Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do have some comments to clarify what the Common Drug Review is, for the record.
But just on Madame Gagnon's comment about the motion, I'm glad she raised the motion I brought up when I was health critic in opposition, because that was dealing with Genome Canada, Canada Health Infoway, CIHR, foundations that the Auditor General did not have the ability to audit. We brought that forward as opposition, to highlight the fact that the Auditor General did not have that ability. This government, though, Canada's new government, has provided the Auditor General with the ability to audit those organizations, and I think that's perfectly appropriate.
Now, the CDR is quite a different organization from the ones listed in the motion when I was in opposition, and the CDR, I'll note, was not one of the organizations in that motion. For the record, Mr. Chair, the Common Drug Review was established in 2003 at the direction of the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of health, all except Quebec. It was designed to make reimbursement recommendations for the public drug plan in these participating jurisdictions. The CDR--and I'm doing this off the top of my head, Mr. Chair--was designed to reduce the duplication from the drug plan efforts, i.e., each independently undertaking their own reviews. Local drug review committees still exist to review drugs falling outside the CDR's mandate, i.e., new indications for old drugs, line extensions, and drugs used only in hospitals. These committees do not duplicate CDR reviews.
Centralized scientific review processes such as the CDR have been established in many OECD countries to inform public reimbursement decisions. Public drug plans, including the federal plans, first nation non-insured health benefits, and veteran drug programs retain the right to make their own funding decisions based on CDR recommendations, as well as local priorities and resource constraints.
Participating jurisdictions share approximately $3 million per year for the CDR budget. Provinces and territories fund 70% of its budget and are very supportive of the CDR. They believe it is fulfilling its mandate, and as further endorsement, they have agreed to increase the CDR funding to expand reviews to more drugs, beginning with new indications for old drugs.
The FPT governments recognize that the CDR must continue to improve and address issues such as increasing transparency, evolving their reviews for the new emerging technologies, and allying activities with other FPT initiatives that aim to modernize Canada's approach to accessing drugs.
As the CDR is not a federal body, it is not clear that the federal Auditor General has the mandate to review it. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the Standing Committee on Health to review the CDR, and upon conclusion of that review, to come forth with a recommendation based on that review. It is just premature to do it before the review has taken place.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are my off-the-cuff comments.