Thank you.
I'd also like to add my thanks to Mr. Thériault for moving this important motion.
The PMPRB changes have been in the works for several years now. In fact, I argue they're overdue. They were supposed to be implemented on January 1, 2020, and then that was delayed to July 2020, and now they're delayed again to the end of this year.
I think it's important to note that there are positive changes in these regulations, and some concerns. The positive aspects are that there is no question that the PMPRB reform is necessary, and these guidelines will reduce the prices that Canadians pay for their drugs. They will also increase transparency in the pricing process.
As has been pointed out by some of my colleagues, there are concerns raised in the public and the pharmaceutical industry that these changes may negatively impact the availability of drugs in Canada. There is quite a bit of controversy around that point. Some believe that's the case; some don't. I think it's very important that we take a look at this.
I would suggest one thing, and that is in terms of how we proceed with this study. The elephant in the room right now is the motion that's going to be voted on by the House tonight. If that motion passes, then this committee will be directed to study COVID. I believe there's agreement across all party lines around this table that this is the number one public health issue facing our country. I'm concerned about House resources and how we would be able to proceed with two studies at the same time.
In my five years on committee, I don't think we've ever done that; I may be wrong. That doesn't mean we can't. I would suggest that we're in a unique situation now, because in normal circumstances we could just schedule more meetings. Now, with the technology issues and the limited resources of the House, I'm not sure we can meet more frequently. I would point out that this committee is still only meeting once a week, when it is our normal practice to meet twice a week. My understanding is that this is because there is a lack of resources and support for things like interpretation and technology.
I'm going to suggest that we vote for the study and proceed with it simultaneously, but we do it in this fashion: start with a briefing from the PMPRB itself, so all committee members know what the changes are. I know there were guidelines issued on Friday. I've read through them. It's a very complicated area; there is no question. This is not an easy thing to digest. Before we hear from anybody, I think we need to understand, as committee members, what exactly is being proposed in the PMPRB changes: What are they going to do? What are they not going to do?
Then, I suggest we invite the witnesses that Mr. Thériault has identified to send written submissions to the committee. Once we get those written submissions, we can then, armed with an understanding of what the PMPRB changes are and what the position of the stakeholders is, narrow it down and decide to hold hearings and hear evidence from those witnesses the committee feels are important to hear from first-hand.
That way we get the PMPRB study going right away. We start with a solid understanding of what the changes are; we create a portal for all the stakeholder groups that Mr. Thériault has identified to get their input into the committee, which is something they desperately want; and then we can be in a better position to use our very limited time wisely. Maybe it's late November; maybe it's early December. Maybe it's one meeting or two meetings or three meetings. I'm not sure how many we will need to hear from witnesses in person about their changes.
I'm going to conclude by saying that I want to add my voice to those of the cystic fibrosis community in Canada, who have done a great job in raising this concern, and also my thanks. Of course, they used the example of the fact that patients are not getting access to the life-saving and life-improving medication now, which is Trikafta. Speaking for my party, I will say that we believe that every Canadian should get the drug they need when they need it, without regard to their ability to pay.
There's clearly an issue, and a very live issue as to why they're not getting that medication. The pharmaceutical industry is blaming the PMPRB changes. Others say that is not the case, that big pharma...that there are other reasons those drugs aren't available. I think we do need to look into this issue and get to the bottom of it, but if it's okay with Mr. Thériault, if that process is okay with him, I think that accomplishes everything we want to do.
Finally, again, if the House motion passes tonight, we'll be directed to study the COVID issue. We will have no choice about that and will proceed with that, which will allows us to, as he says, walk and chew gum at the same time, but in a manner that I think is an intelligent and efficient use of our time and resources.