put before me for the committee is 36 pages. Is there no process that would identify the changes of a document or at least provide some advance to committee members?
The Chair: I'm not quite sure what document you're looking at.
Mr. Brian Masse: This document, which is fairly identical, was provided to me on December 2, 2002. It's 33 pages long. Does anybody else have a--
The Chair: Mr. Champagne.
Mr. Gaëtan Champagne (Lobbyist Registration Adviser, Department of Industry): The newer document should be used.
Mr. Brian Masse: Right, but my point is that this was provided to me in advance.
Mr. Gaëtan Champagne: Yes, that's because there were some problems with formatting.
Mr. Brian Masse: So is there different content between the two?
Mr. Gaëtan Champagne: No, you have the complete version there.
Mr. Brian Masse: But there's no difference in the content?
Mr. Gaëtan Champagne: No, it's because of the printout on different printers.
Mr. Brian Masse: I see. That's what I was looking for, whether or not there have been changes. I haven't had a chance to review that.
Thank you.
(Clause 18 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Shall the title pass?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. That ends that session.
I thank the witnesses for their work. I would request that in future you get parcels, such as the one you passed out this afternoon, to us earlier. It would be appreciated. It could have helped us during our debate. So that would be our request.
Mr. Bruce Bergen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Our next item is a motion by Dan McTeague.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: I have a point of order.
The Chair: Point of order. Let's talk about the order then.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Before you go on the motion by Mr. McTeague, you had given us an indication that you would address an issue that I wanted to raise prior to that, and you gave us confirmation of that when we finished off our last deliberation. I'd like to hold the chair and the committee to that before we talk about Mr. McTeague's motion.
¹ (1540)
The Chair: I apologize, Mr. Volpe. I was led to believe it was on this motion. If I'm incorrect then I would allow you to have your discussion first.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Because my issue has to deal with committee and discussions held in camera, I would ask committee members to clear the room of all those people who wouldn't normally be allowed in an in-camera meeting.
The Chair: That would be everybody who is not an assistant to a member.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Chair, when we adopted the routine motions, I understood there was one allowing a member's assistant to be present, even for in camera meetings.
The Clerk of the Committee: Unless the committee decides otherwise.
Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, but the rule about in camera proceedings says those people can be there.
[English]
The Chair: I've asked those who are not an assistant to a member to leave the room. The committee will now go in camera.
We'll suspend for two minutes.
(Proceedings continue in camera)
º (1625)
(Public proceedings resume)
The Chair: We have a motion before us.
Mr. McTeague.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, I regret putting the committee in this position, but this is something a lot of us have been working on for some time.
I move that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology review at its earliest opportunity the pharmaceutical industry practices related to patent protection, specifically the practices of “evergreening” and the notice of compliance regulations. This review should ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the protection of intellectual property and the need to contain costs and provide Canadians with improved access to non-patented prescription drugs.
That is the motion before the committee, Mr. Chairman. You'll find that it is duly rendered in accordance with the rules of this committee.
I point out for the benefit of members of Parliament that this is not a new issue. This is indeed recommendation 41 of the Romanow report word for word, save and except for the words “at the earliest opportunity”, which in the Romanow report read “immediately”. I wish to give some flexibility to the committee to consider this.
For both those members who have been with this committee for some time and those who have not, you will no doubt be aware of the fact that Brian Tobin, the previous minister, in his appearance before this committee in May 2001 on Bill S-17 said:
“The issues that arise out of the question...are legitimate and genuine and require a more appropriate debate, not one that's hurried by a WTO deadline. I said the last time that I came before this committee, and indeed I said it again when I appeared before the Senate committee, that I thought there ought to be an opportunity at an appropriate time--in my mind, later this year.”
Of course, Mr. Chairman, that was not possible, given the burden the committee had at the time.
In the interim, Mr. Chairman, you will find that a number of facts are important for the committee to consider in support of this motion. The first is that the only two countries that in fact have a form of automatic injunction or an automatic stay are Canada and the United States.
Pursuant to a study by the Federal Trade Commission, which was an exhaustive study of the practice, the commission reported in July 2002 that the practices that led to the effect of extending patents had the potential for being abusive, frivolous, and vexatious. It therefore recommended to the executive branch of their government--that is, the President of the United States--that those rules be changed. On October 21, 2002, the President of the United States, George Bush, declared that based on what he had seen and on the strength of the FTC in Canada, he in fact would proceed with changing the proposal. In his words:
“The FTC investigation discovered that some brand name drug manufacturers may have manipulated the law to delay the approval of competing generic drugs. When a drug patent is about to expire, one method some companies use is to file a brand new patent based on a minor feature, such as the color of the pill bottle or a specific combination of ingredients unrelated to the drug's effectiveness. In this way, the brand name company buys time through repeated delays, called automatic stays, that freeze the status quo as the legal complexities are sorted out.In the meantime, the lower-cost generic drug is shut out of the market.”
Mr. Chairman, it's pretty obvious that this committee, having had several opportunities--and I don't wish to raise those at this point--may have foreshadowed what was occurring in the United States and wisely chose the route of actually addressing this issue. It is for this reason that the committee may now want to consider a motion that has not only the force of the only other relevant market that has such a practice abandoning it and modifying it to one simple injunction, but also the benefit of previous ministers and of the report of the commission on health, which of course has just come down to us, since we last met.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think you'll find it important to recognize that well over 80% of the triggers of these automatic injunctions wind up being dismissed as frivolous and vexatious. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined them to be draconian.
I have a motion on the floor, and I want to explain it thoroughly. Mr. Chairman, we're here until 5:30.
This is an area that is certainly within the domain of this committee. Most importantly, on the notice of compliance, Mr. Chairman--this is my final point--the regulations that allowed this to happen were never in fact reviewed by any industry committee, or any other committee, for that matter. They were introduced in 1992. For that reason, I think this committee has to take back its prerogative and its obligation to Parliament, regardless of where you stand on this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
º (1630)
The Chair: Mr. Rajotte.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to propose an amendment at this point to basically delete everything after “opportunity” and submit the earlier motion that was passed last spring, which is basically “that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology review at its earliest opportunity the automatic injunction notice of compliance regulations”.
I believe that was the exact motion. If not, I can be corrected. But that's my amendment. If I need a seconder, Mr. Fitzpatrick will second it.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): The chair is entertaining a subamendment?
The Chair: Do we have a seconder?
Mr. Nick Discepola: I'd like to propose a subamendment.
The Chair: I think Mr. Volpe was first.
Mr. Nick Discepola: I don't know. The researcher has the list.
The Chair: Mr. Discepola.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to propose a subamendment and add to the amendment the following: within the context of the work plan already adopted by the committee on such and such a date, whatever date we adopted it, and in view of the productivity study that is to take place March 17.
The Chair: So yours is an add-on to the amendment.
Discussion on the subamendment.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My reason for putting it forth as such, Mr. Chair, is because I believe both the motion presented last week by Mr. McTeague as well as the motion presented today by Mr. McTeague, as well as Mr. Rajotte's amended motion, have all been discussed in the context of the last work plan.
I'll choose my words very carefully. There's not one committee member here who is not interested in discussing the issue that Mr. McTeague has brought forth. The whole debate is whether we discuss it in total isolation or as part of a larger context study. I think that has to be made very clear.
As a result, I would like to go back to our original work plan. If we're going to play games with amendments, yes, this is a way to do it. But maybe we'll put it to rest once and for all.
The Chair: Discussion on the subamendment.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I agree with Mr. Discepola because I think the original version, without the subamendment, is in contradiction with the work plan we had agreed on the other week. We have to be consistent with ourselves and our own decisions. Since we are proceeding formally as a committee, holding a vote, I think this is the way to get back to what the committee really wishes.
[English]
The Chair: Is there any more discussion on the subamendment?
Mr. Rajotte.
Mr. James Rajotte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to Mr. Discepola, I think this is not playing games with amendments. This is ensuring a stand-alone study. I still fail to understand how a study on the comparison of Canada-U.S. productivity and the notice of compliance regulations makes any sense for anyone to study. If we're studying the broader innovation and productivity agenda, fine. Include the NOC and the whole patent law within that.
But the focus you want, Mr. Chair, Canada-U.S. productivity and the NOC regulations, doesn't make any sense. That's why the amendment was proposed.
º (1635)
The Chair: Mr. Volpe.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: In view of the fact that I indicated to you that I would present a motion for consideration at this committee within 48 hours, that you may or may not accept as in order, I'm going to state that--
The Chair: You're speaking on the subamendment?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: The subamendment. The subamendment is now addressing the issues of timing that may or may not impact on your decision with respect to the motion that I'll put forward. What I'm going to do is say because that does that, I think you should rule the subamendment out of order.
The Chair: The subamendment is in order because it speaks to the earliest opportunity portion. That's why we rule it in order.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Can we hear the whole thing?
The Chair: Mr. Discepola, do you have your subamendment written down?
Mr. Nick Discepola: No.
The Chair: Then would you write it down, please?
Mr. Nick Discepola: Well, it was after his words.... Mr. Rajotte said to strike out everything after “opportunity” and replace it, technically, with the first motion that Mr. McTeague introduced. I'm saying--
The Chair: Yours is the subamendment. Please write out the subamendment.
Mr. Nick Discepola: We have clerks and researchers for that, don't we?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: No. Sorry. Perhaps we could read what Mr. Rajotte's would be, first.
The Chair: Okay. I'll read out the amendment.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: If we could have this one, then have what it would be with Rajotte's amendment, then we'll have Discepola's.
The Chair: The clerk will read the amendment.
The Clerk: It is “That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology review at its earliest opportunity the automatic injunction notice of compliance regulations and related regulations”.
Mr. James Rajotte: You can put it as a regulation.
The Chair: Mr. Discepola, you had a subamendment to that, which was--
Mr. Nick Discepola: If you want to continue the discussion, I'll write it down for the--
The Chair: --an addition--
Mr. Nick Discepola: Do you want me to write it or do you want me to repeat it?
The Chair: Can you repeat it, just read it? Just read it out.
Mr. Nick Discepola: “In the context of the work plan approved by the full committee on...” Do you have the date? What was the date? Was it last Wednesday?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: November 27.
Mr. Nick Discepola: “...November 27 and in the context of the productivity report, which will be undertaken by the committee starting March 17”.
The Chair: I think you said it was to begin March 17.
Mr. Nick Discepola: That's right.
I have no problem with the date we start. If the committee wants to move the date, that's another debate. But I don't want--
The Chair: No, but that's the date you mentioned.
Okay, that's the subamendment. All right.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: May I clarify? Mr. Rajotte took out everything after “at its earliest opportunity” and replaced that with the “automatic injunction notice of compliance and related regulations”.
The Chair: On the notice of compliance, the notice of compliance regulations and related regulations.
So that's short--
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a stickler, but you guys have all said three different things. So what exactly is Mr. Rajotte's motion?
“That the House of Commons Standing Committee...”, from there. That's all I want to hear, right as it would be.
The Clerk: Do you want me to repeat it?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.
The Chair: Only you to repeat it, so there's only one person saying it.
The Clerk: “That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology review at its earliest opportunity the automatic injunction notice of compliance regulations”.
The Chair: Okay.
Is everybody clear on the subamendment?
º (1640)
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It's a subamendment, then the amendment.
The Chair: We'll do the subamendment first and then we'll do the amendment. Is that okay?
Mr. Dan McTeague: I don't understand the motion, Mr. Chair. I don't think it makes sense. Can I have that read again, the subamendment to Mr. Discepola's?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Read it as if Mr. Discepola's passed, then we'd know what it would say.
The Chair: That's right. For those, you do the subamendment first, then it makes the amendment that much larger. Then you vote on the larger amendment. If you want to do the protocol to the nth degree, we're going to go there.
Mr. Dan McTeague: It is simply--
The Chair: I have no problem with that.
Does everybody understand the subamendment? We're asked for a recorded vote.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: May I ask another question? I know that Mr. McTeague made a very long speech, but “at its earliest opportunity”...right now that would, according to the work plan, still be March--
The Chair: March 17.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: No. Right now it would be after the productivity study, because he's not proposing to do it during the productivity study.
Mr. Paul Crête: It should be during the productivity study.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Look, everyone stop saying everyone else agrees, because you don't all agree. Is Mr. McTeague's motion to do it at some point after Thursday, March 26; are we passing his motion as it currently reads, or what Mr. Rajotte wants...?
That's where you guys get in trouble. No one knows what anyone is voting on.
The Chair: Yes, we do. I'm sorry about that, Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: So just let me finish the question.
The Chair: No. I'll have the clerk read out the subamendment.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: But I do have a question related to Mr. Rajotte's and Mr. McTeague's.
The Chair: Okay.
The Clerk: The subamendment reads that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology review the automatic injunction notice of compliance regulations--
Mr. Nick Discepola: At the earliest....
The Clerk: --at the earliest opportunity--and now it's Mr. Discepola's amendment--in the context of the work plan adopted at the meeting of the full committee on November 27, and to be included on the productivity study schedule to begin March 17, 2003.
The Chair: So you put the motion in there because you want it in the productivity study, and Mr. McTeague does not want it in the productivity study.
Mr. Nick Discepola: That's the only difference.
The Chair: Okay.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Now can I have my questions?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. So two things could happen. Mr. Discepola's could pass, and it would be part of the productivity study. If Mr. Discepola's didn't pass, we would go to Mr. Rajotte's motion. Mr. Rajotte's motion and Mr. McTeague's are similar in that it would just say “at the earliest opportunity”.
Would the effect of passing those mean it would be after March 26 or on March 17?
The Chair: It would be at its earliest convenience.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Which would be when?
The Chair: We would have a steering committee meeting, and they would recommend to the full committee.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: So there is a possibility that we would not get to our productivity study again.
The Chair: You asked the question...?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I want to know what Mr. McTeague thinks that means.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Not opportunity, I'm sorry. You've used the word “convenience”, and there's a difference. The distinction is the opportunity, and I think the word itself--
Ms. Paddy Torsney: What does that mean?
Mr. Dan McTeague: It will mean the opportunity that is provided. I presume there is going to be a work plan here. We've agreed on that work plan. Mr. Crête and others have voted for that. Once that work plan is done, the opportunity will be then and there. So it should be around the timetable you suggested, Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: It will be around March 26.
Mr. Dan McTeague: She's proposed a date, after which we'd dispense of the whole thing. Whatever the date is--opportunity.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: If it's not part of productivity, does it come after productivity or before productivity? I want it to be clear.
The Chair: Do you have all the people to vote? Is this your vote?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Repeat, repeat.
We're working on Mr. Discepola's motion.
The Chair: Where's Mr. Bagnell?
We'll have a recorded vote on the subamendment.
(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 6)
º (1645)
The Chair: We'll go back to the amendment for discussion.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chair, call the question. I support the amendment.
Mr. Nick Discepola: So that means there's no discussion?
Mr. Dan McTeague: No, I just wanted to clarify.
The Chair: No discussion?
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chair, could the mover explain us again, since the subamendment has been rejected, what are the implications of his motion?
[English]
Mr. James Rajotte: The implications of the motion are basically to return, in my view, to the original work plan, which was to study the notice of compliance regulations separate from the study on productivity, and I thought that was fairly self-evident. That is the reason, it's to study it separately and to return to the original work plan that was reaffirmed two weeks ago.
Mr. Nick Discepola: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair, and you should rule on it.
How can somebody change indirectly something that was discussed and agreed upon by a committee? Because it changes the work plan.
Some hon. members: No, it doesn't.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: That's why we're voting on it now.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Yes, it does change it. He wanted a separate study. We already agreed, when we voted on it last week, that it would be an inclusive study.
So how do how you, indirectly, do something you wouldn't accept? I want a ruling on that.
The Chair: We have an amendment. You have to vote on the amendment.
Mr. Masse.
Mr. Brian Masse: Mr. Chair, I'll be supporting the amendment. I don't think it takes too much from the original motion in itself. I think it still will meet the mandate and the importance of the subject matter at hand.
I prefer the original motion. However, I think when we look at our materials and the subject matter that's before us, this is a great opportunity for this committee to advance something that's very important for Canadians. It's something that has a direct impact on their health, no matter what province they reside in. It's something that can offer some incredible opportunity to examine also our trading relationships, where we've seen incredible stress happening on a number of different fronts.
We know the United States has been looking at this issue. It's very significant, in the sense that it might be one we can do cooperatively in the sense of harmonizing the types of practices. But we need to hear from people, and that's really what the motion calls for, to hear from people.
We know the Romanow report, we know the Kirby report, we know the other health reports that are out there that people are discussing right now. And I think if you look at our work plan we're going to go to the study of foreign investment and the restriction of applications to telecom, but right now people are talking about the future of our health care. They're talking about the role of and the relevance of government. I think this motion ensures that we're going to have those discussions.
I won't go through some of the material that Mr. McTeague noted with regard to the actual reasons for his motion--
The Chair: If you have something new, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Brian Masse: Maybe you didn't listen to Mr. McTeague, Mr. Chair, because I think my suggestions are new.
Lastly, to wrap up, Mr. Chair, I think it's important that the committee is relevant in terms of the things that are happening in Canadian society, and if this gets buried in another process, it would be unfortunate.
The Chair: Mr. Discepola.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Chair, could the clerk please read the motion we'll be voting on, before I start my discussion?
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): On a point of clarification before we have to vote on this matter--
º (1650)
The Chair: There's no vote. He just wants it clarified.
Mr. Nick Discepola: There's no vote yet. There's discussion. I just want the motion to be ready.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Yes, I wanted something clarified too, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Let him read the motion.
Mr. Nick Discepola: And listen, Mr. Masse.
The Chair: Please, Mr. Discepola. I'm sure we're all listening.
Mr. Nick Discepola: I apologize for the comment.
The Chair: I'd appreciate if we would listen to the clerk.
The Clerk: The motion is that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology review the automatic injunction notice of compliance regulation at its earliest opportunity.
Mr. Nick Discepola: I apologize if I've offended. The slur was not intended.
What I wanted to do was to clarify what the motion said. It doesn't get into some of the things you've identified, whether it's productivity issues, whether it's competition issues with the United States, and that's why we voted it down the last time. It sticks to notice of motion, automatic injunction, and regulations.
We studied this, contrary to some public opinion, in 1997. We studied the regulations then. We studied them in 1998. We studied them in 1999. All we're doing is focusing on one thing, which I think is what we shouldn't be doing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Discepola.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I, for one, will vote against the amendment because, first of all, it contradicts the work plan we have adopted very formally. We had an important debate on that with all the members present, when we had a quorum, and we studied that question specifically.
Again, the adoption of such a motion is probably the best way to hurt the pharmaceutical industry, for all types of products, because we would send a signal saying that the rules can be changed again. There will be development opportunities lost for some of the workers in the pharmaceutical industry because they will have to fight against agents representing the same company in other countries. Every time we create that kind of insecurity in that type of industry... Those things don't last two, three or six months; there are millions and billions of dollars at stake, and we are not providing adequate information. We are introducing in the system rumours which create insecurity in the industry sector, so that it will be more difficult to secure investments and the competitors outside Canada will have an advantage we will have created ourselves. I think if we adopt the amendment or the original motion, it will be a huge disservice to the whole pharmaceutical industry and, at the end of the day, to the patients and the people who now benefit from the fact that there is adequate research on drugs and that new quality drugs are being produced.
We have developed an interesting model over the years. Saying we will study this outside the productivity study, at the earliest opportunity as it says here... I think we will probably have another vote since the contents of this vote is exactly the same as the one we had last time, when some members where absent. Unfortunately, in our society, absents are always in the wrong. Members are supposed to represent their people; when they are not here, it is their responsibility. That's the situation we are facing today.
I will certainly vote against that amendment, which would create a major problem for the industry.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Volpe.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's entering into the substance of the debate and actually predicting what the outcome of the debate would be, so I move we call the question.
The Chair: Out of respect, I did miss Mr. Rajotte, and I believe I should go back to him and then back to Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chair, I had an important question, but the good Lord helped me answer it myself, so I--
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Mr. McTeague.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chair, I'll defer to Mr. St. Denis, who had his hand up before I did. Did you recognize Mr. St. Denis or myself first?
The Chair: I keep reading from the bottom up. I apologize.
Ms. Torsney.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Somehow that seems very relevant for this committee, that you would be doing that.
º (1655)
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I have two things. First of all, I do have a problem with the fact that there seems to be a lack of clarity about what is happening vis-à-vis this motion in terms of the timing, because this committee did vote on something last week. I believe there was notification, so I'm not sure if this really is an attempt to change the work plan again. I'm concerned that each and every week we'll have motions and have people going back and forth on the work plan. I think we're setting a very bad precedent.
Secondly, I wanted to draw to the committee's attention that the finance committee report last week actually had in one of their recommendations that the federal government ensure that the rights embodied in patent and copyright protections are vigorously defended. That's an interesting context for the kind of thing this committee is talking about. I would think there is a lot of merit in putting this kind of study into the productivity study, because it is about productivity. It is about what choices are being made for Canadians and whether or not it's a competitive marketplace for companies to operate in and what are the choices that are being made vis-à-vis the patent legislation and how it impacts our communities.
Let's be clear about what we're doing here. I won't support Mr. Rajotte's motion, because I do believe it's an issue of productivity and we should be doing it as part of the productivity study. That is what people undertook to do in the last meeting, where there were votes and there was a process that was followed.
I'm not even positive that this whole thing is in order.
The Chair: So I don't mix up here, Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): If I'm not mistaken, the pharmaceutical industry is not mentioned any more in the amended motion.
Can the clerk read it again, please?
[English]
The Clerk: “That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology review the automatic injunction notice of compliance regulations at its earliest opportunity.”
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Then, I agree with the motion. The pharmaceutical industry is not mentioned. If we want to talk about the pharmaceutical industry, we have to be careful.
I talked about it today with Mr. McTeague; this is not the health committee. I sat on the health committee for the last two years, and even it refused to examine that. Therefore, we have to be very careful. The health minister was questioned about that and, for her, the review was not a priority. So we have to be careful.
I don't know what agenda everybody has about that, but when we say we justify it on the base of the Romanow report, which has not been unanimously approved, it's rather weak. I thought we had gone quite far. We have a work plan.
Mr. Chair, depending if the mover is sitting on that side or on this one, are we going to have another motion again next time?
Mr. Nick Discepola: Yes.
Mr. André Bachand: My colleague says yes, and it could happen indeed. The committee will therefore be paralyzed by the war of motions that's brewing. I find it very unfortunate. As I was saying, I'm ready to live with the work plan adopted by the committee. It may not be entirely satisfying, but I will live with what the members present have decided.
I also want to say that I disagree with what has been said in the United States, namely that the average marketing time for a drug was 11 to 13 years, rather than 20 years. We have to be careful about the image we want to convey concerning pharmaceutical products.
That being said, Mr. Chair, I think this is a precedent you will have to deal with during the year.
[English]
The Chair: I should mention that the notice of compliance is strictly within the pharmaceutical industry.
The next speaker is Mr. St. Denis.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I disagree with my friend Paul Crête about this amended motion. It actually changes the work plan, because in fact, if I understand it, this issue could not be discussed, couldn't be on the agenda of the committee, any time before March 26, which is where this work plan ends. So we're talking about the next phase of the work plan, not the current work plan.
Inasmuch as I'm not sure who's right or wrong or which side of the industry has the correct view on all this, I do think that a light has to be shone on it. Inasmuch as I supported what was basically the same motion last year, I propose to continue supporting it.
The Chair: Mr. Crête.
» (1700)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify something for Mr. St. Denis. In the work plan we've adopted last week, the aspect concerning drugs is part of the productivity study. It is not after a certain date; it is part of the productivity study, whereas the motion we have been presented today makes it a separate aspect, a separate study. That's why there will be a very negative effect because we're sending the whole industry a signal saying there will be more turbulence. We will continue to give all sorts of signals to an industry in need of security.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. McTeague.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chair, I listened carefully to my colleagues on the other side. I think, as I mentioned earlier, that the Patents Act can only be studied by this committee. It can't be studied by the health committee, which is why we are debating this question today. I'm taking Mr. Bachand's comments very seriously. He's absolutely right to say there are two things here, but in the meantime, it's up to us... This has been created by something that happened in 1992. The committee never had the opportunity to review the regulations put into force by the minister at that time, without review or approval from this committee.
Secondly, I know that there is a problem with the motions and there were comments made about the fact that other members were thinking about presenting motions. I am perfectly ready to accept motions; that's what democracy is about, after all.
[English]
What I find ironic, though, is that we're dealing with the evergreening of motions. If we have a problem with evergreening of motions, I think we would agree that in the interests of Canadians and in the interests of the poor, whether they be from Mr. Masse's riding or whether they be from Mr. Crête's riding, people in this country get sick. People in Quebec get sick, as they do in Ontario. While we're always looking to balance the interests of those who are innovators, we also, as the Americans have suggested, want to make sure there is accessibility. That's why I'm voting for the subamendment.
The Chair: Okay, does anybody else have anything?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I wanted to clarify something that you took from something I said. The finance committee was specifically talking about pharmaceuticals when it talked about patents.
The Chair: That is not correct. I checked with the finance committee. Unless the chairman is misleading me--
Ms. Paddy Torsney: I've read the piece of paper from their document.
The Chair: I've got the document.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Chapter five, “The Priority of Productivity and Innovation”, talks all about pharmaceuticals. Whether the chair has some other intention, the piece of paper is right here, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Ms. Torsney, I have the piece of paper. I don't know where it came from; it was delivered. I checked with the finance chair, and she said it was in the context of all patents, science and technology patents and so forth, not only specific to pharmaceuticals.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Okay. But the quotes they used all happened to be from the pharmaceuticals, so....
The Chair: Mr. Marcil.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): I'm the one who gave you that piece of paper. Canada: People, Places and Priorities, that's the report produced by the Standing Committee on Finance in November 2002. I'm leaving the text with you; compare it. It's exactly the same thing; this has been taken from the other text. Here, it's in French, but if you take the report in English, you will see the same thing. Therefore, it is a direct quote. I am not biased; I just want to tell you that the text you have here has been taken entirely, from the first to the last word, including commas and periods, from the finance committee report, unless people told you otherwise. Take it; it's recommendation 18, on page 77.
[English]
The Chair: I've only repeated what the chairman told me 15 minutes before the meeting. If that's incorrect, I'll go back to her and tell her it's incorrect.
Okay, are you ready for the question? It will be recorded.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8 ; nays 6 )
» (1705)
The Chair: The motion is approved as amended.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: No, it's not. It was amended. Now you have to approve it.
The Chair: I'm sorry.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Nice try, nice try. We're on to you.
The Chair: Is there any more discussion on the motion? There being none, we'll have a recorded vote.
Mr. Nick Discepola: If you would, Mr. Chair, you might want to stick to unanimous consent with the people recorded on the previous motion recorded on the same.
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Deputy whip. Sure. I don't have a problem with that.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to withdraw the motion in favour of the amendment that we've just--
Ms. Paddy Torsney: You don't get that choice. It was already amended on you. You don't get to withdraw. No, I think there's unanimity with Mr.--
The Chair: Call the vote.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 6)
The Chair: We will now proceed to the review of the budget.
Just to give you an update, the standing committee funds for the House are getting very close to being spent for the year, so we are monitoring every committee on expenditures. We've asked all the chairs to make sure their budgets will at least take them into the new year, and that will be reviewed on Thursday. There will be money cut out of some budgets, because we don't have an additional budget. We were doing that earlier today to make sure we have our budget in, which would keep us going in the new year.
Does everybody have a copy now? I want you to take a look at the page where it says “Funds to cover witness expenses in relation to its study of Foreign Investment”. Where it has $2,000, change that to $1,500, and change the $80,000 to $60,000. I'm on the page that says “Funds to cover witness expenses...Foreign Investment Restrictions”.
» (1710)
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick, do you have that? It's under “Purpose”.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Okay, so it's $1,500 for that.
The Chair: From some witnesses that you have here, you expect an expense report, and they will say no, their company or association will cover it. What we're trying to do is get an average for the House such that we don't overbudget, because if we overbudget in some areas, other committees don't get money. So we're going to be using an average.
That's to have the witnesses on foreign investment. We are getting a lot of requests, so we'll have to bundle them up. I've asked the clerk to get through as many as possible, and then cluster the groups in order to be able to have a good hearing starting in the new year.
If there are no further questions, I'd like to have a vote on it.
Mr. Dan McTeague: That's fine, agreed.
The Chair: I thought you said no.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We have some witnesses for the next couple of days, at least tomorrow, Thursday, next Tuesday, and Wednesday, to get their input on Kyoto. Remember, those who voted to have this need to make sure they are present.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Why are you looking at me?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: He asked for those who were present at the meeting who didn't count.
The Chair: Are you finished? I can't wait to go to a meeting when you're the chair.
So that's to pay for their expenses. In that group there are quite a few who at Christmas might not take the.... But that's what it works out to.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: We probably won't be able to do that, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: The $2,500 should be reduced to seven witnesses times $1,500. So it should be $10,500.
Mr. James Rajotte: Do we have a list of the witnesses who will be appearing?
The Chair: We know who's coming tomorrow.
The Clerk: Tomorrow and Thursday, yes.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Who's coming tomorrow?
The Chair: We have the exporters--
The Clerk: On Thursday we have the economists, the exporters, the Canadian Labour Congress and the--
The Chair: We have a balance.
Mr. Discepola.
Mr. Nick Discepola: I'm seeking clarification from the chair. In view of what's happened, I'm confused how the committee's going to work in the future. Does that mean there will be no need for a steering committee?
The Chair: I hope all of you have a good Christmas and a good January. At the end of January, we'll come back with smiles on our faces and try to work together.
Mr. André Bachand: We need a motion.
The Chair: I find it difficult that you vote one way one day, and differently the next day.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: You guys have to learn to work together.
The Chair: So we have a work plan.
Mr. Nick Discepola: But it was modified.
The Chair: No, the work plan was not modified.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Yes, it was.
Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): I think there's one on both sides.
The Chair: Where was the work plan modified?
Mr. Nick Discepola: I'll debate that with you in private. If you can convince me it wasn't modified, I'll buy you a beer.
The Chair: On March 17, we're going to be talking pharmaceuticals.
Mr. André Bachand: We could talk pharmaceuticals on those two days.
The Chair: That's what the schedule says.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: If we're not changing anything, why should we vote on this?
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Crête.
» (1715)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I just wish we learn from that experience—and I support the chair's attitude—that we must, as far as possible, take into account our goals for each of our meetings. When we're supposed to hear witnesses and those witnesses are not here, normally, we don't necessarily move quickly to another subject, under pressure, at the last minute, because it creates situations like the one we just had. It's important to make sure that the rules are clear for everyone. I think the situation arose from the fact that there was a discussion on an important subject which was not on the agenda. I would like us to learn from that experience so that our work can be more efficient in the future.
[English]
The Chair: I can't let that go, because our objective has always been to try to work together to get a work plan and get on with doing the work. We've had more discussions on the work plan this time than we've had in nine years. In the past, as many of the steering committee as could come out tried to make decisions and move things forward. We won't do that in the future. We'll call our meetings and approve our work plans. The clerk will spell out on the work plan which witnesses will be there, and we will stick to the agenda.
I think it's time to go, before we get into another scuffle.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: No, no, I want to talk to you.
[English]
The Chair: Unless you have something new, I'm going to adjourn.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I want to tell you that, when I gave you that piece of paper earlier, it was as parliamentary secretary. You've questioned the origin of that paper. But, as a matter of fact, it is the finance committee's proposal. You said you didn't know where it came from. You challenged my integrity as parliamentary secretary. I want to assure you that there are no pharmaceutical companies, no generic drugs companies contributing to my fund-raising campaigns. When I gave you that piece of paper, it was only to inform the committee, so that people can make a decision, so that they know the finance committee proposed not to reopen that case as such. But, a few minutes ago, you presented it as a document coming from God knows where and you said... You even said it on record. I did not like your attitude at that time and I wanted to mention it to you. But I'm ready to turn the page.
[English]
The Chair: Did this come from you?
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: It's a photocopy from the finance committee report. If you want to read it, it's on page 77.
[English]
The Chair: I received a paper like this in my office.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: I'm the one who gave it to you, not as member of Parliament, but as parliamentary secretary.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. The meeting is adjourned.