Thank you, Chairman.
I'm very interested in the comments we've heard today, and I've heard many similar comments from my constituents. It's why I'm looking at this from the issue of patient access.
It always breaks your heart when constituents come into your office to tell you that government has been a hurdle to get the drugs they believe are absolutely necessary for their families. I heard the Best Medicines Coalition and the Ward Health Strategies say that.
Elisabeth Fowler, you made a few comments in terms of kidney cancer and in terms of cancer drugs. It's one of the themes I've heard again and again when I've heard concerns about this. You mentioned the most blatant one as being drugs that would be helpful for kidney cancer.
Are there a few other examples you can share with us in terms of cancer drugs that struggle to get to the market where the CDR has potentially been a barrier? We've heard before there are some differences among the drugs that British Columbia viewed as being approved, which the CDR turned down. Maybe there are a few other examples you can give us.
The other comment I wanted to hear is this. Mr. Bougher, you mentioned there were differences in drugs. It's why this has created differences in the provincial plans and it's why it was initially created. But aren't we still at the point today where we have wide differences across the country? If that was the reason for the creation of the CDR and it's still occurring, why would it be necessary now?
My third question for the guests today is this. Mr. Lexchin said the CDR was specific to Canada. But aren't the provincial plans specific to Canada too? Wouldn't health services in each province and drug plans in each province also have that Canadian sense to them?
Could I first hear from Ms. Fowler, and then Mr. Bougher, and then Mr. Lexchin, if there's time?