Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My concerns are similar to those of Mr. Batters about patient access. Since I wasn't here when the common drug review came about, was there a reason why some people felt that drugs were being approved prematurely? Are there any examples of mistakes that happened in the system without the CDR?
Second, what is the point of the CDR if the provinces are approving drugs that are not recommended by the CDR? Can you explain what benefits may arrive from having those conflicting positions?
Third is a local issue I had in my riding. A constituent came into my office to tell me that her mother was suffering from cancer. The physician said that Iressa would be helpful, and my constituent wanted to know why the CDR hadn't approved it. It's very difficult when a constituent is very upset, when dealing with a loved one, by what she believes is red tape and incredible slowness on behalf of the federal government.
I understand that some of the provinces approve that drug, so why would some provinces say it's good enough for their patients when the CDR is saying it isn't? It just seems we get so many mixed signals out of this system.
Could you provide some light on this?