131. The representative of Canada said that his delegation was disappointed that the European Communities had chosen to request the establishment of a panel to challenge certain aspects of Canada's patent laws and regulations. His delegation believed that this challenge was intended to strike not just the Canadian model for patent protection, but also the model used by many other Members. This was a vital issue for Canada with implications for many other Members. This panel request challenged the stated objectives of the TRIPS Agreement which were to balance a competitive investment, research and development climate with social welfare. In focusing on the pharmaceutical sector, the European Communities were challenging essential measures that many governments had in place to balance interests of innovators with interests of governments to ensure affordable access to medicines. He emphasized that Canada supported the effective protection of intellectual property rights: it had been instrumental with the European Communities and others in negotiating the TRIPS Agreement which contained both minimum substantive standards and effective enforcement procedures for the protection of intellectual property rights. However, at the same time, the Agreement provided that the application of those rights needed to be balanced against other important societal interests. The European Communities position, in challenging Canada's legislation, seemed not to reflect that balance, but instead a more absolutist form of protection. The TRIPS Agreement did not support such a position. Various provisions of the TRIPS Agreement expressly contemplated a balance between the rights of producers and users of technology. It recognized the fact that Members would take measures that were necessary for the protection of public health and promotion of other public interests. One of the ways to do so was through the use of limited exceptions. The TRIPS Agreement allowed limited exceptions to be made to patent rights, not in the narrow traditional sense of exceptions to other intellectual property rights but in the general sense of safeguards against overprotection in order to protect public policy objectives. The European Communities seemed to be forgetting that these provisions also formed a part of, and animated, the TRIPS Agreement. For these reasons, Canada could not agree to the establishment of a panel and hoped that the European Communities would reconsider their request in the light of the effect that it would have on national patent laws and the international trading system. This was not the type of issue that should be litigated but, if it were, it would be important for all Members to be involved as it would have a significant impact on all Members. Canada would certainly vigorously defend its patent law as it was fully consistent with what all Members had negotiated in the TRIPS Agreement.
