Finance Committee on Oct. 25th, 2006

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Wonderful.

Dr. Francoeur, would you like to make any comment on that?

[Dr. Diane Francoeur]

Yes, sure, because $270 million is $300 million and more, because you have to be conscious that it's not only cervical cancer, there are all those abnormal pap smears that affect the situation. You all have relatives, wives, daughters, or sisters who've been in our colposcopy clinic, because it's one woman out of four who has an abnormal pap smear. If you get vaccinated, you won't have all those abnormal pap smears and all those painful biopsies and all those follow-up appointments that make you miss school and miss work, and all of that. So as for the estimation of $300 million, in a couple of years we'll probably catch up and be almost--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

I'm going to speak in English too. I apologize for that and ask you to use your translation devices.

Diane Francoeur, regarding the IVF and ICSI, are there any provinces that cover that in Canada now?

[Dr. Diane Francoeur]

None. The only thing that's been done so far is a pilot project in Alberta where they looked at Canadian data.

We have to be concerned in Canada that the costs are much lower than anywhere else for IVF. What was done was that by recognizing that it was a health problem, everything was free for women. They put in just one embryo, so the problems related to that were obviously resolved.

So if we look at costs, if we were able to have a good financing program for IVF, the costs we'd save from not taking care of all the premature babies would probably finance it. That was the conclusion of the working team in Alberta.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

It is very expensive. You mentioned that IVF is $4,500, ICSI is $1,500, and the medications can be $200 or $300. That doesn't take into account the amount of time a woman has to take off work to go through the procedure and then after the procedure. It doesn't take into account travel costs if people have to go to the Toronto centre for reproductive treatment, say, or places like that.

Of the four clinics in Quebec that do IVF, how many do ICSI as well? Or do they all do ICSI?

[Dr. Diane Francoeur]

They all do.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Is that standard now? I know that a few years ago, for people in Nova Scotia, those who wanted to do IVF could do it in Halifax, but they had to go to Toronto to do ICSI.

[Dr. Diane Francoeur]

No, they all do it now. The good thing about having only four clinics doing IVF in Quebec is that all the standards and protocols respect the guidelines.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

You also mentioned that you'd like to see the government subsidize infertility treatments. Do you have a sense of how much they should be subsidized? Is that something that needs to be thought out further? Do you have an opinion on that? Should they be totally covered?

[Dr. Diane Francoeur]

If it's recognized as a disease, then I think it should be taken care of as all other diseases are. You know, we don't ask women who have premature babies because of IVF to pay for the treatment of their babies. It's forever been a crack in the health care system that we've said to women that this isn't a disease, but I think we have to change our thinking on that one.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

It is very exciting, Mr. Blouin, the development that Merck has come up with for the human papillomavirus. Can you give us a sense or any idea of what the potential is for vaccines in Canada? Are we close to any other very significant ones?

[Christian Blouin]

Absolutely. In fact, I talked about Gardasil, but we launched at the same time, at the end of August, RotaTeq. That is a vaccine for rotavirus, a major cause of gastroenteritis in young kids.

About a year from now we will have another breakthrough, a vaccine against shingles. That affects mainly those who are 55 to 60 and over. This will have a significant impact on public health as well.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

We heard from a different panellist previously that every dollar invested in a vaccine saves $27. Is that accurate?

[Christian Blouin]

I don't know if that's the exact dollar amount, but one thing that's clear--not only in Canada, not only in Quebec, but around the world--is that world experts fully agree that vaccination and immunization are by far the most cost-effective medical interventions that exist. The only exception might be the purification of water. Vaccines have been proven as the most cost-effective medical intervention around the world.

It's sad that today we sometimes have to defend and debate the importance of vaccine and immunization programs. To me it should not be an issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blouin.

We will continue with Ms. Ablonczy.

We have to go to three-minute rounds now so that everybody gets in.

Ms. Ablonczy.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gagnon, we appreciate the research that's being done. As my colleague and others have said, it's been of real benefit to women and to all Canadians to have this research done.

I would be interested to know how much research you think would be done in Canada without the tax incentives for companies, since most pharmaceutical companies have an international component. What would be the impact on pharmaceutical research in Canada without the tax incentives that you're talking about?

[Gilles Gagnon]

I can tell you that without the tax incentives, the research level would probably be lower than it is now. Tax incentives make up one component of the attractiveness of Canada as a competitor on a worldwide basis. Of course, intellectual property is a very important component as well.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

What about protection of the innovative data?

[Gilles Gagnon]

This is extremely important. This is for the patients. For example, six months ago I imported a compound from Germany...I was hoping this data protection would be put in place. In fact, it was put in place, and I was asked for collaboration from Indian and Chinese companies. I have refused to send these compounds over there because I don't believe the data could be kept safely.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

You said the national pharmaceutical strategy that came in a couple of years ago actually limits new therapies and creates regulatory hurdles. Can you talk a little more about that? This is the first I have heard of that problem.

[Gilles Gagnon]

On this question, I would like the help of Brigitte Nolet.

[Brigitte Nolet, Vice-President, Policy, Research and Scientific Affairs, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D)]

The national pharmaceutical strategy was announced in September 2004. In principle it makes a lot of sense to work together to try to better the health care system. But in practice, we're seeing a lot of concern that some of these important products won't be recognized on an individual basis. We might be trying to collaborate on making sure we're looking at all these products, but not every Canadian would have access. Our fear is that, as you move through it, there may be an impact on what is available to Canadian patients. That's the fundamental concern.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much.

The next questioner will be Mr. Pacetti.