Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have three questions for Mr. Williams and one for Mr. Keon. But before I get to the questions, there was a very helpful suggestion that was provided by Mr. Williams in his speech. That was that there should be an independent, comprehensive review of the objectives, accountability, value for money, and health outcomes as they relate to the common drug review and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. That may be something the researchers and the other members of the committee may want to consider in the final report.
First I will lay out my questions, and then I'll let you answer them as you wish.
Mr. Williams, you also say that it is your recommendation that the federal government freeze funding to the CDR. The federal government only provides a portion of the funding, and I wonder what goal that would accomplish, because this is not going to change immediately. What would the goal of that be?
I also wonder if you could explain the statement that you believe the CDR places too much emphasis on cost containment and not on patient outcomes. There is also a complaint that the process is not transparent—you don't have access to information, and it seems to be a bit of a black box. I would be interested in what you have to support that statement and what you estimate are the costs we're talking about. What is the difference between what has been provided and what you would like to have provided, and what would the cost of that be?
Finally, for Mr. Keon, on your suggestion that we substitute generics where possible and maybe increase the substitution for patented drugs, could you explain for us why generic drugs in Canada tend to be more expensive than they are for our neighbours to the south?
Those are my questions, Madam Chair.