Health Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

There is a little confusion with the speakers list from the participants panel. Some of the hands are up from previously, from whatever other previous business we were talking about.

At the moment, Mr. Davies has moved a motion, and the motion is on the floor. Following Mr. Davies is Mr. Van Bynen, who is followed by Mr. d'Entremont.

They were proposing to speak on whatever the business was. If they wish to carry on in response, well, they have the floor.

Mr. Van Bynen, please go ahead.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with what's being proposed and I want to thank Mr. Davies for putting forward some progressive thoughts in getting on with the business. I think that's really critical. My hand was also raised to follow Mr. Davies before the motion was introduced on a separate discussion.

I think we should go forward on the basis that is being proposed. I truly appreciate how we are approaching this, and I want to thank Mr. Davies. It's quite apparent that his experience as a parliamentarian is showing.

I would support what's being proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Van Bynen.

I would encourage everyone to keep their interventions short. We want to reach a conclusion here within the next half-hour so we can go forward and know what to do next week.

Go ahead, Monsieur d'Entremont.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question revolves around how much work there will be per topic and whether that should be included in the motion itself.

I know we've all submitted a pretty expansive list of possible discussion points for our study over the next number of months. Knowing that we only have those four meetings between now and Christmastime and that one of them is being taken away for PMPRB, are we going to be doing two Liberals and maybe one Conservative, and then coming back with a Bloc after that?

I'm wondering if that should be included within this motion. I mention it more for discussion. I feel that we have a lot to discuss and a lot to do when it comes to access to rapid testing and all the other topics that are before us. I'm wondering if that should be included in there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Last week, we all submitted our lists of priorities. The first one on the list for the Liberals was mental health, so that will be the first PMPRB study. We have to determine, with respect to that study, how many meetings we want to have.

My understanding of the motion is that we would do all of that study, and then it would be followed by the Conservative study, followed by...and so forth. I think that was already clarified.

We could go ahead now with Monsieur Thériault. I think he is next.

Go ahead, Monsieur Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Contrary to what Mr. Davies was saying, we don't need to provide a witness list again for either the PMPRB study or the COVID-19 study. The deadline was Wednesday at 6 p.m. All these lists have already been submitted with our priorities, as requested in Mr. Davies' motion, last time, on the organization of the proceedings.

However, the issue here is that Mr. Davies' motion—which is, once again, a motion about the organization—changes the purpose of the motion that we adopted on the PMPRB study. I'll read it again, because I think that some people don't remember it.

The motion moves the following:

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 (4) meetings; that this study be conducted in parallel with the Committee's study on COVID-19; that additional meetings be added to the Committee's schedule if the Committee deems it necessary; that the Committee issue a request for written briefs and for requests to appear by the end of the week with a submission deadline of November 6, 2020; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that the government provide a response to these results within 30 days.

I'll go through the points one by one to remind you of the motion's purpose. The 30-day period was related to the date of January 1. Ms. Rempel Garner introduced the idea of a simultaneous study because we didn't want to go beyond January 1.

We can't say that we have time to discuss this because the motion had an urgent nature. That's why we adopted it in this manner.

Why did we set November 6 as the date for the submission of briefs? This deadline was very short. We needed time to debate the motion and make our recommendations before January 1. That was the goal.

However, at one point, issues related to the organization of rooms and logistics made it difficult for us to find times to meet. However, we spent at least three meetings on COVID-19 not discussing the substance of the issue, but trying to agree on the organization of the proceedings. These meetings could have already been used to address the matter.

I'm speaking out, not for the pharmaceutical companies that have a legal department to represent them, but for patients, sick people, individuals with rare diseases and cancer patients who want access to the best drugs available and who are worried right now. I'm fighting for them.

We can say that this matter isn't urgent and that we can move this once the guidelines have been implemented. However, I'll say that this wasn't the purpose of the motion. I moved the motion. We introduced things in the motion. I believe, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Thériault—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have the floor. You cannot cut me off like that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'm asking.... I need to comment here—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, you did not say we had five minutes to speak. I have the floor. Plenty has been said by my colleagues. Mr. Davies spoke for a very long time.

I hope I can continue to talk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I just want to remind you that we are speaking on Mr. Davies' motion, not on a general thing. I want to remind you of that—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am talking about the motion.

Mr. Davies' motion is based on a false premise. He actually believes that we have time and that we could go beyond January 1 to discuss the PMPRB. His motion is based on the idea that we will use only one meeting for that at the end of this session. But we are neck deep in briefs.

I have read all the briefs we have received since Thursday. If I had a half an hour to put questions to people, I could have done so. I did what I had to do. So I don't need time to read the briefs. I made it my duty to read them, since I asked those people to submit them by November 6.

I made a point of reading all of them before I met with people who claim to be acting for the good of Quebeckers and Canadians by establishing those guidelines. The fact that a process has taken five years—and this is the fallacy of time—does not mean everything has been done for things to be carried out properly. If that were the case, we would not still be here talking about it. There are issues related to this, and it would be in our interest to change our view of things.

Furthermore, it is currently considered urgent for the committee to submit a report on the study of this pandemic's second wave, as if it was up to us to make decisions on its management. The committee makes no decisions on that. The report it will produce will follow the government's decisions. How can we continue our work on COVID-19? That is one of the reasons I wanted to hold back my support for the Conservatives' motion until the issue of the report and the work we have done on the study of the first wave was included in this motion.

But how can we continue our work if we do not hold at least one meeting to deal with this report and with what has been implemented since the first wave? The analysts, about whom Mr. Davies expressed concerns, have been working tirelessly. Yet, we're behaving as if that work has in no way informed our questions on the assessment of the second wave or given them relevance.

What cannot wait today are patients who are concerned about the implementation of those guidelines preventing them from accessing medicines. It is certain that pharmaceutical companies will be the ones to decide whether to do business in Canada. That won't happen if they decide to pull out because of the ongoing competition across the planet. As I said earlier, the cost of drugs is not the only issue. It won't be once that has taken place that it will be time for us to return to the topic. Lives are at stake, and people on the front lines are managing the COVID-19 crisis. Those people are not waiting for the committee's advice to make their decisions. The committee is analyzing decisions that will be made to determine whether things will be done correctly when a third wave, a fourth wave or the next crisis hits.

What is urgent is for us to produce a report to identify the points of convergence among industry, patients and government, which wants to reduce the price of drugs. There is no issue on that side. However, some organizations—such as INESSS, in Quebec—are already setting drug prices and have considerably more comprehensive parameters than the PMPRB does. Those people have provided no analysis of the direct impact on patients, the network or the business.

So I will move a subamendment to Mr. Davies' amendment. I want us to set aside three meetings for the study on the PMPRB and one last study on COVID-19, or two meetings on the PMPRB study, another meeting on the COVID-19 study and another one on the PMPRB. I propose that we hold four meetings. We could use one for the study on COVID-19, but we have already wasted three of them even though dealing with this issue was urgent. We spent time on hardware issues and bickered over details. During that time, concerned people have been calling the clerk every day to find out when we will focus on the PMPRB. Patients are victims of COVID-19. Of course, the impact is collateral.

Those patients don't want to be collateral victims of COVID-19 or of a study that does not require waiting for January 1 to be carried out. We would do the same thing that is currently happening.

My mind on the PMPRB is not made up. If Mr. Davies' mind is made up, that's his problem, not mine. I want to be able to make a free and informed decision, and that is why we have to hear the voices of the most concerned people, and not only briefs read by experts.

I propose that we hold two meetings on the PMPRB, one meeting on COVID-19, and one last meeting on the PMPRB. That is my subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Monsieur Thériault.

We have a subamendment on the floor—sorry, no; it's an amendment.

Mr. Kelloway, do you wish to speak to the amendment?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Chair, through you to MP Davies, thank you for your motion. I appreciate it immensely. I think it puts a lot of framework to what we need to do to get working. I think all MPs and our staff look forward to getting to work.

On a point of clarification, you mentioned three meetings. Is that three meetings in total, or three meetings for the remainder of the year, with the additional one for the COVID study, which would be four in total?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We will go to Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am not speaking specifically to this subamendment. I do want to support Mr. Davies' motion, so all things considered, I probably shouldn't speak to Mr. Davies's motion if you're asking for us to speak to the subamendment.

However, I certainly see a lot of value in what Mr. Davies has proposed as a way forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

Now we have Mr. Van Bynen.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, my hand is up to speak to the priorities we'd like to bring forward as the study, but it doesn't speak directly to Mr. Davies' motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Barlow, please go ahead.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak to Mr. Davies' motion. I do not wish to comment on Mr. Thériault's amendment, so please leave my hand up for when we're done with the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Davies, please go ahead.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a couple of clarifications to what Mr. Thériault said.

He read the motion on the PMPRB. I'm not sure that was the motion that was ultimately passed, because Ms. Rempel Garner made an amendment to that motion that we passed. I specifically recall that it was that we wanted to get the submissions in by a certain date so we could then determine who the appropriate witnesses would be to call before the committee, which hasn't yet happened.

I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say this: He's completely wrong when he says that the study was to be completed by January 1. That simply is not in the motion. Those words are not there. If he had wanted this study to be completed by January 1, he could have said that in his motion and we could have passed it, but we did not.

I want to be clear: The motion does call for at least four meetings—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

It cannot be said that this was not part of the motion's intent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Thériault, speak on a point of order only, please.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We can check the blues, Mr. Chair. I justified the 30-day time frame repeatedly by saying that it must be done before January 1 because that is the deadline. I talked about January 1 a number of times. People who have followed our work could tell you so. That is why, Mr. Chair—