Evidence of meeting #64 for Health in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pmprb.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
I realized that I couldn't achieve that objective and therefore resigned.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
The approach or direction taken by the chairperson was challenged, but by whom?
12:30 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
I wouldn't say challenged, but rather that people had a different view of things.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
This realization shook you to such an extent that you no longer felt comfortable there.
Is that it?
12:30 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
That's right. I felt that I couldn't make a contribution.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
What did the minister's letter of November 28, 2022 trigger internally at the board that led you to resign?
12:30 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
I'd like to rectify something. I didn't resign as a result of the minister's letter. It was really because I had come to the conclusion, as I said in my letter, that it would be impossible to move forward.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
All right.
Do you feel that the current guidelines comply with the areas of jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal's decisions?
12:35 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
Are you talking about the PMPRB's proposed guidelines?
12:35 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
I'm speaking here today as an individual. The proposed guidelines could have involved a risk from the legal standpoint. They could even have made it possible to indirectly do things that could not be done directly. That's why I felt it was appropriate to take the time to read them closely.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
The Court of Appeal ruled that the second and third points initially planned were unconstitutional. You told us that the guidelines currently being studied would accomplish directly what these two points would have done.
Is that right?
12:35 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
I don't know. It's something that would have to be looked at in depth., Hence the importance of holding consultations on the subject.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
You've been saying that the PMPRB's mandate needs to be clarified. What do you mean by that?
12:35 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
As I said in my presentation, is the PMPRB's role strictly to ensure that the price of patented medicines is not excessive, or is it a body that ensures access to medicines at a price that is not excessive? There's a big difference there.
To give you a short answer, please read the briefs presented during the last or second-last consultation period. Some briefs implied that imposing a price that was too low might have a very significant impact on access to medicines in Canada. That's why this part of the mandate needs to be looked at carefully, because it might be viewed very differently by parliamentarians or even by people at the PMPRB.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you.
Madame Bourassa Forcier, do you support the minister's decision to suspend the PMPRB consultations on the guidelines in order to do more consulting with stakeholders?
12:35 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
It's important. You need to take the time to meet the various parties, whether in the consultation process or otherwise, and see if it might be possible to extend it.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have your answer. Thank you.
In a briefing note from you to the minister dated December 8, 2021, you said that the PMPRB spent over 110 hours meeting with industry stakeholders alone during the previous round of consultations on guidelines reform in 2019 and 2020, but that the industry steadfastly refused to engage on the substance of the changes.
Do you stand by that statement?
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
In that same briefing note, you said that after five years, myriad policy proposals and many hundreds of hours of consultation, it would appear that the pharmaceutical industry is simply not amenable to any measure that would further constrain its ability to sell patented medicines in Canada at free-market prices.
Do you stand by that opinion?
