Health Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[Robert Hindle]

Yes, the ongoing supplies are a burden no matter which treatment method you use.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I have a minute left, and I'd like to ask Bob a question.

You talked about the research and the CIHR. I think you said that CIHR had $6.6 million for research for juvenile diabetes and $11 million for type 2.

If the federal government were to go ahead with your request, and knowing that most of our health research funds flow through the CIHR, would you be working with them? Is that how you see the $25 million, or $125 million total, flowing?

[Robert Hindle]

This isn't an evasive answer, but as part of our partnership discussions, we would like to discuss a method to see that the money goes to JDRF-identified research priorities. Does that preclude the current methods of funding allocation that are structurally in place at CIHR? If I were to venture a guess, I would say yes, currently. We'd just like to work with you; we want to find a solution to a problem.

We don't think the current CIHR method—and I have said before that I believe this is a structural issue, not a CIHR issue—is particularly suitable for where we want to go as JDRF. We are well past the basic research stage, which means you have to target very carefully who you want to fund, and for how much and how long.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

We've had one more request. Ms. Bennett would like to ask one quick question, and I'll allow it.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

On the topic of CIHR, sometimes in medicine and in health research somebody who's going down a path trying to find a cure for something quite different can accidentally stumble on something that could be applied in another area. You said there are some structural issues, but would you agree that the funding for CIHR should be increased as well?

[Robert Hindle]

In principle, certainly.

I'll give you one example back, so you may want to tie some numbers to it. There's a specific funding model that exists in both the U.S. and Australia. The U.S. government allocated $750 million four years ago, at $150 million a year, specifically for type 1 research. They did that through the National Institutes of Health, mandating a very specific funding structure for this.

After an announcement late last year, Australia put $30 million for type 1 diabetes in place this year, which was the first time the Australian government specifically funded type 1 diabetes. They have their own medical research council, which is what we used to call CIHR. Instead they are giving $30 million to JDRF.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I also want to say that when we set up CIHR, part of it was to keep the politics out of it. In the 28 institutes in the U.S., with their lobbying and “my disease is more important than your disease”, it can get you into trouble. I guess I'm saying that I have a bit of trouble having politicians make decisions about where the money goes.

[Robert Hindle]

And I am trying desperately to give straight answers without getting involved in that political process.

[The Chair]

We appreciate that very much.

Our time has gone. Before things turn to politics more than they have already, I want to thank you very much for coming in and sharing your experiences with the committee. It's very much appreciated.

Thank you.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair]

We'll now have a quick break while those who would like to leave the room do so. Then we will get on with our motions.

[The Chair]

Madame Demers has asked me to switch the order and to have hers on the breast implants first. I have no problem with that. If I don't see any dissenting hands on that, that's the way we will proceed.

Madame Demers, if you want to introduce it, the floor is yours.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know how disappointed I was to hear that Health Canada had approved putting silicone gel-filled breast implants back on the market without ensuring that they are completely safe. Mr. Chair, I am tabling this motion to obtain the documents Health Canada considered in making its decision.

Last week, my colleague Christiane Gagnon and I asked the Minister of Health to give us the names of the independent researchers who were consulted as part of the decision-making process. The minister could not give us a single name. I think it is very important for us to see all of the studies that were used, as well as the list of all the researchers who were consulted or whose studies were taken into consideration during the decision-making process. We are also asking Health Canada officials to appear before the committee to explain their decision.

[The Chair]

We have a motion on the floor, asking for this documentation. Is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Fletcher.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

I'd like to thank Madame Demers for raising this important issue. We can provide as many documents as we can legally provide. We'd be happy to do that. I think the minister did answer one of the Bloc's questions along those lines in question period.

Within the legal precedents that we have to deal with, I think the intent of the motion is in good nature. We'll be able to support it, with the caveat that there are some privacy issues and so on, especially with the consultation with Canadians. But the intent is good, and I'd be happy to support it in that spirit.

[The Chair]

Is there any other discussion?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I just want to commend our parliamentary secretary for taking that initiative.

[The Chair]

I'll get to the question.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Chair, [ed. note: inaudible]

[The Chair]

Thank you.

We'll move on to the other motion that was actually already on the floor. I think it's Ms. Dhalla's. We had some considerable discussion on that.

Is it a point of order? What would you like?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Could we discuss my motion first? It will be difficult for the committee to adopt both my motion and Ms. Dhalla's motion, but mine will be the more difficult of the two. I would like us to look at more than just the 2007 guide. I would like them to give us the draft so that we can see how the recommendations changed from the first to the final draft.

[The Chair]

What you're saying is that you'd like to do yours first.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Yes, and I am asking the committee's consent because my motion also asks for the 2006 draft.

[The Chair]

I'm not going to take a lot of discussion on this. Is there opposition to that?

Ms. Dhalla, you could speak to that.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

In terms of my motion, I had recommended that we obtain a draft copy of the food guide that is going to be released; a list of all the stakeholders, organizations, and individuals that were consulted, along with their suggestions that they did put forward; and a list of questions that were also put forward for consultation.

I thought that within those three things it was very thorough. However, in regard to Ms. Gagnon's motion, which also states to obtain the 2006 draft—which, I believe, is a pre-consultation draft you're speaking about—could we just do a friendly amendment to my motion in order to have that included?