Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 145
View Don Davies Profile
NDP (BC)
Ms. Fralick, if I may, I'll direct my final question to you.
The Government of Canada estimates that proposed reforms to Canada's drug pricing regulations—you referred to them as the PMPRB proposals—will save Canadians $13.2 billion over 10 years on patented drug costs. They say the new rules will save money for patients, employers and insurers, at the expense of drug industry profits.
In response, Innovative Medicines Canada has argued that these regulatory changes will result in fewer clinical trials and new medicines being available for sale. However, Doug Clark, executive director of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, has stated publicly that there is virtually zero correlation between prices and drugs coming to market, R and D spending and clinical trial intensity, in any country that the PMPRB has looked at.
How do you respond to Mr. Clark's position?
Pamela Fralick
View Pamela Fralick Profile
Pamela Fralick
2020-07-06 12:01
Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to that. I also have something to add to your previous question to Mr. Keon, if there is time.
We looked at Health Canada data—it isn't our data but Health Canada's data—and compared the data from Q4 2019. The regulations were passed on August 21, 2019. We looked at Q4 and how many new drugs were brought into Canada versus the previous three years. Depending on the year, there is about a 50% decrease on drugs being brought to Canada. I noted that Mr. Clark said that perhaps we don't have all the data, but if we don't, then I hope he would share that with us. Similarly, using Health Canada data, we've noticed that clinical trials have dropped between 38% and 47% in that same quarter, so the evidence is very clear to us.
Very recently, a literature review of about 49 papers that looked at the link between pricing and drug launches was released. It showed, clearly, that 44 out of these 49 papers that were reviewed found a significant negative relationship between drug price controls, or a significant positive relationship between drug price levels. There are more details on this. I know we don't have time, but I'm happy to share the information with you. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no question in our minds that there is a very clear link between pricing and drug launches, as well as investment and obviously, at the end of the day, access to medicines.
I would like to make one other comment vis-à-vis your question around investment, because that really was more about our members and the commitment with PMPRB to invest 10% of our revenues. The definition that was reflected in the PMPRB agreement was a very particular program, SR and ED, which you are probably familiar with, a tax credit program. At that time, the industry did commit to 10%, and for many years it increased its investment in that program. The problem is that the industry has changed. The world has changed in 30 years, so while it is accurate that the industry only contributes now about 5% rather than 10% in SR and ED, it does commit at least 10% of its revenue to R and D in this country.
One example...and we've been talking about this throughout the morning. Clinical trials are a critical piece of the research process. At any given time, there are about 4,500 going on in Canada. They are funded by this industry. Health Canada does not consider that research. Many of you will be familiar with MaRS in Toronto, and JLABS, which is an incubator for new research, with millions of dollars poured into that annually. That is not included.
The Government of Canada has recognized that the definition of research and development does need to be modernized. ISED and StatsCan have a project with the industry where we have redefined what R and D means, and the data is being calculated as we speak. Ernst and Young did a study a couple of years ago, and that's why we've come up with the 10%—it's actually 9.97% of revenue. The industry is a very strong contributor to R and D in Canada and would like to do more if circumstances and the situation were more amenable to that.
I'm sorry for going on at length, but I felt you deserved an answer to those questions.
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you.
Moving forward, using that as an example, or perhaps other examples, do you think there should be some type of standards for these state-owned enterprises that should result in some type of action if there are issues that come out of previous investments from these companies? Is there some type of recourse or action down the road for future investments that you would consider?
Gordon Houlden
View Gordon Houlden Profile
Gordon Houlden
2020-06-18 17:43
I would think that would be reasonable. In other words, if you've done badly and you want to come back to the well, we may be concerned that you would do badly again.
One small point is that I think you'd have to be just as hard on Canadian companies. Otherwise, you get into difficulties with discrimination under international trade agreements. We don't want a situation where you give the Chinese a good excuse to beat up on a company; they may anyway. We need to have high standards for us and high standards for them.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2020-06-18 17:49
The retrospective review, if there is one.... The last discussion we just had was about a transaction that really didn't end up in Canada's interest. I've asked this in a few different ways with other witnesses. Looking at critical infrastructure and technology, is there a means for us to look at the fact that what was acceptable in 2020 may not be acceptable in 2025, if environmental regulations, for instance, take a jump or if we introduce some type of social benefit that needs to be included in the way businesses operate? Is there something where you have to go back and say that business likes stability? If you change some legislation or regulations in terms of investments, do you ever go back and look at that to see whether it would still meet your current criteria?
Peter Glossop
View Peter Glossop Profile
Peter Glossop
2020-06-18 17:50
In practical terms, probably not. The reality is that most undertakings given by investors are for a period of three years. For that period of time, people are operating under a set of laws and regulations they assume will be relatively constant. One thing—
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2020-06-18 17:51
Okay. If I can interrupt, in terms of trade agreements, it's very important that we stay constant because of the agreements we have in place.
Peter Glossop
View Peter Glossop Profile
Peter Glossop
2020-06-18 17:51
Absolutely. Our trade partners trust us to provide a stable framework for them to invest, and likewise for us to invest in their countries.
View Matthew Green Profile
NDP (ON)
It sounds very rational, in fact.
With regard to the introduction of companies not situated in this field, entering into this, trying to do their good civic duty, you mentioned that perhaps they're also not regulated in the same way that your company may be.
Jean-Philippe Gentès
View Jean-Philippe Gentès Profile
Jean-Philippe Gentès
2020-06-12 12:30
At the moment, there are no inspections and there are no regulations. Health Canada did issue temporary licences to be able to manufacture these. I'm not saying that everything is bad, or that it was not appropriate to do it at that moment when it was carried out, but today I think it's time to try to start taking back those licences.
Some automobile garages got licences to produce hand sanitizers. Normally, if you compare a garage to a pharmaceutical plant, there should be some differences in the quality. I'm not saying everyone is doing it wrong, but for sure the level of quality will be different.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
I would just like to ask the minister if he's aware that the Liberal government has actually been in power for the last five years, and move on from there to ask the government about the role it certainly has....
Recently, Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen re-awoke a conversation that the national heritage minister had brought up, that we should be licensing or controlling the media. Will the government commit to not regulating the Internet and all media?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Chair, we've made it clear in the House numerous times that we have no intention of regulating the Internet.
View Lianne Rood Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, last week the member for Kingston was reportedly calling on the government to make information on the Internet surrounding COVID-19 accurate. This isn't the first time that the government has been toying with the idea of truth arbitration. I'd like to give the government a chance to set the record straight: Will the government be regulating content on the Internet, yes or no?
View Navdeep Bains Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, we have very clear provisions in place to make sure that when it comes to online content it's consistent with Canadian laws.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As just some broad comments based on the witness testimony, I went into this study with a fairly open mind because of the amount of coverage that has been placed on this issue in recent months and weeks, and I would give two observations.
First of all, I believe Dr. Leblond stated some good points with regard to our having to have consistency within our regulatory framework in order to attract investment, yet on the other hand, we also have to ensure that we're not literally selling Canada for the sake of short-term gain. It's getting that balance that I think is what's at stake here.
As the world changes, it's incumbent upon Parliament to see if we actually do have that balance struck within our legislative and regulatory framework, and that I'm not convinced of right now.
I believe it was Dr. Leblond as well who talked about the fact that while there's no definition of “strategic industry”, the premise was therefore made, “Well, if everything is strategic, nothing is strategic.” I would argue that a strategic industry would be one that, if sold or if majority control were given to an authoritarian country, the sale or shift in control would threaten Canadian sovereignty. That would be a strategic industry in and of itself. I'm not sure that the ICA right now gets to the core of that, so perhaps I'll start with that premise.
My question is to Dr. Burton.
We have in Canada right now a process in place for visas and for deciding whether Canada requires a visa. It's a visa framework review. We have a set of criteria through which we decide whether citizens of a certain country can come to Canada on a visa status or a visa-free status.
Is there anything similar to that type of a framework within our current law whereby we look at a country—let's say it's an authoritarian country—and say certain criteria have either been met or not met, and review all the investments coming in from a certain country based on those criteria? Is there anything in our current framework that takes that type of approach?
Results: 1 - 15 of 145 | Page: 1 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data