Health Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

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

Thank you.

Reading the supplementary estimates, it looks to me as though CIHR is going to benefit from a transfer of money from different areas. I think you alluded to one when you were speaking to Ms. Hughes' questions regarding the transfers of money from Health Canada, the National Research Council, and other areas.

What's the rationale behind transferring it to CIHR?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to answer that?

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

The rationale would be that the transfers are for CIHR to conduct research in specific areas such as hepatitis C. I don't remember all of them.

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

Would those dollars be set up for specific projects, and would those projects then be the same projects that would be performed, but by CIHR rather than by the other institutions?

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be splitting my time with my colleague.

I want to talk to the gentleman from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

One of my greatest interests is health and wellness and prevention. I was wondering what you're doing to educate Canadians on taking a greater role in their own health and wellness. Also, I was wondering if you could comment on the role of technology. Is there anything you're looking for in that regard?

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

Certainly it is part of the mandate of CIHR to not only create knowledge but to translate that knowledge. Actually, it turns out that this latter part of the mandate is possibly the most challenging. Even though clearly, in some instances, we have generated the evidence through research, the uptake of that knowledge is not what one would want it to be.

In recent years, CIHR has put a lot of emphasis on knowledge translation. It has become very clear that in order to have an impact there, we need to involve the stakeholders from the beginning, and at all levels. When it's going to impact a specific community, we need to have these people at the table, to have them be part of the research process. They have a buy-in, if you will, to the project.

The same applies for changing practices. We need to have practitioners at the table to also be part of the process. In health services, we need to have the proper provincial jurisdictions at the table.

There are two programs we've instituted that are helping us very much in attaining these goals. One is basically what I've just described, which is to have, in partnership with the stakeholders, a joint effort to identify specific research problems that they want to be addressed in priority, and for us to go and do the research. Another aspect has been what we call “evidence on tap”, which refers to the fact that a lot of times the evidence already exists; it's just not being used. Again, we sit down with stakeholders and identify with them the information that would help them to change either policy or practice. Because it comes from them, we are getting much more of a buy-in, again, in those situations.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Chair, I'd like to follow up on some questions with regard to the CIHR.

I am certainly a huge supporter of health research. One of the positive aspects of this year's budget, I think, is that there continues to be a money flow and increases for health research. But I want to ask, how does this compare with other jurisdictions that are facing economic challenges? Is Canada unique in continuing to push toward increases, or has that been standard?

As well, how was it during the last economic slowdown, in the early 1990s? What was the approach of the government then toward health research?

[Dr. Pierre Chartrand]

Certainly, over at least the last decade, there has been quite significant investment in Canada in health research and in the creation of different programs that were extremely important to not only attract to Canada but also retain researchers.

A major program was the Canada Foundation for Innovation. There was a need for important investment in infrastructures, which are increasingly expensive but also increasingly needed for us to be able to maintain research at an international level. That certainly has been a very important program. The other very important one was the Canada research chairs program. It has enabled us to attract to Canada, and to retain, the best and the brightest minds.

CIHR is striving to ensure that we direct the resources to these individuals who have been recruited or retained as being, as I say, the best and the brightest, who already have, in most cases, competitive environments of research through the CFI. This is the challenge we have, to ensure that we have the right balance of support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chartrand.

The time is up for the second round.

We have five minutes left, and there's been a request from Mr. Malo and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis for two and a half more minutes each. Is it the will of the committee to allow this to happen?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Okay, thank you.

Monsieur Malo, two and a half minutes--and I will stick to it.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Benoit, you said that it is important for you to amend your guidelines, that consultations were underway, and that new guidelines will be issued by June.

Given the low number of incidents of non-compliance, why change the guidelines? In what direction do you want the new guidelines to go?

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

In a perfect world, by changing our guidelines, and by updating them, we will no longer have to hold any hearings, or deal with any cases of non-compliance. That's our objective; but it may be rather utopian.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

One hundred per cent?

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

I am setting out this utopian goal with a smile on my face. There will always be non-compliance, but we hope that there will be far less. The guidelines have not changed since 1994.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

What will they will look like?

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

Pardon me?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

To your mind, what will the new guidelines look like? You are telling me that they have to be changed and upgraded, but how is this going to be done exactly? How are they going to be amended?

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

We want to resolve one of the problems that is often raised by pharmaceutical companies, particularly during hearings, when we are addressing a contravention. When companies improve their drugs so that they have a better effect, companies should be able to get a better price. Yet, the current guidelines do not allow us to accede to their request.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Earlier, you stated that you were going to look at the agreements concluded by the provinces with respect to discounts. Don't you have the impression that you are interfering in negotiations the provinces, including Quebec, have with manufacturers? You are saying that all of this falls within your mandate. Did I understand correctly?

[Dr. Brien Benoit]

The case is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal. In fact, a hearing on this matter is scheduled for June.

We regulate net prices. The discounts given to provinces reduce the average price of transactions. We believe that it is within our mandate to go over these discounts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, two minutes.

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

Oh, right; you know that's impossible.

I'll address my question to Elinor, because I haven't really had a chance yet to ask about the whole area of reproductive technologies. This issue has been around for 16 years. I can remember the 1993 royal commission, and I was here when, from 1997 on, we dealt with one bill after another. Finally we had extensive hearings, and then we thought it was done. That was in 2004. And here we are, caught up as a result of a court case.

Much has changed in this period, and I'm wondering if our legislation is still relevant. What have we missed the boat on in terms of not legislating and regulating in this area? What kinds of problems do you see in the future, even if we get the regulations back on track and to this committee and approved?