Evidence of meeting #43 for Health in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was drugs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Maguire.
We go now to Dr. Powlowski.
Dr. Powlowski, you have three minutes, please.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Thank you.
My question is for Dr. Lexchin on the issue of the proposed changes to the PMPRB. I'm no expert on this subject, but it certainly seems to me that a lot of pharmaceutical companies want to play hardball with the government. They basically say that if we don't drop these proposed changes, they're either not going to bring their product onto the market in Canada, or they're certainly going to delay it. If it costs Canadian lives or Canadian health, so be it. We started it. It's us.
Even though I think these proposed changes are not coming even close to eliminating profits made by pharmaceutical companies, it's about limiting those profits. Maybe evidently, I'm not impressed with this pharmaceutical company approach and the fact that they seem to be holding Canadians hostage to their demands.
How can the Canadian government level the playing field as we discuss how to go forward? I think you've written on this. What do you think about the possibility of our introducing compulsory licensing in order to level the playing field in our negotiations with drug companies?
2:45 p.m.
Medical Doctor, As an Individual
Let me emphasize your point about companies trying to blackmail Canada. This goes back to the early 1970s with the Manitoba government, when they were introducing public payment for drugs. They were saying that if there is a generic on the market, they would cover only the cost of the generic. The brand-name drug companies' response was that if Manitoba did that, they wouldn't put any money into Manitoba. That's the pattern they've followed over a long period of time.
As far as compulsory licensing goes, in fact, that was a possibility. When they introduced the legislation early in the pandemic—I believe in April of 2020—they allowed for compulsory licensing for products that would treat COVID. However, that expired at the end of September 2020, and it was never used.
Compulsory licensing as a way of bringing in drugs at lower prices is certainly a possibility, although the American government and the brand-name drug companies would probably go nuclear if we tried to do that.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Dr. Powlowski, you have 10 seconds. I think we'll call your time as up.
I'm sure you'll get it back sometime.
Thank you, both.
We will go now to Monsieur Thériault.
You have the floor for three minutes.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, Mr. Davies and I have switched our speaking order. He will therefore speak before I do.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Mr. Thériault.
Dr. Lexchin, I'm just going to lay bare this issue with the PMPRB. On the one side, you have pharmaceutical companies and patient groups who are arguing that the PMPRB reforms will be bad for Canadians and bad for Canada. They will reduce clinical trials. They will hold up the introduction of innovative medicines to our market, etc.
On the other side, you have those who say these are necessary reforms that will lower the cost of drugs in Canada. They will increase transparency in the pricing process. Simply, this is yet another example of pharmaceutical companies essentially blackmailing Canadians and a lot of vulnerable patients by threatening to withhold drugs to Canadians as a means of trying to influence Canadian pharmaceutical policy. In fact, a good example of that is Trikafta. The cystic fibrosis community is desperately in need of this very effective drug, and the company that makes it has not even applied to Health Canada for approval.
What's your sense of this? Where you come down on this issue?
2:50 p.m.
Medical Doctor, As an Individual
It's important to realize that some drugs are very important, and we should get those on the market. However, they don't necessarily have to come on to the market at the prices that are being demanded by the drug companies. There's an independent organization in the United States that looks at the cost-effectiveness of medications and decides what is a reasonable price. When they looked at Trikafta for cystic fibrosis, their determination was that instead of the $300,000 price per year, it should be valued at about $80,000 per person per year.
The drug companies primarily are pricing drugs on the basis of desperation. How sick are you? How much are you willing to pay, or is your government willing to pay, for new medications so that you can be treated? That's the way they price. You won't get a company asking $300,000 for a drug that will reduce the symptoms of a common cold from seven days to two days, for instance, because nobody will pay that price. On the other hand, if you have a new cancer drug that you want to bring on the market and it will increase lifespan by three to six months, people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for that kind of product. Drug companies know it and are taking advantage.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Finally, Canada has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars towards vaccine development. We don't know the exact amount, because there's a lack of transparency. The terms of those grants have not been revealed. We also don't know if there were any requirements about sharing any resulting intellectual property with the public who paid for that. Should we have done that? Should Canada have obtained those rights?
2:50 p.m.
Medical Doctor, As an Individual
In one word, yes. We paid for part of the cost of developing that. We should make sure that the intellectual property rights are public, so that those drugs can not only be produced in Canada or other rich countries but also be shared with the rest of the world to increase vaccine production.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Whatever my colleague Mr. Davies may think, it's not necessary to have such a Manichaean vision of things. There are people who are trying to find solutions and areas of agreement. If the reform is adopted, the pharmaceutical companies won't even need to blackmail anyone; they can simply up stakes and quietly move elsewhere. We are living in a global context where competition is rather fierce.
That said, Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose the following motion:
That, pursuant to the motion adopted by the Committee on October 26, 2020 regarding the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board's (PMPRB) Guidelines Study, the Committee takes the following actions regarding the writing of the draft report: That a first drafted version of the report be sent to the members of the Committee; That, within two days following the adoption of this motion, all recognized parties recognized at the Committee send the recommendations it wishes to include into the report; That an additional hour be added to the June 18 meeting and that it be devoted to the study of the report and its adoption; That the deadline for tabling supplementary or dissenting opinions with the Clerk be set at 6:00 pm, two sitting days following the adoption of the report; That the Chair, Clerk and Analysts be authorized to make any necessary grammatical and editorial changes without changing the substance of the report, that the Chair or Vice-Chair be authorized to table the report in the House of Commons no later than June 22, 2021, and that the government provide a response to its results within 30 days That without altering the previously agreed upon calendar, and recognizing that committee resources are limited, that everything be done to have this report tabled by the date listed above.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
You will also have received the translation of the motion, which I sent to the clerk.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Welcome back. The meeting is now resumed.
The business before us at this time is on an emergency situation facing Canadians in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since this is a motion relating to the Patent Medicines Prices Review Board study, it's not related; it's not directly derived from this business.
I'm going to move it out of order at this time.
We did get a notice of motion, and it's certainly acceptable as a notice of motion.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I would advise the committee that the timelines mentioned in this, given the backlog in translations, etc., are probably not achievable, and I would suggest that we get the analyst to weigh in on this.
Monsieur Thériault, you challenged my ruling. That is not debatable, so we will have a vote on that.
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I agree, Mr. Chair, but I would simply like to remind you that in the motion that brought us here for today's meeting, it was clearly indicated that we could address any other topic. I therefore think that my motion is admissible, and that's why I'm challenging your decision.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you. That's fair enough.
The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained? If you vote yes, you agree with the chair that the motion is not in order at this time. If you vote no, you're reporting that the motion is in order at this time.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8; nays 3)
Thank you, all. The decision of the chair is sustained. I would advise Mr. Thériault that as a notice of motion, this is okay. He can move it at our next meeting.
Thank you, all. The witnesses have departed, but I would like to thank them in absentia for their help, their great testimony and their sharing of time with us. I would also like to thank the members of the committee for their participation today and their care and concern.
With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.