Gov't quiet on Europe's reform push in trade talks.
Europe's demands for patent reforms could cost health care billions due to higher drug prices.

-
Documents reveal plans to weave unpopular intellectual property treaty provisions into CETA.
-
What the BC government can't tell you about the sweeping new treaty being framed with Europe.
-
Risks said to rise as pharma helps OK drugs for use in province now.
The negotiations over a Canada-European Union trade agreement may be approaching the final stretch as both sides say they plan to wrap up the CETA talks by the end of the year. The parties have apparently reached agreement on roughly 75 per cent of the text, but the last quarter will require significant political compromise.
Canadian negotiators recently advised that there remains a sharp divide over issues such as investment rules, financial services, and taxation. Given the ongoing European financial crisis, these issues are particularly sensitive and will raise questions about how much risk the government is willing to assume in order to strike a deal.
The most contentious issue, however, is likely to be the intellectual property chapter. The revelation that provisions from the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement may sneak their way into CETA generated widespread headlines throughout Europe last month, with politicians and activists expressing exasperation at the clumsy attempt to secretly revive an agreement that was roundly rejected by the European Parliament.
Pharma fight
The Canadian opposition to the chapter will come from European demands for patent reforms that could result in billions in additional health care costs due to higher pharmaceutical prices. The pharmaceutical demands are one of Europe's top priorities, but Canada has thus far refused to counter the EU proposals, creating a stalemate that has dragged on for years.
Steve Verheul, the lead Canadian negotiator, said earlier this month that the pharmaceutical demands are unlikely to be discussed during the next two rounds of negotiations in September and October. Instead, the issue will be bounced back to cabinet, with the government ultimately making the decision on whether it is prepared to cave to EU demands with the trade agreement hanging in the balance.
The large pharmaceutical companies (known as Rx&D) insist that the reforms will increase research and development investment in Canada, yet past experience suggests that is unlikely to happen.
In the 1980s, the same industry lobbied for patent reforms that provided new rights and longer protections. In return, it promised to increase spending on research and development in Canada so that it would rise to 10 per cent of total sales by 1996. A new report from government's Patented Medicines Prices Review Board shows that not only has that goal not been achieved, but the research and development spending to sales ratio continues a decade-long decline, hitting its lowest level since the 1987 reforms.
According to the report (which is gathered from data supplied by the companies themselves), the research and development to-sales ratio for members of Rx&D was 6.7 per cent in 2011, down from 8.2 per cent in 2010. The Rx&D ratio has now been less than the promised 10 per cent for the past nine consecutive years and is approaching its lowest level since tracking began in 1988.
Freeze reforms
From a global perspective, Canada fares very poorly, ranking ahead of only Italy as countries such as France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.K., and U.S. all enjoy greater expenditures. In fact, the report notes that "several comparator countries, which have patented drug prices that are, on average, substantially less than prices in Canada, have achieved R&D-to-sales ratios well above those in Canada."
Given 25 years of mostly failed targets, the rational approach is to put a freeze on any further reforms at least until the industry lives up to its commitments. But with the agreement shrouded in secrecy -- the government has steadfastly rejected calls to release the draft text -- it appears that the major health care decision will be made behind closed doors with no public discussion, debate, or access to the official text. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png)
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.
6
Login or register to post comments
Hakuin
40 weeks ago
legalize pot
that'll teach 'em.
Fiat lux
40 weeks ago
All this, the wrecking of the
All this, the wrecking of the Canadian economy, starting with the 1988 FTA, has been predicted by many of us who fought against these "free trade" rackets, realizing already and even then that they had nothing to do with genuine trade, but with the takeover of our economies by international crooks.
I can easily prove it as I still have all the papers, a whole filing drawer full, of the fight, with all the predictions of the coming disasters.
Yet the crooks and the sucker public still wants and goes for more ? This is the most incredible and insane part.
What they're really doing is the setting up of signs around the borders with "Canada for sale to the lowest bidders" "Come and get it while it lasts"
The good old "conservative" way of "defence".
Defending the interests of our "wealth creating foreign investors" .
Ed Deak.
Bob Wiley
40 weeks ago
Free Trade Sucks
Ed Deak is totally right, free trade agreements are simply vehicles designed to steal the good paying jobs of the many and move them to low wage third world countries in order to further enrich the gluttonous few. Why do Canadians allow this to continue? Ignorance and fear would be my answer. Ignorance of the true nature of the capitalist economy and fear of losing the few fallen crumbs they've gathered.
alive
40 weeks ago
RX for dummies
Best way to cut the cost of prescription drugs is to question your doctor about the necessity of what he suggests!
Remember he is suggesting in most cases, and it is for you to understand that so-called "preventative drugs" in many cases do absolutely nothing and may even harm you!
It is smart to search for yourself on-line to understand what good they can do and if the possibility that they actually get to prevent anything is realistic.
Hakuin
40 weeks ago
1988 Ed?
it was 1985 when Lyin' Brian got in and gutted F.I.R.A.
Bernardo
40 weeks ago
@Bob Wiley Re: Free Trade Sucks
You may well be right. (I'm not firmly pro or con "Free trade", myself). But how can we tell?
Despite it's name, whatever the FTA was, it wasn't a reasonable free trade agreement. It was badly flawed and not only favoured American interests, but hobbled the larger legitimate public interest in matters such as the environment. Canada's chief negotiator essentially admitted this, and blamed it on American intransigence. But the deal went ahead anyway, probably because Mulroney so very badly needed an issue to fight an election campaign on.