Health Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

The program budget has not changed in over five years. We are currently conducting this review to define improved and more efficient programs so we can be in a position to make decisions on future investments. We are committed to maintaining the program’s budget until 2008 and, if there are changes to be made, it could take a year to set up the new programs.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Do you mean that there would be a year of transition if you were to decide to establish other programs with different objectives? Is that what you are saying?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Objectives may change because the new program will be modern; it won’t date back to the last century. We have established a process to conduct the review. Thereafter, decisions will have to be made to better utilize resources. There may be a new program in the future, but not right away because government decisions will come later.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I would like to add, Madam, that I support the principles of this program and the importance of having programs for at-risk children. I also want a program that will yield benefits for our society and for families. In my opinion, it is very important to conduct a review of the situation.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Thank you. I have a second question.

You surprised me somewhat, Minister, because in your presentation, you mentioned your announcement of a special fund of approximately $1 billion to compensate Canadians who contracted Hepatitis C.

Previously, I asked you in the House whether you would be able to provide a transition fund until a final decision is made as to how much money each victim would receive. That was several months ago, yet you boast today of your great accomplishment. For the victims of Hepatitis C, this is not a great accomplishment because they have not yet received a penny. I would like to know how many victims have died since you announced that billion dollars that never reached them.

Many families are going though very tragic and difficult times. I have received phone calls and people are worried. I have been pressured recently. You have been asked for transition funds to compensate victims. You could release a minimal amount so that each victim can receive quick restitution. Some people will have died before those funds are made available. How sad!

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam, as I said last June, it is important to find a solution to this problem. On July 25, the Prime Minister announced compensation for persons infected with Hepatitis C. I expect that you know there are procedures we must follow to conclude an agreement. We need to make a definitive agreement with the—

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Yes, but that is what I am asking for — to have political courage. I know what you are going to say; it will last five minutes and we still won’t have an answer. What we are asking you is to have the political courage to release the funds. You have the funds needed to compensate the victims. Why don’t you have the political courage to establish a special fund right now to give victims of tainted blood immediate access to a minimum amount of money? This is horrible!

I asked you the question four months ago. Last year, I asked the same question and you answered in the same way. I am asking you to have some sympathy for the victims. You will tell me that you do sympathize with them. But Minister, you have the means to show true sympathy. You can release a minimum amount of money. It is ridiculous that this issue has dragged on for so long. I know it takes time and I do understand your position but you are the Minister and you have the required money because a fund has been established for this issue.

Why not give them a minimum of $5,000 or $10,000? Establish a minimum amount and send the money to the victims. That will allow them to heal their wounds somewhat because many among them will die before they get any money.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam, it is important that we act according to law. There are procedures to follow. We must conclude a definitive agreement, then get Court approval and set up the required infrastructure, just as I said in June and July. There is a process.

Personally, I would have preferred to have the case settled before now but there is still no agreement on paper.

There hasn't been a settlement. We came in without a settlement in place at all, and we're working as fast as we can. It will be before the courts. It has to be approved by the courts, Madam.

Yes, if I had a magic wand, I'd wave it right now, but we can't expect that.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Then, don’t talk of achievement. You said that it was an achievement—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Madam Gagnon, I'm sorry, your time is gone.

Ms. Priddy, you have ten minutes.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister and officials, for being here.

I certainly can't speak for all Canadians. I wouldn't suggest that I could. I can speak for many of the residents in the constituency in which I live, which is Surrey North, and I can speak based on information that I get as the health critic for the NDP on correspondence that comes from Canadians who are concerned about our health care system.

Many people voted for the Conservative Party because they put faith in the promise that you made about wait times. I am hearing from people that they are concerned that they have misplaced their faith. I'm not going to take up time. Ms. Dhalla has covered wait times very well, but I needed to reinforce that I am hearing the same kinds of things that Ms. Dhalla has gone over.

I'd like to ask you three questions. I will do them quickly so you will have an opportunity to respond.

I realize, since you and I have both done this before, that hepatitis C has to go before the courts, but I don't know that it is not possible to put out an interim amount—because people are indeed dying, and they have, and we can name some who have died since the announcement was made—in order to at least help people get to that stage where they will have some money to be able to eat properly and nourish themselves, because they are suffering from this disease.

I'd like to ask about the elimination of the Inuit tobacco control strategy, which has some irony for me, because you announced a pilot project for prenatal aboriginal women, which is around wait times, and yet they will go back to a community where their tobacco cessation program has been eliminated. They will go back into homes and into communities where people are smoking at considerably higher rates than we might see outside the reserves or outside their homes. On eliminating the tobacco strategy, it's about 10%, or more than 10% actually, of the annual tobacco control budget. How is that community being serviced now? Was the previous strategy not working? Usually if a strategy isn't working, you alter it as you go along. You don't wait until the end of a project and then say now it's done. Is somebody creating a new strategy for that?

The second question I'd like to ask, if I could, is around the patent drugs and the additional dollars being asked for in supplementary estimates, which are normally unforeseen expenditures. Why is it unforeseen that so many people are going to come and want to talk at public hearings about patent drugs? Although I'm very optimistic that if you're having public hearings on patent drugs, it will indeed lead to the lower cost of drugs for people, I'm sure the intention of your public hearings is to lower the drug costs for people who are suffering from that.

My last comment would be about the Assisted Human Reproductive Agency. We have an agency on which we are spending money that does not have a board of directors. The regulations we have not yet seen. I don't know who has developed the infrastructure, who signs this off. If all this can be done without a board, why are we spinning it off at all? It seems that we have this agency on which we are spending a lot of money that doesn't really exist. I'm a little puzzled, and I would like to know how that money is actually being spent and when there will actually be an agency up and running, given the money that's going into it.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Sure, and I do have a few comments, and perhaps I'll pass it on to others who can delve into a bit more detail.

In terms of the tobacco strategy, I can assure you that we have not cancelled a strategy. We have held the funding. There's no program right now, but what we are doing is we are calling for, or casting about for, some ideas. And, Chair, if I may be so bold, if this committee and its members have some good ideas on what a native or first nations tobacco strategy would look like, we would welcome your suggestions. The fact of the matter is that right now on-reserve tobacco use is at 59% of the population, and it's at 17%, I believe, or 19% in the general population. So something isn't working. I don't believe in putting good money after bad. If we can change something, let's change it, and we will put the money in. I can assure you of that.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I'm encouraged to hear you say that it's really not eliminated, that it will be on hold. We should come back to you with a good idea.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Let the minister finish the three questions.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

On patent drugs, you are quite correct. There are more hearings because there are more pharmaceutical companies that are contesting the agent, the board, so it's getting a bit more litigious out there. I could get into a bit more detail if we have time.

In terms of the AHR agency, as you know, we did produce regulations relating to consent, which is one of the key matters. I believe they'll be before this committee in due course. Other regulatory work is ongoing as well as work on a board of directors.

Do you want to hear a little bit more about the patent drugs issue?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I'd like to hear a little bit more about the agency. Where's the money? Since there's no board, no staff, CEO, etc., what are all its dollars going into? You don't need to write the regs.

[Frank Fedyk]

The order in council created the agency in Vancouver, and we are proceeding with spending of resources for the fit-up lease and equipment for the agency, so when the board and the president are named, they will be able to occupy the space and begin commencing those expenses. Any funds that are left over once the board is operational, that is, surplus to what is required for the year, will be returned to the consolidated fund.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

When will that be up and running?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Well, we're working on it.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Should I look for it in my Christmas stocking or from the Easter bunny?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I don't think it's my place to answer that, because we have to hear back from some people and there are some things out of my control.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Easter bunny.

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fletcher, you have ten minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank the minister for coming today and spending so much time with the committee.

I'd like to make an observation. I think Canadians appreciate the statesmanship that the health minister has demonstrated during his term as health minister, and we've just seen that at this committee meeting. When the Liberal health critic was criticizing the minister, the minister took the high road in his response. Perhaps a lesser person like myself would have said that the Liberals had cut $25 billion out of the health care system. They actually cut the med school enrollment. In fact, wait times had doubled during the time the Liberals were in power. But the minister didn't do that, and I think that's because, as has been demonstrated all this week by the Prime Minister and every other minister, this government will always take the high road.

In the Winnipeg Free Press, Minister, there's been some talk about wait times. On November 22 in the Winnipeg Free Press, they talked about the pilot project with first nations and prenatal care, and this is how the editorial ends. It says:

Yet the strength of the proposal is that it targets a health service that can carry real payback. If it gets rolling, provincial health ministers will have to agree that wait time guarantees for health care are, in fact, possible.

I would like you to share with the committee and Canadians how important this pilot project is.