I want to move the following motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) Guidelines issued on October 23, 2020; that, as part of this study, the Committee invite experts and pharmaceutical industry representatives, as well as civil society organizations or associations (representing patients), to appear; that the Committee hold a minimum of four meetings; that this study be conducted in parallel with the Committee's study on COVID-19; additional meetings should be added to the Committee's schedule if the Committee deems it necessary; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that the government provide a response to these results within 30 days.
Let me begin by explaining the end of the motion. Since the guidelines are scheduled to come into effect on January 1, the government must respond within a short time frame.
The purpose of this motion is to ensure that we can hear from experts who are in favour of the guidelines and from experts who are opposed to them. These experts aren't opposed to the spirit of the guidelines, which aim to control the price of drugs. Instead, they're opposed to the potential adverse effects of the guidelines. This view is particularly prevalent among associations of patients with rare diseases.
This motion is anticipated by a number of people. Of course, there were consultations, but they took place behind closed doors. We should now allow all the stakeholders and players involved, primarily the patients, to come and speak. That way, we, as legislators, can adopt informed recommendations on this issue.
It's not that the goal isn't commendable. Rather, the measures taken must be considered as a whole.
If we look at the drug strictly as a cost, in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, we'll be severely limiting our view of what's therapeutic. If we look at the drug as part of the quality of care, it becomes something else.
We must look at the ways in which this reform could disrupt all economic sectors tied to the pharmaceutical industry, for example, as well as life sciences.
Some people have opinions on this. I haven't made up my mind on this issue yet. That's why I want us to hold meetings to discuss this issue. These meetings could be added to our schedule or could alternate with the other topics under consideration. Of course, in the coming days, the House will probably adopt an order concerning the pandemic and the study that we must conduct on the topic. That said, I think that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. In other words, we can spend time on this study as well, which we must carry out quickly, given the January 1 deadline.
In terms of the approach, the words “in parallel” imply additional meetings or alternating studies. The committee will decide how to proceed.
I encourage all my colleagues to support this motion if they want to give all associations of patients with rare diseases the opportunity to have their voices heard by the committee members.
I'll stop here for now, since I believe that I've clarified the motion. The debate is open.