66. The representative of Canada associated his delegation with the points made and the questions raised by the delegations of New Zealand and Australia. He saw no conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and said that each should be implemented in a mutually supportive manner. He said he was not convinced that patent law was the best means to ensure prior informed consent and access and benefit-sharing, or that an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement was the best way forward. However, he recognized the mandate in paragraphs 12 and 19 of the Doha Declaration and the July 2004 Framework.
67. He appreciated the exchange of views between the delegations of Peru and the United States, which had been based on real life situations and recalled that Canada had encouraged the proponents to elaborate on how their approach would have addressed real life situations. Such a diagnostic approach would help the Council and Members, who had not yet come to a firm view on these issues, to find the best way forward to prevent biopiracy. Recognizing that the submission of the EC had been to WIPO, he said that that forum continued to provide the best opportunity to resolve the questions on the relationship between intellectual property, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore.
