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.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you.
Very quickly, could you describe the morale of the staff?
12:20 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
The officials basically met with colleagues at the same level. To my knowledge, the executive director, in keeping with tradition, met Mr. Bélair, and the PMPRB chairperson met with deputy minister Lucas or the assistant deputy minister. As I had very few meetings, it's difficult for me to talk to you about them. I recollect meeting with Mr. Bélair and Mr. Lucas once or twice. So it's a matter of the reporting structure.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you.
I know that you were a little concerned about the breakdown of the speaking time between the witnesses and the members, but I must inform you that members are entitled to interrupt you if your reply is taking too long. That said, I think that they would give you more latitude than they would for the minister. You can answer in any way you wish, but if the members find that you're taking too long, they are entitled to interrupt.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
As I was saying, the members are usually a little more aggressive with ministers than other witnesses.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are fortunate here today to have someone as knowledgeable as you with us, Ms. Bourassa Forcier. Thank you for the work you've been doing and for having come today.
Are you in agreement with the version of events that Mr. Matthew Herder put in his letter of resignation?
12:25 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
I have read and reread my former colleague's letter of resignation and to be honest, it's difficult for me to state a preference for any single version of events. So it's difficult for me to answer your question.
Can you tell me what, specifically, you are alluding to?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Yes.
Do you believe that the minister and the government undermined the independence and credibility of the board, as Mr. Herder stated in his letter?
12:25 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
As I wrote in my letter to explain my resignation, which I published on March 3, 2023, I never felt personally that there was any interference by the minister following his official request to us to suspend the consultation process.
As Mr. Davies pointed out, section 102 of the Patent Act gives the minister the power to intervene pursuant to section 79 and the following sections. That therefore includes section 96, which is applicable to the PMPRB consultation period. The minister added that as a stakeholder pursuant to subsection 96(5), he could do so.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you.
In your letter, you said that you had the impression that the board had not satisfactorily fulfilled its consultation duties.
What other specific obstacles did you encounter with respect to consultations?
12:25 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
Do you want me to talk about obstacles in connection with the consultation period or, more generally, those related to the fulfilment of our mandate?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
I'd like you to talk about the obstacles that prevented you from counteracting the stakeholders and officials.
12:25 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
I'd rather explain it without talking about obstacles.
Earlier, there was a brief discussion of the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision, which was very clear about the importance of observing areas of jurisdiction.
We even received, during the various consultation periods preceding the final one, a significant number of submissions from groups of patients who were very concerned about access to medicines. It therefore struck me as important to take the time to meet our legal obligations pursuant to subsection 96(5) and to conduct a significant consultation process.
Not only must we meet with and listen to the stakeholders, but also make sure that the guidelines we are going to introduce will survive any court proceeding that might subsequently be initiated.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you.
Do you agree with the Quebec government's decision on areas of jurisdiction?
12:30 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
Are you asking me whether I agree with the Court of Appeal's decision?
12:30 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
I'm a lawyer. My way of thinking is strictly legal.
As I mentioned in my letter of resignation, at the interview that led to my appointment as vice-chairperson, the reform had already been announced and I had some doubts about the constitutionality of certain parts of the reform. I was therefore not surprised about the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Thank you, Mr. van Koeverden.
Mr. Thériault, you now have the floor for six minutes.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bourassa Forcier.
Is there a document about the code of conduct for members of the board, given that they have quasi-judicial power that assigns them obligations, including with respect to neutrality or impartiality, and which would regulate their capacity to do certain things? If so, could you send a copy to the committee?
12:30 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
When I joined the board as a member and as vice-chairperson, I was sent a document of revised Guidelines for the Conduct of Members of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. I did some research to see if there was another code that might be applicable to the organization, apart from the one applicable to officials, and whose purpose was to prevent conflicts of interest.
I'd be happy to send a copy to the committee.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Excellent. Thank you.
Does it explain why you responded that way on March 3, 2023? The starting point, meaning the letter from the minister on November 28, 2022, triggered a sequence of events, including your resignation on December 5, 2022.
What happened that would lead a person as competent as you are, in view of your background, to resign at that point?
12:30 p.m.
Full Professor, As an Individual
As I explained in my letter of resignation, when I became a member of the PMPRB, I thought that I had been recruited because of my expertise and knowledge of policies pertaining to innovation in, and access to,medicines, and because of my publications on the joint development of public policy and consultation processes.
Whether professionally or personally, my reputation is usually that of someone who takes action, and I try to conduct my research projects that way as well. I'm known as someone who can bring together parties that are opposed at the outset. I try to find things that people can agree on in order to move things forward at a societal level.