Thank you for the question. There are a few different layers there.
There is a lot of good data on return on investment for a lot of preventive upstream interventions. For example, for every dollar we invest in vaccination we save $16. I mentioned before road and vehicle safety; for every dollar invested it's $40. The one figure I gave you for around mental health was that for every dollar invested in mental health and addiction, we save $37 in both health care costs and social costs. My colleagues probably have more precise information regarding that, but it's clear that it's always cheaper to prevent an illness than to treat and cure one, be it physical or mental.
I'll go back to the earlier question. It certainly would be a question better posed to the next round of witnesses from the Privy Council Office, but our understanding is that the funds for the provinces for mental health services are going to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, not out of the health transfer fund. That is a significant difference. Funds transferred through the health transfer fund cannot have strings attached to them, and that has been the bugaboo of the federal government with the provinces and territories from day one. My understanding is that these are targeted funds and that negotiation now has to happen as to how specifically they're funded. However, the funds to each province that are earmarked for mental health services cannot now be redirected back into physical health services, hospitals, you name it. That is an important distinction. That is why in the budget the transfers are reported separately from these special funds for mental health services and home care. This was the specific intention of the Minister of Health in negotiating the health agreements—there was no health accord this time around—and why it was difficult, why there wasn't a single health accord, and why the minister has had to go to bilateral agreements with all of the provinces and territories except one.
Once in the health system, though.... While a great deal of work has been done to moderate the stigma associated with mental health among the general public, I think within certain health professions—and I'm making a broad generalization here—mental health is not taken seriously by health professionals. A surgeon, a cardiac surgeon or neurosurgeon, is still at the top of the heap, and I think the mental health sciences are still considered as being the touchy-feely people who have conversations and talk to people. Until that attitude changes, you're going to see health systems that continue to direct the funds toward the sexy stuff and away from the stuff where key investments are required.
Thank you.