Bill C-9 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act (The Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 12, 2004
- Debated in principleFeb. 12, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 4, 2004
- Passed the second chamberMay 12, 2004
- Became lawMay 14, 2004
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
99% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,222 words introduced, 6,792 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core purpose of enabling compulsory licences to export medicines to developing countries was retained but the bill was expanded with new ministerial oversight and stricter conditions on importing countries. Section numbers, definitions, and amendment procedures were revised throughout, producing a longer and more detailed statute.
- Purpose clause now references Jean Chrétien’s pledge and extends section range.
Before: “to facilitate access to pharmaceutical products to address public health problems afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.”
After: “The purpose of sections 21.02 to 21.2 is to give effect to Canada's and Jean Chrétien's pledge to Africa by facilitating access to pharmaceutical products to address public health problems afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.”
- Amending schedules now requires specific ministerial recommendations.
After: “on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Health, amend Schedule 1”
- Additional undertakings required from least-developed countries importing under Schedule 2.
After: “that it agrees that those products will not be used for commercial purposes and that it undertakes to adopt the measures referred to in Article 4 of that decision”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill supplies many exact definitions and cross-references to dated international texts, yet repeatedly hands ministers, the Governor in Council and the Federal Court open-ended discretion phrased in subjective terms. Those two features together produce both rigid lists and wide room for argument over what is “appropriate” or “necessary.”
Open to argument
“if the Governor in Council considers it appropriate to do so”
Subjective standard lets the executive decide whether to add dosage forms or strengths without an objective test.“any terms that the Federal Court considers appropriate”
Leaves the content of termination or royalty orders to judicial discretion rather than fixed rules.“address public health problems afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics”
Uses open-ended language without numeric thresholds or closed lists of diseases.
Clear-cut
“An order under this section shall be made in a timely manner.”
Imposes an explicit statutory deadline on the making of amending orders.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Governor in Council acting on recommendations from several ministers to add or remove countries from Schedules 2–4 and to the Federal Court to fix royalties and other terms it considers appropriate.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated subjective phrases and broad regulation-making authority could ground a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Detailed definitions, enumerated conditions for each schedule, and mandatory court orders make it difficult for a person to argue that a breach has not occurred.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
not effective
The law aimed to enable export of affordable generic patented medicines to developing countries via compulsory licensing but resulted in only one shipment (to Rwanda in 2008) and has seen no further use due to its complexity and burdens. Official reviews found insufficient evidence early on and recommended non-legislative measures, while subsequent analyses confirm it failed to achieve meaningful humanitarian impact.
- Report on the Statutory Review of Sections 21.01 to 21.19 of the Patent Act - Canada's Access to Medicines RegimereviewInsufficient time and evidence had passed since CAMR's 2005 coming into force to warrant legislative changes; government should focus on non-legislative measures until a more definitive assessment.
- Canada's Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR): implementation-focused evaluation of Health Canada's responsibilities; final reportevaluationHealth Canada's 2008 implementation-focused evaluation assessed its CAMR responsibilities from 2004-2007 but noted limited participation and outcomes in the regime's early years.
- Canada's Access to Medicines Regime: Promise or Failure of Humanitarian Effort?studyCAMR is largely a failure of Canadian humanitarian efforts, with only one shipment exported despite global need, due to burdensome provisions deterring use.
- The politics behind the implementation of the WTO Paragraph 6 Decision in Canada to increase global drug accessstudyOnly two orders of antiretrovirals (for 21,000 patients in Rwanda) exported since 2004; future use unlikely without reform as the regime is too cumbersome.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.