Activists also warned that a list of medicines in the bill would limit the flexibility of countries attempting to respond to domestic public health problems.

Today's amendment is Canada's effort to implement an August 30 2003 WTO agreement. That WTO agreement provides a temporary mechanism for countries to break patent monopolies on medicines for export to poor countries that lack sufficient local manufacturing capacity. A permanent amendment to WTO patent rules is due June 2004.

Every month in poor countries, 1.2 million people with treatable infectious diseases die because they lack access to medicines. Every day 8500 people die from lack of access to affordable AIDS medicine alone.

"Canada's good intentions are not enough," said Asia Russell of Health GAP. "Giving brand name companies preferential treatment will discourage generic competitionÑ-contradicting the intention of the amendment, and transforming an important display of leadership into little more than an empty gesture on the part of an outgoing government."

Activists noted that the current language shows the Canadian government resisted pharmaceutical industry pressure to include restrictions in several areas, such as the limitation of public health problems that would "qualify" for coverage under the amendment. "The Canadian government showed common sense and stood strong against industry pressure in several areas," said Brook Baker of Health GAP. "Instead of setting disastrous international precedent, they should eliminate this special right for brand name companies."

Activists also noted that establishing a right of first refusal for brand name companies in Canada would make it easier to establish the same system for other programs, such as Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which is directed by retired drug company CEO Randy Tobias. "If a flawed system that decreases, instead of increases the chances of generic competition is accepted by Canada, it will likely migrate to the Bush AIDS Plan, keeping Pharma happy, but undermining public health and access to medicines for all," said Amanda Lugg of Health GAP.

Canadian government officials expressed that the process of implementation has been time consuming and complex, despite having prioritized the project, noting that Canada had been working "around the clock" since an announcement late September of its intentions to amend its Patent Act.

"If Canada--one of the wealthiest countries in the world--says implementing the August 30 agreement is difficult and complicated, this provides important evidence that poor countries in the WTO need a simpler, more straightforward amendment to WTO patent rules, that corrects the flaws of the August 30 WTO Agreement," said Allison Dinsmore of Health GAP.

The U.S. Trade Representative publicly stated it would not challenge Canada's decision under NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) rules. While activists welcomed that indication of respect for the standard set by WTO rules, they noted that the White House continues to pursue excessive patent protection in regional and bilateral trade deals, including the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). "The USTR wants to have it both ways," said Sharonann Lynch of Health GAP. "NAFTA will not be used for now to challenge efforts to increase access to life saving drugs. But restrictive trade deals are just around the corner. Countries must resist U.S. Pressure and reject efforts to include intellectual property negotiations in regional and bilateral trade agreements."

#30#