HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 25, 2001

• 0919

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): This meeting is called to order.

I've been given the word that one of the members has a notice of motion he would like to present right away. He has agreed that there will be no conversation about it. He just wants to let his colleagues on the committee know that this motion will be upcoming.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. I table the following notice of motion which reads:

That the Committee invites Bayer and Apotex to appear before the Health Committee in the matter of the stockpiling of Cipro by Health Canada.

• 0920

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

It's now my pleasure, on your behalf, to welcome today as our main presenter the Minister of Health, the Honourable Allan Rock.

Mr. Rock, if you're ready, you may begin now.

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning.

I welcome this opportunity to appear before my colleagues and the health committee to outline what Health Canada has been doing, as part of the government's counter-terrorism plan, to ensure the health and security of Canadians and to enhance our capacities to deal with public health incidents, should the need arise.

I need not, of course, remind anyone on the committee how the events of September 11 have fundamentally changed the focus of government. It has now centred attention on how we assess risks, how we prepare for every eventuality. It's also led to an increased degree of collaboration among governments, both here in Canada and abroad.

I think it's important that we have a public understanding of those risks and that the public also understand what the Government of Canada is doing to prepare to meet them. That's why I welcome this discussion among parliamentarians this morning.

I should first of all clarify Health Canada's role in these issues. As part of the counter-terrorism plan, Health Canada has the lead responsibility in government for coordinating health preparedness and the public health response to any emergency, including explosive, chemical, biological, nuclear, and natural threats to public health.

Prior to September 11, Health Canada had already begun to put in place a number of steps to ready our systems for a public health emergency. For example, in July 2000 we created the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response to consolidate and to focus Health Canada's activities. Immediately following the events of September 11, that centre was activated. Its operations have been on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week, since.

In June of 2000 the Government of Canada opened the microbiology lab in Winnipeg. It's a level 4 lab. It's one of the few level 4 labs in the world. What this means is that it's equipped by security and by the sophistication of its equipment to receive and to conduct research on some of the most deadly substances in the world. Following September 11, that lab was placed on high alert, and it remains so.

After September 11, Health Canada reacted immediately. On September 13, two days after the tragedy, Health Canada sent out advisories to chief medical officers of health across the country, urging them to watch for unusual diseases that might be linked to chemical or biological agents, and giving them pages of clues and signs to look for.

[Translation]

I think, Madam Chair, that all Canadians would agree that there is an urgency, and my Department has taken this very seriously. That is why just last week, I announced an investment of close to $11.6 million to help improve Canada's ability to protect its citizens from any public health security incidents that might occur.

These new measures are part of an integrated strategy to counter the threat of terrorism, and complement initiatives already undertaken by my fellow ministers. They include the following: $5.6 million to buy antibiotics and chemical antidotes; $1.6 million for emergency-response training for front-line staff; $2.1 million to reinforce a Canada-wide network of laboratories; $2.2 million to purchase radiation sensors and detection equipment.

• 0925

[English]

Let me deal with each of those in turn.

First, in relation to stockpiling antibiotics, we're spending $5.6 million of this new funding to increase our stockpile. To determine the necessary pharmaceutical stockpile, Health Canada has studied the possible threats and risks for Canada and planned according to the prudent upper limit in realistic emergency planning. We've taken into account such factors as what agents might be used and how they might be used, along with the unique aspects of the Canadian context. That's why the Government of Canada has plans to stockpile antibiotics to treat 100,000 Canadians, not just against the possibility of anthrax but for other potential biological diseases.

Our foremost concern is the protection and the health security of Canadians. That is why we acted quickly, Madam Chair, to ensure that antibiotics are readily available if and when they're required. We've now reached agreement with Bayer Inc. for a guaranteed supply of Cipro within 48 hours of our request.

It bears repeating that although we prepare for the worst, the risk of such scenarios continues to be low. This planning should not alarm Canadians; it should reassure them that the government is being both prudent and vigilant.

The second item has to do with training. We're providing additional training for medical practitioners and laboratory technicians, who do, after all, make up the backbone of both detection and response. The money we're spending will develop a network of 1,500 trainers who will in turn train practitioners at the local level so that they can be ready to respond to any adverse events.

The objective is to ensure that everyone has a plan, that the local level swings into action first, calling, if necessary, upon the provincial and then the federal governments should the situation require it.

The third item involves laboratories. We're spending over $2.1 million to strengthen our Canada-wide network of laboratories so that testing of unknown materials can occur quickly and effectively across the country. The hub of the network is of course the level 4 lab in Winnipeg.

[Translation]

Fourth, given Health Canada's responsibilities for responding to radio-nuclear events, we have allocated $2.2 million to purchase state-of-the-art sensor and detection equipment for airports. These can identify radioactive materials in baggage and allow for improved response. These measures complement the announcement on airport security made by my cabinet colleagues over the last few weeks.

[English]

We believe that four-point plan equips us, in the short term, with what we need to enhance our preparedness. But apart from those measures, the key to being prepared is working with others. Collaboration across all governments—federal, provincial, municipal—is essential.

On September 24 I met in St. John's, Newfoundland, with all of Canada's provincial territorial health ministers. We agreed to work together closely to ensure a coordinated and seamless handling of emergencies, should they arise. I've been in communication with almost all the health ministers regularly by telephone since then.

We also instructed our deputy ministers of health to review current measures and protocols to make sure there's a strong, coordinated response in place in the health sector.

My department has held two face-to-face meetings and continues to hold weekly teleconferences with the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health, providing technical briefings on anthrax and focusing on the availability of antibiotics.

• 0930

Last Monday I appeared before the meeting of the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health to stress the importance of their role and my determination to ensure that we establish close, effective means of communication so that we can all respond in a coordinated way should something occur.

[Translation]

Earlier this year Health Canada distributed guidelines to Chief Medical Officers of Health for the emergency responder agencies to use in their respective local jurisdictions to help ensure a coordinated and unified approach across the country.

And we are also working with other valued stakeholders who can offer their expertise and insight into Canada's health care system. For example, the Canadian Medical Association and 13 other national health organizations have created, Madam Chair, a Canadian Mental Health Support Network that will help Canadians cope in these challenging times. Health Canada looks forward to partnering in this effort. We recognize that we achieve our best results when we work together.

[English]

Terrorism, particularly bioterrorism, does not respect national borders. International collaboration is also essential. Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to meet in Washington with my counterparts from the United States, United Kingdom, and Mexico to discuss emergency preparedness. We had a very positive discussion. It moved very quickly toward looking at concrete areas for cooperation and collaboration. These areas included vaccine and antibiotic procurement, information sharing and surveillance, and food safety.

I've since spoken with Secretary Thompson on a range of issues, including potential collaborative approaches to the availability of smallpox vaccine.

Let me conclude, Madam Chair, by saying that, as you can see, although it's considered unlikely that Canada would be the target of a bioterrorist attack, it is of course prudent to prepare ourselves for that eventuality. Health Canada is working diligently on many fronts to do its part.

I'd be pleased to discuss any aspect of this matter with you and with members of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister Rock. We've been waiting with interest for this summary you've given us this morning. I want to thank you for coming to us.

I think we'll now begin with the questions.

Ms. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the fact that Canadians are very anxiously looking for leadership and direction and some game plan from this minister and from the government in the event of a bioterror attack. Unfortunately, this whole exercise has been seriously clouded by the controversy surrounding the purchase of the drug Cipro.

We now have received copies of affidavits the minister's department has produced. From the department's affidavits, we know a number of things. First, on October 15, the department became aware that Apotex had 400 kilograms of the raw materials needed to manufacture Cipro.

I might point out that stockpiling a patented product is prohibited under the Patent Act.

The same day, October 15, the department contacted Apotex and was told the company could produce 900,000 tablets of Cipro. This would, of course, violate Bayer's patent. The affidavit reveals that there was no inquiry by the department as to whether Bayer could supply it.

The next day, October 16, the department called Apotex and placed an order for illegal Cipro. It also issued a purchase order, which was signed. The delivery date was to be November 8. The same day, the department asked the legal patent holder, Bayer, through a low-level purchasing clerk, to supply 400,000 tablets by the next day. This was an extraordinary request, but unfortunately for the department, Bayer was able to comply.

• 0935

The next day, October 17, the department asked Bayer to supply additional Cipro, additional to the 400,000 tablets, immediately. Although Apotex had been given until November 8, Bayer was not given the same lead time. and Bayer was not told how much was required, just “Can you give us more?” No order was placed with Bayer for delivery on November 8 or any other date.

So I have two questions for the minister. The first one is, who made the decision on October 16 to purchase illegal product from Apotex?

Mr. Allan Rock: Madam Chair, the record is before the committee and speaks for itself. I want to emphasize three aspects of it.

First of all, Canadians are not spending a single cent of tax dollars more than is required to purchase the antibiotics we want and need—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: With respect, Madam Chair, that's not an answer to my question.

Mr. Allan Rock: —and we will stockpile for purposes of the health security of Canadians.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That's not an answer to my question.

Mr. Allan Rock: Secondly, yesterday, when we learned that Bayer had negotiated a special price with the U.S. government—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I asked a specific question, and I have limited time.

Mr. Allan Rock: —we insisted on the same price.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I need an answer.

Mr. Allan Rock: After we did so, Bayer agreed to supply them at that price.

Third, Madam Chair, the chronology of events is now crystal clear. The member can read it for herself. I've said time and time again, in the House and elsewhere—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Chair, this is a waste of my time.

Mr. Allan Rock: —that what happened here was resolved by discussion between the parties. The most important thing is that Canadians have access to the pharmaceuticals they need.

Now, Madam Chair, let me say at the outset, it's plain from my opening statement that Canada is now in a world in which we actually have to talk about preparing for bioterrorism, as unlikely as that is. I very much hope we can spend our time this morning talking about the real issues before Canadians, how we prepare for those threats, and not focus on dissecting a chronology that is already established and very clear.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Chair, I asked a simple question: Who made the decision on October 16 to purchase illegal Cipro from Apotex? An answer, please.

Mr. Allan Rock: The record speaks for itself. Officials made a decision, in good faith, to purchase that material.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Who made the decision?

Mr. Allan Rock: The officials at Health Canada.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Which officials?

Mr. Allan Rock: The people who are responsible for that section of Health Canada are here, Madam Chair. They're available to the committee, if the committee wishes to hear from them. If you wish to do so, please let me know. They'll be happy to appear before the committee. They're in the room.

The Chair: I don't really want this to turn into some kind of a witch hunt for officials who are trying their best in trying circumstances.

I also would like to remind the committee that the subject of this morning's meeting is Canada's preparedness for bioterrorist attack. It is not a court case. It is not a witch hunt. It is not to be a debate of minute details about who did what, on what day, at what time. This is not the purpose of the meeting.

It is in response to a motion—

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's the privilege of the opposition to ask the questions they themselves want to ask.

The Chair: Well, if the opposition prefers to nitpick over details—

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC/DR): We can ask our own questions, Madam Chair.

The Chair: —instead of allowing Canadians—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I believe I have the floor, Madam Chair.

With the greatest of respect, I would point out to the chair that this committee is here, on behalf of Canadians, to find out whether the minister is doing his duty and his job. My question is entirely in order. I would suggest that the credibility of this minister and whether the patent law of Canada was broken is of great concern to Canadians. It's not nitpicking at all. I'm surprised the chair would call it that.

I have a further question before my time slips away.

The affidavit filed by the department says that the health department's knowledge of this whole matter is based on a conversation their order clerk had with Bayer's order clerk. Now, I ask the minister, why did the minister decide that this hearsay, verbal exchange was sufficient for his officials to issue an illegal purchase order to a company that he worked for 20 years ago?

Mr. Allan Rock: The member pretends to say what Canadians are interested in, pretends to know what Canadians are interested in, and then goes on to say that Canadians are interested in the matter she's raising. I venture to say that Canadians are interested in knowing what we're doing to prepare for the unlikely but real possibility of bioterrorism. I venture to say—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Chair, if he would answer the question we could get on to other matters.

Mr. Allan Rock: —that Canadians are wondering why this member and others are focusing on the interests of a pharmaceutical company and not on the true questions.

You know, the reality is that there are real questions about what the threats are.

• 0940

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Chair, if I could get an answer to this question, I could then go on to others.

Mr. Allan Rock: For instance, what is anthrax? What do we know about it?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: We're wasting a lot of time—

Mr. Allan Rock: How prepared are we for it?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: —because the minister's dodging a clear question.

Mr. Allan Rock: How do we deal with it if it arises?

I think those are the things Canadians would want us to talk about, Madam Chair. I regret they are not the subject of these questions.

The Chair: Ms. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: The committee is here to get answers from the minister. I asked a very clear, direct question: Why did the minister decide that a hearsay exchange between his order clerk and Bayer's order clerk was sufficient evidence on which to go ahead and break the patent law of Canada?

Mr. Allan Rock: The record speaks for itself, Madam Chair.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: If the record spoke for itself, I wouldn't have to ask the question. Why did the minister make this decision on the basis of hearsay evidence from those two low-level exchanges?

Mr. Allan Rock: It wasn't the minister who made the decision. The record speaks for itself.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: In other words, Madam Chair, the minister has no intention of answering the question that is on many, many Canadians' minds. That is a shame.

Mr. Allan Rock: The shame, Madam Chair, is that this member, instead of focusing on what's truly important to Canadians, uses this opportunity, in a parliamentary process, to ask those questions. I think Canadians would rather have us talk about what we're doing to prepare Canada, in the current world, for real issues.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Chair, this minister's credibility—

Mr. Allan Rock: It's regrettable that she's wasting her time.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: —in a straightforward dealing is of great interest to Canadians. If he can't handle a small matter like the purchase of a few tablets of Cipro, how can he manage things like smallpox vaccines, the information exchanges that are going to be needed in an emergency, or a response to citizens who are going to be needing help and assistance? If there's a screw-up in the smallest thing, why would we believe there can be a credible, believable, trustworthy plan on the big picture?

Mr. Allan Rock: If that's the way the member wants to look at it, let me ask her to remember that a week ago, Madam Chair, Canada did not have a reliable access to Cipro. As a result of Health Canada, it now does. It has that access without spending an extra cent of Canadian taxpayers' dollars, beyond what's required to obtain it. It has that access at preferred prices as a result of Health Canada's intervention yesterday with Bayer. Today, we have the security of access to the antibiotics we did not have a week ago.

And that, Madam Chair, is what's important in protecting Canadians' health security.

The Chair: Ms. Ablonczy, your time is up.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Frankly, I'm a little intrigued by some of the conversation that's coming across the table. If the committee would like to investigate governments doing things that are maybe not in strict accordance with policy or regulation, you might want to go back and look at the things we did during the 1997 flood. The reality is that when you're faced with circumstances that are threatening, you take action. And frankly, I would rather they took action and guaranteed my security, safety, and health and worried about the details afterwards.

I find this whole debate to be kind of foolish and way far away from the issues that we need to be addressing here—that is, are people being protected, are we under attack?

You know, sometimes the regulations we have don't fit the situation. That is a fact. We ordered and did things during the flood in 1997 that, because peoples' lives and homes were at risk, didn't fit the manual of administration. I'm sorry, it happens.

The fact that two public officials took the initiative to see that we had a supply and were protected at this time is.... I think they should be commended, not condemned for it.

Mr. André Bachand: Do you have that information?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Two, one—whoever it was; I don't know who they are. I have the same information you have.

So I have to tell you, to be perfectly honest with you, I think we'd be better served if more public officials took initiative, and I am pleased the minister's done it.

The Chair: Do you have a question?

Mr. Reg Alcock: No, I don't have a question. I just have annoyance that my time has been wasted like this.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. McTeague.

You have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It is not directed against you, Dan, but I do not understand. When we have a witness, when a minister comes, the members of the opposition parties are supposed to be first to ask questions. I do not understand that two members of the government ask questions before the opposition members. We are here to do this job, to ask questions. You know very well that we have rules that say that, when a minister and witnesses come here for budgetary matters, the members of the opposition who wish so come first for questions.

• 0945

[English]

The Chair: We've never adopted a particular rule on this. Our usual style is to give ten minutes to the opposition—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: We had an agreement.

[English]

The Chair: —at first, before we give five minutes to the government, and then we go back to the opposition.

So we'll go with Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam Chair, I'm interested not in making political statements, as my colleague here is. He obviously has forgotten that McGill University has pointed out that the net effect of drug patents, as they are currently in Canada, means that a lot of poor people in his province don't have an opportunity to get effective drug care. In fact, his hospitals are indeed replete with individuals, thousands a year, who wind up in hospital as a result of under-dosing; they simply can't afford the drugs in this country.

In the context of why the minister is here today, I want to deal with the threat of bioterrorism.

Minister Rock, I have before me a column written by Elisabeth Bumiller for the October 18 New York Times. It says, very clearly:

Although Bayer, a German pharmaceutical company, is tripling production of Cipro, it will take the company 20 months, working 24 hours a day, to produce what Mr. Thompson

—the Health Secretary of the United States—

says the government needs—enough pills to treat 12 million people for 60 days each.

I note that there is obviously a supply problem, which your department has correctly taken a leadership role in trying to address.

If you've been following some of the articles in the United States and around the country, you'll note that, based on what we have done here to try to bring to light the question of affordability at a time of perceived threat to our national security, Bayer in the United States has also followed suit and dropped the price of their Cipro to generic levels in the United States.

So I want to thank you, Mr. Minister. While some in the opposition want to deal with a flawed Patent Act, and while those in the opposition have tried to make political hay at the expense of consumers, we have been focused on what the public needs the most, and that's security.

I'm interested in your definition, Minister, of whether or not, under the circumstances, our responsibilities under the WTO with respect to TRIPS, which allows us in certain circumstances of security to be able to acquire cheaper drugs, is indeed relevant to this issue, and more to the point.

Given that Cipro and Bayer do not possess a product patent but rather a process patent, which has been challenged, through the notice of compliance, for the past seven years, do you not think now that Canadians would agree, unlike the opposition, that the real issue is automatic injunction and the affordability of drug care in this country? The opposition wants to hear nothing of it, because of course they're pandering to the big “pharma” as opposed to dealing with their own constituents, and that's individuals who, day in and day out, have a concern in the context of bioterrorism.

Minister.

Mr. Allan Rock: In the context of my job, my focus was getting the drugs. I mean, that was the issue. The question was, can we stockpile, either by taking physical possession or having a manufacturer promise delivery within a reasonable time or by having a manufacturer set aside some pharmaceutical product in its inventory, and keep it current, in terms of expiry date, so that when we need it we can have it?

That's my job, as Minister of Health. The Minister of Industry may have some views on the Patent Act, on whether it does serve Canadians in its current form, or on the question of access of generics to the marketplace. I have views about those things, too, and strongly held views, but those are not the issue here.

The issue, for me, was access to the pharmaceuticals. My request of Health Canada was to put us in a position where we could have antibiotics to meet the needs of 100,000 Canadians. That was the number we estimated was appropriate and prudent. Then steps were taken to do that.

We're very close to that now. We're almost there in terms of meeting our goal. But we also have to concern ourselves with issues of distribution. What happens if there's a need for those drugs? How do they get from the stockpile to where they're needed? How do we pick up the cases if there is something that happens out there? How do we know front line doctors and nurses will know enough about what to look for that so they'll recognize it when it happens? How do we make sure there's a connection and communication between the front line medical worker, the municipal medical officer of health, the provincial authorities, and my office so that we have a seamless line of communication to respond quickly, share information, and let the public know what's happening? All of those are part of this very complex matter.

So patent is part of it, Mr. McTeague, but it's a much broader issue, too.

• 0950

Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Minister, I think a lot of Canadians may be a little concerned to know that, while there are some who want to wave around a document that says it's the drug patents act, what is really being sacrificed and what is really being put into question, at a time of real fear, is indeed the security of the health care system. And so far what I've seen, as I've certainly shared with other colleagues, on both sides, is that, rather on one side of the uniform, there is the perception that we have somehow broken the law, and that this should be the issue of the day, meanwhile missing the real global picture. We had a bit of a taste of that, by the way, with respect to the AIDS pandemic in South Africa, where the drug companies clearly demonstrated their willingness to put profits ahead of people.

I'm wondering if the same issue, being transposed here in Canada, puts our government and our Parliament in a dilemma. The dilemma is, ought we to be pursuing policies and laws that reflect the interests of Canadians, particularly in a time of crisis, or should we be holding onto single-interest documents or laws that do not apply correctly in the context of what we're seeing in Canada and the United States, sir?

Mr. Allan Rock: Again, if there's a policy discussion to be had about the Patent Act and whether it is an appropriate expression of Canadian policy, I think that's Mr. Tobin's to deal with, as the Minister of Industry.

Certainly from my perspective, so long as it's the law it has to respected, and we're going to respect it. If there was an error made by officials, it was an error in good faith to protect Canadian public health. And it was resolved in the sense that we discussed it with Bayer and we came to an agreement, which Bayer accepted.

My focus, as I say, has been on getting access to the pharmaceuticals, on doing things to protect Canadians' health. But the issues that are before me, and I suggest before this committee this morning, are broader than patents. I know the political and partisan reasons that would attract members to that subject; it's in the newspaper, and therefore it'll get them in the newspaper if they talk about it. But I think it would be an awful shame if we talk only about that and not about what I think Canadians really want to hear us talking about. They want to see us having an adult conversation about protecting them should something occur.

Now, are we capable of that, or do we have to just put on a spectacle of partisan caterwauling where people try to get their names in the paper by talking about something that's already in the paper?

The Chair: Well, we'll see if we're capable of that, because Mr. McTeague's time is up. We'll see how Mr. Merrifield comes through.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much. I appreciate the time I've got.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What order are you going to follow now? How comes that the Reform Party had the floor twice whereas we, on the other side, do not have it?

[English]

The Chair: You will be next on the opposition side. That's the way we always do it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Why does the party...? [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chair: The first two questioners are from the official opposition, and you're next—then Judy, then Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be succinct, as I usually am, and I would appreciate the minister being equally as succinct.

This is not about patent companies, necessarily. My line of questioning would go to actual motivation behind what is actually being done in the best interests of Canadians. That's the line we're being told.

And I don't think we're worried about us being in the papers. I would be more worried about you not being in the papers, Mr. Minister.

I do have some questions going back to the affidavits you supplied the country with yesterday with regard to events that took place on October 15, 16, and 17.

On October 16, patent law was broken in this country. You suggested here, just a few minutes ago, that today we have—

The Chair: Please, Mr. Merrifield, go through the chair. Don't say “you”; use the third person.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

Today you said...or the minister said that he has stockpiles of Cipro in preparedness for Canadians. We certainly appreciate that. He said we did not have that prior to last week. But on the morning of October 17, there was a delivery of 399,000 pills to your department. As well, there were more of them stockpiled prior to that.

I don't understand that. On October 16 a patent law was broken, and an order was placed with Apotex. That same day an order was given to Bayer, with delivery the next morning. I don't understand why patent law was broken at that stage.

• 0955

I want to know, did you know about that patent law in your department being broken, and did you go to the commissioner on October 16?

Mr. Allan Rock: Again, all this is in the document. It speaks for itself.

Let me just say this. First of all, of course I didn't know about the decision to buy from Apotex. That's clear. As I say, we wanted to protect 100,000 Canadians with antibiotics, if needed. Now, you don't need Cipro for the whole 100,000 people. The advice given to me by the experts was that we should provide for Cipro for about 20,000 people, and we should provide for a variety of other antibiotics for the others. That mix was the appropriate stockpile to meet whatever might occur.

Now, 20,000 people.... When you're using Cipro, it apparently takes 100 pills per person. So that's 2 million pills that were necessary, or thereabouts. As Health Canada moved to secure the Cipro and moved toward the total of 2 million, they were doing so in an atmosphere last week, you'll recall, of very significant demand worldwide. There were concerns about the ability of Bayer to respond.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Madam Speaker—

Mr. Allan Rock: No, I'm answering his question, Madam Chair.

The fact is, we did purchase some from Bayer, as the affidavit says. When we moved to get more, they said they had none available, and they said that a second time. Then officials made the decision to go to Apotex to get the additional pills so we could fulfil our complement for the 20,000 people being protected.

Now, we've been through the question of the Patent Act. If officials erred, it was in good faith, trying to protect the public. Now the companies have come to the table and the matter's resolved, we're moving forward.

But that's what was going on. I'm able to tell the committee that this morning, as opposed to a week ago, we have the ability to say to Canadians, when it comes to Cipro, we have security of access that we didn't have then. Indeed, we have it at a preferred price, and we have it without spending a penny more of taxpayers' dollars than is required.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Madam Chair.

Obviously you didn't answer the question, so I imagine you didn't go to the patent commissioner.

Mr. Allan Rock: I answered it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Madam Chair, the minister also said in the House yesterday that he needed the Cipro by the weekend. The order had to be placed last week, because if there was an outbreak over the weekend, he had to be prepared, or we had to be prepared as a nation. And yet the delivery of that is November 8.

Was that same order placed with the patent holding company? Was that same order, that would have been supplied by the generic on November 8...was that placed, and was that asked for by the patent holding company?

Mr. Allan Rock: Again, the document speaks for itself. Twice Bayer was asked for more Cipro, and twice they said they couldn't provide it. So the officials acted as described.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That really seems odd, because October 15 and 16 is when the stockpile was placed, prior to any asking. When you asked the brand name company on October 16, they delivered it on October 17. It's absolutely unbelievable that a company would be able to respond like that if they were so short that they couldn't supply by November 8.

Mr. Allan Rock: And then what did they say when we asked for more, to fulfil our quota?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Well, obviously—

Mr. Allan Rock: They said they had no more available.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: —there's a conflict between who said what at that stage.

Mr. Allan Rock: No, no.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's why the story becomes somewhat unbelievable.

Mr. Allan Rock: Someone put this on paper and swore to it.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I think we've got a....

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Madam Chair, it seems to me that the discussion of patents really belongs with the industry committee.

Is it possible...because some of us, and I'm one of them, are really very interested in the minister answering questions pertaining to the—

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Rob Merrifield: You wave a piece of paper around about the drug patents, and now you don't want to talk about it.

Mr. John Bryden: At any rate, Madam Chairman—

The Chair: Order.

I understand what you're saying, Mr. Bryden. I reminded the committee at the outset what the topic of this meeting was supposed to be, and suggested that we stick to the topic—that is, the protection of Canadians against bioterrorism. However, I cannot totally control what the opposition asks, so I think we just have to live through it.

• 1000

Mr. Merrifield, I stopped the clock for you, so you still have a few minutes.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

Well, we seem to be going around this dance on the affidavits, but all of the information on all of the questions I have asked have come directly from the minister's affidavit.

Mr. Allan Rock: And they're all answered by the affidavit, too.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: No, they're actually not. That's why the questions are still there.

Was anyone disciplined for breaking patent law in Canada?

Mr. Allan Rock: No.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Will they be?

Mr. Allan Rock: No.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Was it your decision?

Mr. Allan Rock: What was my decision?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: To break patent law in Canada—

Mr. Allan Rock: No.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: —on October 16.

Mr. Allan Rock: No.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you the minister? No.

Mr. Allan Rock: I'm answering your questions, Mr. Merrifield. Do you have others?

And Monsieur Ménard, we'll come to you. Let's see if you have any better questions. Let's just deal with Mr. Merrifield first.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are not the chairperson.

Mr. Allan Rock: Yes, well, neither are you, so wait your turn.

Rob Merrifield, do you have more questions?

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, let's go to another question.

You are saying—

The Chair: “The minister” is saying.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes, the minister is saying that his first motive behind all he does is the safety and well-being of Canadians. Yet can you supply smallpox vaccine, say, or botulinum vaccine right now in Canada to protect Canadians from an attack on that front, which is much more severe and much more significant than what we're playing with in terms of anthrax?

Mr. Allan Rock: I'm happy to answer that question. That's something we should get into, and we should talk about.

Smallpox vaccine is in very short supply in the world. People who have smallpox vaccine don't have it for sale. They have it because it's left over from seventies stocks, when the world thought smallpox had been eradicated.

Canada has some smallpox vaccine. I'm told we have vaccine to vaccinate about 380,000 people. It's old vaccine, but I'm told it's still clinically effective.

I'm also told that there are technologies by which you can take the vaccine and dilute it, and it's still effective. You can use it for more than 380,000 people. I'm told it could possibly be a dilution factor of 10, which means 3.8 million people could be vaccinated. I don't think that's enough. I think we should have more. But there isn't any more to buy at this moment.

There's a worldwide effort on to get more into production. In fact, there are efforts now being made, Madam Chair, to develop new vaccines that are more effective than the old vaccines, more modern, using modern genetic and other technologies.

I've spoken with the American secretary of health, and he has committed to purchasing 300 million doses of smallpox vaccine for the United States. He and I have talked about Canada being part of the process of developing, and then purchasing, large supplies of smallpox vaccine. I've told him we're interested in that discussion, and in pursuing it. I now have under discussion with the caucus and with cabinet colleagues the question of whether we should commit to buying the 30 million or 32 million doses.

Frankly, I'd be interested in the views of the members of this committee, if they would be prepared to share those views. I think that's something we should talk about.

Now, let me make it clear, I don't believe we should go out and vaccinate 30 million people today, but I do think we should look at whether we want to have vaccines for 30 million people available in the event that it occurs.

The last thing I'll say, before going back to Mr. Merrifield, is obviously this is an extremely remote possibility. Smallpox was eradicated 25 years ago. But this is different from anthrax, because smallpox is infectious, as opposed to anthrax, which is not, person to person.

If there is an event, I would think it would be a worldwide response. It's in the interests of the world to move in and contain and stop it. But we all have to contribute to that solution, and that's why we have under consideration at this moment the possibility of purchasing very significant quantities.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for coming this morning. I'm very glad you're here. Certainly with the issues that were raised last year about the safety of Canadians and the safety of all our families, we welcome you here this morning.

• 1005

Can you explain to me what other areas there are that we need to be concerned about and be protected against? I'm sure your department, in this new world of bioterrorism threats, is working extensively to make sure we are protected, as you did last week. In the conversation I had with you, I said it makes me nervous that we don't have a supply, and I hope we get one quickly. To me, that was the most urgent thing, and I thank you and your department for taking whatever steps were necessary to protect Canadians.

Now onto the next step. What other threats are out there, and what else is Health Canada doing to ensure that we are protected in the future?

Mr. Allan Rock: Madam Chair, a number of biological agents have been identified as possible risks. Anthrax is one of them, but there are others. We've talked about smallpox, and we could talk about others. There are also chemical agents we have to be aware of. Of course, there are radio-nuclear threats, which we also have to have in mind. Now, these are remote, are unlikely, but if you're preparing, you have to know what you're preparing for.

I think the biggest challenge we face is getting a seamless system in place from the front line all the way back. Let me tell you what I mean. I think every disaster starts off as local. Sometimes you only understand afterwards the significance of it as being national or global. The first response is local, whether it's a nurse or a doctor identifying the early signs of a biological agent; whether it's that person passing the word up the line; whether it's a medical officer of health identifying a cluster of events so that we can see a pattern developing; or whether it's making sure that, once that information is understood, we have all levels of government acting in a coordinated way to respond—sending in supplies, informing the public, reassuring the public as required, making sure hospital beds are available, and taking preventive steps so it doesn't spread.

That's our biggest challenge, making sure we pick up the threat at the local level, understand its significance, and then coordinate our response. That's why I've been on the phone with provincial ministers, that's why I've met with some of them personally over the last couple of weeks, and that's why I met with the chief medical offers of health on Monday here in Ottawa. That's why we're working very hard at Health Canada to keep those lines of communication open, to get protocols out there as to how to react if something happens, and to make sure who's responsible for what so that if, God forbid, something does happen, everybody knows the part they are to play and there's no confusion.

Ms. Judy Sgro: Are your health officials working with the various city health officials on trying to identify what possible activity out there could happen, and just where we would get what we would need, regardless of whether it is generic or patent or any of the issues out there? If an outbreak comes this week of something else, do we have enough access in Canada to the drugs we need?

Mr. Allan Rock: I believe we do. We're very close to meeting our goal of having antibiotics for 100,000 people. As I mentioned, it's a mixture of antibiotics. Cipro's part of it, but only part of it. There's also a wide range of other antibiotics that we have secured.

So I believe we do. But that's only part of the story, as I've said. There's reinforcing the laboratories. If something's picked up, it has to be tested so that we can rule in or rule out what it is. Our goal in the laboratory strategy is to make sure that every region of the country has a level 3 laboratory available to it so that no matter where in the country an agent or substance might be found, it can be brought quickly to a level 3 lab, analysis can be done, obvious threats can be ruled out, and, if they can't be ruled out, it can be taken to level 4 in Winnipeg, quickly, for the kind of sophisticated analysis we need to respond appropriately.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: First, let me tell you kindly that I find that you are quite daring to come before us and say that your priority is the health of Canadians, as if it were not ours, whereas your officials have had a memo for 14 months and you did nothing in fact to prepare for the fight against terrorism. So I think it is quite daring on your part.

• 1010

[English]

The Chair: Through the chair, please. It's not “you”, Mr. Ménard, it's “the minister”.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I speak through you, but let me finish. Do your job and I will do mine.

Mr. Allan Rock: This is not true, Madam Chair. This is clearly not true.

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is not my question. My question is that you are a lawyer and that you know the law and the meaning of the word affidavit. The parliamentarians have here an affidavit signed by Bayer, Madam Chair, and this affidavit clearly indicates that Bayer was able to meet Health Canada's demands. Either Bayer or you did not say the truth.

The question I am asking you is from what moment did you, as the minister, have indications that Bayer could not meet the demand and do you maintain, in spite of the affidavit, that your officials acted in the best interests of Canadians? This is my first question to you, and I will have a couple more. Please, keep it brief and clear.

Mr. Allan Rock: First, Madam Chair, the priority of Health Canada is to protect the health security of Canadians. This is what we have been working at for months.

The member was wrong when he described Health Canada behaviour. For almost 18 months, Health Canada has started, with its centre, to get prepared for emergencies.

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is not my question.

Mr. Allan Rock: We also worked in close cooperation with our partners in the provinces and territories. We have reinforced Health Canada's capacity...

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is not my question, Madam Chair.

Mr. Allan Rock: ... to provide the expertise needed to have a better understanding of these threats. And, as I already said, we have maintained a four-point approach, namely the stockpiling of antibiotics...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Who? What branch, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Allan Rock: ... the enhancement of laboratories,...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are we to understand that it is the branch responsible for drugs?

Mr. Allan Rock: ... the informing of doctors and nurses...

Mr. Réal Ménard: We want to know about what branch we are talking.

Mr. Allan Rock: ... to ensure that we are prepared...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I am the one who asks questions.

[English]

The Chair: Order, Mr. Ménard. You asked a question, and the answer is being given.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I do not want to hear a statement under rule 31. I will rephrase my question to the minister: what branch of his department is responsible for the purchase of drugs? Are the deputy ministers associated with it? Is there some signing authority at the end of the process? Here is my question: what branch is responsible for the purchase of drugs? Are the deputy ministers associated with it? Do you have, at the end of the day, a signing authority on this?

Statements under rule 31 will be made later in the House.

Mr. Allan Rock: Madam Chair, we did describe the events of the last seven days in details; the facts have been given to the committee. We have here, in this room, Health Canada officials who are available to answer the questions of the committee concerning the details of the organization of my department.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am asking you what branch it is. You are certainly able to answer this, as the minister. Is your associate deputy minister responsible for that branch and do you have a signing authority?

The questions should be asked by parliamentarians; you should provide the answers. I am asking you what branch, Mr. Minister. You are the minister; you should be able to tell me this. Do you give any authority? Did you authorize something, in the end? This is what ministerial responsibility is all about. Do your job. I will do mine.

Mr. Allan Rock: Madam Chair, all the officials of Health Canada signed the documents under their authority.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay.

Mr. Allan Rock: And, Madam Chair, the facts are clear: the officials acted in good faith.

Mr. Réal Ménard: What officials? What branch? Who? Could you be just a little more precise?

Mr. Allan Rock: The officials of the department are here. They are available for the committee.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay.

Madam Chair, we can move, with the consent of parliamentarians, that they come...

Mr. Allan Rock: The deputy minister is here, Madam Chair, and he is available for the committee.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay. Bring them with you.

But tell us what is you role in the authorizing of the drugs. You should be able to answer this. Yes, some mistakes may have been made by officials. You are able to answer this. However, it is contempt of the House when you do not answer the questions.

Mr. Allan Rock: What I asked the officials, is to stockpile enough drugs to protect 100 000 Canadians.

Mr. Réal Ménard: To whom did you ask this? In what context? Why Apotex?

I have one last question, Madam Chair. Why did Apotex give up its claim for $1.3 million? Does it have anything to do with your professional practices? In the world of sport they call this for “services performed” . Explain us how Apotex suddenly gave up $1.3 million? What do you have to tell us about this, Mr. Minister?

• 1015

Mr. Allan Rock: Madam Chair, I asked the officials to stockpile enough drugs to protect 100 000 Canadians.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay. I understand this.

Mr. Allan Rock: It was my objective to protect the health of Canadians. We chose 100 000 as the appropriate and prudent target. This is why I asked the officials to do that.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Who? What branch?

[English]

The Chair: Your time is up, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But are you going to talk a little about Apotex?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to take the conversation back to the original subject, if I may, and ask just a couple of questions.

One, there is a level 4 lab that's mothballed near Toronto. Is there any thought of reactivating that, or can we manage with the Winnipeg lab for now?

Mr. Allan Rock: It's our assessment that the Winnipeg lab is sufficient for the purpose. Our concern is more in making sure we have level 3 labs available across the country. Level 4 is obviously something you want as a backstop, and this truly is a world-class facility.

I think what we more urgently need, and what we're working on, is to make sure that wherever in the country, whatever region of the country, there is a substance or an event, we have something in the region, a lab in the region, where you have people trained, where you have equipment necessary, and where you have protocols in place so that you can quickly rule in or rule out some things you want to know right off the bat.

Mr. John Bryden: This danger of bioterrorism isn't limited to a response only from Health Canada professionals. Can you just give us a broader sense of how you might be mobilizing the professional expertise across the country to respond to the types of concern we now have with bioterrorism?

Mr. Allan Rock: Some of the experts at Health Canada have been in touch with people across the country who have expertise of their own, and they've been seeking advice from others.

If I may say so, Madam Chair, Mr. Bryden himself has been very helpful. He is not only a published author on the subject but he has also been kind enough to spend some time with me and talk about some of the leading figures in Canada who have knowledge of these matters. We are pursuing some of the leads he's given us.

There is rather a network across Canada of people who have real insight and knowledge in these fields. We intend to take full advantage of it by making sure our scientists are in touch with them.

I have also written to Dr. Bernstein, president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and asked him to focus on ways in which our research enterprise can help us accelerate our understanding of these challenges and some of the responses.

Mr. John Bryden: I have another question, Madam Chair, if I may.

Can the minister perhaps give us some sense of the liaison that might be going on between Health Canada and some of the other departments, such as environment and defence? This problem with bioterrorism crosses many ministerial frontiers.

Mr. Allan Rock: It does. In fact, I work closely with the Solicitor General, who chairs a government-wide team on emergency response and preparedness. The Minister of National Defence is also very much involved. Of course, we now have the advantage of a cabinet committee on security, chaired by Minister Manley, who's coordinating all of this work.

So it's true to say that a number of us are involved. Each of us has to do our part, but we have to make sure we're coordinated, one with the other, so that it's effective work.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I thank the minister for being here. When I put the motion to have this discussion, it was to deal with the threat of bioterrorism, to get a better sense of government plans. Obviously, events have overtaken some of this. I think all of us are interested in sorting out the whole anthrax drug fiasco, because in fact it causes unease and fear at this time, which we don't need.

So I think it's important that we do get answers—

Mr. Allan Rock: People should be reassured that we now have a supply of drugs we didn't have a week ago, Madam Chair.

• 1020

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Perhaps I can just finish.

In the interest of having an adult conversation, as the minister suggested, let me remind the health minister of the adult response to the anthrax drug fiasco when it broke, which was that, yes, governments need access to reasonably priced drugs, just as Canadians do. Now, since that time, the minister has spoken very tough in the House. He has talked about Bayer playing a shell game and he has talked about the drug corporations using weaselly words. He has talked tough. We're asking him today if he's going to walk the walk.

Madam Chairperson, the Minister of Health knows very well that this whole issue really raises the issue of access for all Canadians to reasonably priced drugs in times of emergency and outside times of crisis. That's the issue today that the minister needs to account for.

So the question is, as the Minister of Health, do you now see the importance of addressing some of these very strenuous patent protection provisions that benefit brand name drug companies, hurt generic companies, and keep reasonably priced drugs off the market and accessible to all Canadians? Some of his colleagues, such as the Minister of Industry back in 1987 and 1992, talked really tough when we were debating the patent protection legislation. In fact, the present Minister of Industry talked about festering wounds, about inflicting the exposed ankles of Canadian citizens, about sucking the bone marrow and lifeblood out of Canada's citizens.

Will the minister, who's also talking tough these days about brand name drug companies, translate that into action with respect to, as Dan McTeague said, eliminating the automatic injunction clause, which is really the provision that hampered a generic version of Cipro from getting on the market many years ago?

Mr. Allan Rock: I have views about access to medical drugs in Canada. They're strongly held views, but that's not the issue this morning. The issue for me, as Minister of Health, is making sure Canadians have access to a stockpile of antibiotics we may need in the unlikely event that something happens.

Frankly, the Patent Act has a provision where, if there's an urgent situation, the government can go to the Patent Commissioner and ask for exceptional access to the drug. So it's already provided for in the statute. If we referred this week to an error in good faith by officials acting in the public interest, it was in not going to that section and following that route.

So as I said earlier, I don't think this is an occasion to talk broadly about the nature of Canada's patent laws. I think it's an occasion to take steps to prepare ourselves in the face of the current realities. That means getting access to the drugs, which is what we've done.

The member can talk all she wants about the events of the week, but I bring her back to the bottom line, which is that a week ago we didn't, and now we do, have access to the drugs we need. We did that without spending a nickel more than was necessary, and we did that at a price, which is the preferred price from Bayer, for Cipro.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Chairperson, the difficulty we're dealing with is that when we ask questions about patents and access to drugs in terms of an emergency, following September 11, we get the health minister standing up. When we ask questions about access to drugs urgently needed by Canadians, and changes to the patent protection laws, the minister sits back and lets the industry minister respond.

Where is the health minister on this issue of reasonable access by all Canadians, in times of emergency or not, to reasonably priced drugs?

Mr. Allan Rock: Well, the health minister is busily stockpiling antibiotics. The health minister is strengthening our laboratory capacity so we can test agents that might turn up in Canadian cities. The health minister is out training front line responders so they know what to look for in this new world we're in after September 11. The health minister's out working with provincial and municipal governments to make sure that if something does happen, God forbid, we're able to respond quickly.

That's where the health minister is, and that's what I'm doing. Frankly, Madam Chair, I think that's the priority of Canadians.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do you have an opinion, though, on the present law and the automatic injunction clause? As the health minister, do you have an opinion?

• 1025

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, your time is up.

The next questioner will be Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Good Lord, what happened, Madam Chair? You have seen the light! Two opposition parties together!

Mr. Réal Ménard: She will get attached to us.

Mr. André Bachand: A lot of questions have been asked on the affidavit, Madam Chair...

[English]

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm doing that because the minister has only about four more minutes.

You will be the last questioner, Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Oh, the last shall be first!

My question is for the minister. Everybody knows, and this for a longtime, that before your political career, you worked for Apotex, in the eighties. This being said, it is something we will hear about. We have heard about it officially only this morning in the papers but it has been known for a long time.

In this unfortunate crisis of Cipro-Apotex-Bayer, and considering the perception people could have of the problematic of anthrax in Canada, did you advise the PMO or your colleagues that you already worked for Apotex in the past?

[English]

Mr. Allan Rock: Madam Chair, I practised law for 23 years. In the course of those 23 years, my law firm acted for thousands of clients, as did I. We acted for generic drug manufacturers and we acted for the brand name industry as well.

Madam Chair, if this member has a specific allegation to make about me, in relation to this drug, in this case, he'd better make it now, and in plain terms. If he doesn't, then I expect him to stand down, withdraw the question, and move on to something relevant.

Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, my question was quite simple. I asked, did you advise the Prime Minister's Office that you did work for Apotex in the 1980s? I didn't make any accusations. I think the minister is losing his temper. Maybe there's something there that I don't know, and the minister can share with the committee what he knows about Apotex. It's a question about Apotex.

Apotex seems to be quite generous, quite generous, this week. My question is, Apotex has a lot of company—

Mr. Allan Rock: This is outrageous. If this man has something to allege against me, let him do it. Let him do it or let him shut up.

An hon. member: It's a reasonable question.

Mr. André Bachand: Madam Chair, again, the minister won't answer my question. It is a simple question.

The Chair: It isn't just a simple question. It has implications that could be considered slanderous innuendo, so please be clear.

Mr. André Bachand: No, the question was quite clear. Did he advise the PMO? That's it.

An hon. member: That sounds reasonable.

Mr. André Bachand: It's quite reasonable.

[Translation]

I have another question, Madam Chair. As Apotex has several companies, can the minister tell us if Apotex, or affiliated companies, have been given contracts in the last few weeks, whether they are linked to the fight against terrorism or not?

Mr. Allan Rock: I have no idea.

Mr. André Bachand: All right. Thank you.

It would be very appreciated if the department could check and give the answer to the committee, Madam Chair.

I have another question...

[English]

The Chair: It is now 10:30 a.m. I am sorry about the notice—

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I have the floor for a minute, Ms. Ablonczy, and then I'll let you do it.

Ms. Ablonczy has pointed out to me that the notice of the meeting did say 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. I apologize for that. For those people who were present at yesterday's meeting—that is, the regular members, who attend regularly—I told them that the meeting would start at 9:15 this morning, and the minister would be with us for an hour.

It turns out we have had the minister for an hour and a quarter now, which is most generous. I thank him on your behalf for his generous spirit.

This meeting is adjourned.