Health Committee on May 12th, 2009

[James Roberge]

It was a small program--$2 million--and it was designed several years ago with the other two granting councils to encourage particularly small universities to establish tech-transfer offices so they would manage IP at the location of the university. That was in an era when there were very few other supports available for universities. The indirect cost of the research program had yet to be established, and some of the other programs have been developed, both federally and provincially, since then.

So our view was that the tech-transfer offices had been largely put in place and that the ongoing requirement for the program was not nearly as strong as it had been when it was first envisioned.

In the case of the open team grant, we believe team grants are the way to go in terms of multidisciplinary research. For the open team grant, through evaluation, we found that in many cases the work environments that were already functioning extremely well were the most successful in that program. We were missing out in areas where we had weaknesses that we wanted to target. So the view was that a strategic team grant was a better instrument overall for CIHR.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Roberge.

We're now going to go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

This is for the CIHR. I would like to hear what you think the ripple effect of this cutback might be. It's not concerning you as a body per se; it's the effect on so many different researchers and organizations around this country. Have you estimated the ripple effect?

Secondly, can you tell me whether something like the Canadian Research Data Centre Network, which you have funded now or will fund till 2010, will be guaranteed funding from CIHR, given this current fiscal restriction?

[James Roberge]

I will answer your second question first, on the research data centres.

You are correct that our MOU or agreement with those centres and Statistics Canada will be expiring during the course of the year, and we are currently looking at a renewal of that grant. However, it has not been approved yet, so I can't speculate. All I can say is that it's not part of strategic review. It's not counted as part of that; it's just a regular business decision for CIHR.

As for the ripple effect, it's extremely difficult for us to really know whether there will be any ripple effect, in the sense that a lot of things depend on there being or not being future budget year increases. It's really difficult for us to know whether there will be significant effects.

This year's reduction, as I mentioned at the outset, is extremely modest. It is $1.5 million. That, in and of itself, is not likely to have an impact.

We mentioned before that the open teams are going to continue, probably until about 2012, but they will not be renewed under that program, as that program is terminated. So the impacts will be felt in that year; however, there may be offsetting budgetary increases—who knows?—that may allow us to mitigate them. We don't know; it's speculation, of course.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you.

Dr. Benoit, when is your next annual report coming out? What's the date?

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

We pass it to the Minister of Health on May 31, and it goes to Parliament shortly thereafter, so there's not long to wait.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

You haven't really accounted for a doubling of the budget on the basis, you say, of a lack of compliance. To double the budget, you must be facing a heck of a lot of misdemeanours from brand-name drug companies. Why are they doing this? What happened in 2006, that there was suddenly this huge jump? You say gradual, but I'm saying huge, because if your budget doubled, then something dramatic has to be happening in terms of compliance, because your major role is to deal with pricing of patented medicines.

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

Madam, you're right; 2006 was the year in which the environment changed. But don't forget that some of the increase in our budget relates to this guidelines review process, which is coming to an end.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Right, and part of that guideline review process is branching out into an area that seems to be somewhat extraneous to your mandate and has to do with generics.

I'd like to know why, if your main mandate is to deal with patented medicines, two of the eight hearings you've set up on guidelines on excessive pricing are devoted to generics.

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

Madam, obviously you've been lobbied by the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, but here's my answer.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Obviously I have concerns on behalf of Canadians about what you're doing, as a body that reports to the Government of Canada, about getting our patented medicine prices down. I don't see any evidence of that, and it's up to you to tell this committee how, where, and when they're coming down.

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

First of all, I'll say again, we do not have any control over most generic products.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Then why are you spending two hearings out of eight, if it's just a small amount?

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

Because if you were a consumer in Canada and knew the technical details related to those two hearings, both of these drugs—and I don't have the file before me—have patents. Our staff have reviewed those prices and found them to be outside the guidelines.

The result of the hearing cannot be predetermined, because the manufacturers will present their experts, and our staff will have their experts, which will help determine the real issues here.

You're correct; there are two—

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Two of eight, so that's one quarter of your hearings on generics, when your main mandate is patented medicines.

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

Yes, ma'am. Our mandate is to protect the Canadian consumer.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

And your compliance issue is with respect to brand-name drugs. So how do we understand this proportionality in terms of expenditure of resources? Are the brand-name drug companies coming to you and whining that the generics are getting too much control or too much influence? What is it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Our time is running out. Could you answer very briefly?

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

Obviously your last comment is probably correct.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

They're whining. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Dr. Carrie, please.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

I apologize that I had to step out, if the question has been answered already. I have a couple of questions, but I think most of my questions have already been answered.

In the information given to committee, AHRC noted that $350,000 was spent on travel last year. Where did that travel number come from? We are doing the estimates. Do you consider it to be high, to be average? Is that $350,00 going to be ongoing?

[Dr. Elinor Wilson]

Thank you very much for the question.

First, let me say in terms of travel that there are several things. We have a national board of directors that is mandated to meet at minimum twice a year and we have a mandate for stakeholder outreach.

Over the course of the last year, travel costs were incurred obviously for the board meetings. Secondly, we facilitated the bringing together of patient groups and professional groups to share best practices, to identify issues of common concern, and in some cases to develop standards and guidelines that help to direct their practice.

The third area is staff having been invited to major meetings of the professionals in Canada, to do workshops on the act and on what will be expected of them under the act as the regulations come into place. We've also done outreach to many clinics that have invited us to come to speak to their staff.

The last part of that outreach is that I and the chairperson of the board have been invited to present at both national and international meetings about the work of the agency and to provide information on its future direction.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much. I appreciate this.

AHRC is forecasting, in the main estimates, spending about $10.5 million. Have you ever spent that amount before? Where is that number going?

[Dr. Elinor Wilson]

Thank you very much again for the question.

The allocation we have in the main estimates is for $10.5 million ongoing. That was set by Parliament several years ago.

Obviously our intention is to be operational as quickly as possible. But you are quite correct; up to this point we have not spent our total budget, because, as I mentioned earlier, we are trying to gear up and staff up based on the regulations' being released and announced by the government. We are very hopeful that over the next year we will be able to start hiring the rest of our staff and have our full regulatory program in place, at which time we will need the full allocation. We monitor this on a quarterly basis. Obviously we'll know better, as we get into the year, what lies ahead.