McGill TribuneThis week, the House of Commons passed Bill C-393. The bill seeks to amend the Canadian Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR) to streamline the process by which generic copies of patented drugs can be shipped to people who need them in the developing world. Despite criticism from some academics and politicians, C-393 has the potential to save lives, and should be passed by the Senate.
Canada currently has legislation permitting the export of generic versions of patented drugs. It was passed after some loosening in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 2003. Many countries around the world have regimes similar to CAMR, which are seen as vital to supplying low-cost treatment for HIV/AIDS in poor nations. Brand-name drugs, on the other hand, are often prohibitively expensive.
Though CAMR has been on the books since 2004, only two shipments of one drug have ever made it out of the country. Generic drug companies have declined to produce additional generic drugs, despite the profit incentive, because of a laborious application process. To increase the number of shipments, the new bill removes current limitations on licensing, and would grant generic companies who are approved to make a particular drug as much of it as they want. Currently only one third of the 15 million people in need of HIV/AIDS treatment worldwide have access to drugs. Many of these generic drugs come from India—which makes some of the cheapest generic medication—but these drugs tend to lose effectiveness as the virus adapts. New drugs will be needed, many only available in their brand-name form right now. Any legislation that will help save the lives of HIV/AIDS victims who simply cannot afford more medication is welcome and necessary.
C-393 has not been without its detractors. These have mainly consisted of the big brand drug companies represented by Rx&D; some prominent MPs, including Industry Minister Tony Clement and downtown Montreal’s own Marc Garneau; and some academics. The argument against rests on two premises. First, that C-393 loosens restrictions on intellectual property laws. This allows generic drug manufacturers to profit off the work of others and may hamper research and development into drug manufacture in Canada. Second, Canadian generic drugs are notoriously expensive compared to those coming out of countries like New Zealand and India, and this bill may not be performing an affordable service at all. People who buy the drugs may be impoverishing themselves while the wallets of generic drug makers thicken. This, they argue, is pat-on-the-back legislation, not real humanitarianism.
These arguments, while they have validity, are not enough to warrant obstruction of this important measure. Intellectual property laws are important, but finding a balance between protecting producers and consumers is important, too. Hampering R&D would be a negative outcome, but protecting the interests of an extremely profitable industry is hardly a moral issue. Saving lives, on the other hand, is, and the current regime we have in place doesn’t do it. It makes sense, then, to try something else. It would of course be naive to suppose that generic pharmaceutical makers are entirely altruistic. Firms like Apotex operate for-profit and do so successfully. Yet they still sell their products for less than brand-names, and hopefully a higher volume of sales will push prices down accordingly. Moreover, it is not for Mr. Clement to decide if Canadian generic drugs are too expensive. If they are, they won’t sell. The worst that could happens is a return to square one, and in that case it would be time to re-evaluate.
Despite being introduced by the NDP and garnering opposition from some key MPs, some Conservatives and many Liberals voted for C-393. We hope the Senate will rise above partisanship too, and do something good for impoverished HIV/AIDS victims: pass this bill.
