Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to the witnesses this morning.
My first question is for Mr. Laberge and Mr. Livingston.
Since 1987 we've had 20 years of longer patent protection. Before the 1987 change, the patent was seven or eight years--correct me if I'm wrong--and it is now twenty years of patent protection. The quid pro quo was that the industry would invest more in research. We've heard some concerns about how research is dropping, and it seems as though that part of the bargain is not being lived up to. Others have cited the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board annual reports as documenting these lower investments in basic research in new drugs.
In your statement you are critical of the PMPRB, and you say that “the regulatory burden is increasing and sending a negative signal that Canada may not be a predictable and stable environment for investments”. That's a quote from the document. It seems to me that 20 years of patent protection represents a pretty stable environment. I'm wondering if it is because some of these reports are embarrassing to the industry, or what the rationale is for that statement.