Canada-EU Free-Trade Complexities

The European Union is a powerful entity as a coalition of countries with a common goal; the advanced hauling the advancing up by their social, political, economic bootstraps. 

The union of so many countries that have historically been antagonistic toward one another, should it succeed further into the future, can only be a good thing for world stability.  With so much in common, and a shared sense of purpose, nations that once jealously guarded their sovereign autonomy and saw their neighbours as adversaries, have been brought to a state of usefulness to one another in a pluralistic yet inclusive set of values and priorities benefiting all.

A political, economic coalition of this kind sends a powerful message.  And its bargaining strength is not to be denied.  Little wonder then that other countries, far removed from the European continent, would dearly love to arrange special status within the EU benefiting them equally through mutual collaboration.  Countries, for example, as diverse as Israel and as Canada; the Middle East to North America - making for a peculiar geographic extension of the original purpose of forging unity between European countries.

And it may indeed prove to be useful for a country like Canada to have trade and economic benefits with the European Union.  Although the EU has ideas of its own that may not always be quite as beneficial to other countries as it would be to the aggregate within the EU.  Closer trade ties are fine, but some of the free-trade agreement recommendations don't actually sound as though they represent cost-savings to countries that attempt to lower their governmental-administered costs say, through the acquisition of pharmaceuticals.

The EU is interested in delaying the free-for-all that ensues when patent protection of pharmaceuticals expire, and generic drug companies begin to flood the marketplace with their own renditions of top-selling medications.  If the EU gets its way in its bargaining for a free-trade agreement with Canada, this country would be agreeing to costly extensions of patent protections which would benefit brand-name pharmaceutical conglomerates, to the detriment of the Canadian consumer and the federal and provincial governments which seek to lower their drug-acquisition costs through the purchase of generic products.

The old charge by the brand-names that unless they recoup their research-and-production costs handsomely and beyond, it will not continue to be feasible for them to continue investing in further research-and-development, a costly, slow process required to bring new products to market.  Advertising campaign costs to launch new drugs onto a waiting market often consume more dollars than the actual R&D, but that's another thing altogether.  Drug manufacturers are not in the business to provide anything resembling a 'cure' for dread medical conditions; the bottom line is what deeply interests them.

The brand-drug sector insists that a country which closely regulates patent expiration, encouraging generics to jump into the picture as soon as legally feasible, is not an environment certain to be a hit with the global industry to invest there.  On the other hand, maintaining and extending drug-patent protection interminably, short-changes the consumer, particularly the medically uninsured, as well as government at different levels having to purchase more costly versions of comparable drugs - and does no favour to the general drug-consuming society. 

When billions of dollars are earned by pharmaceutical companies for only one of their products, it's difficult to buy the line that their earnings don't warrant continued commitment to investment in research.  There are times when governments should just hang tough in the scrum of free-trade bargaining, and this is one of those times, for Canada serving its health-care-consuming population to best advantage.