Health Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2009

[Alfred Tsang]

Madam Chair, perhaps I could direct the committee's attention to the first line on page 173. For the H1N1 flu virus outbreak, a large majority of the $18.7 million that you see there is for our first nations and Inuit health branch. Those are incremental resources for exactly that purpose.

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

But you're still taking $5.4 million from other programs for pandemic planning. I think you said that, and I'd like to know from which programs it has been taken.

Maybe you can come back with a detailed breakdown of where the $5.4 million came from and which programs are doing without in order to help support some of the new initiatives around pandemic planning.

I do need to ask again about GSK.

Dr. Butler-Jones, you said earlier, and you've said before, that 10 years ago a sole-source contract was signed because there was no other uptake for the request. However, it is true that at the time there were very specific requirements attached to that particular application, and that in fact it was designated for a specific area within the province of Quebec. It was not an open competition, so to speak.

Secondly, there should have been a review of this contract when ID Biomedical sold its property to GSK in December of 2005. That was two years after SARS and a year after you started your job, Dr. Butler-Jones. Wasn't there a review of the contract to be sure that the lessons we learned from SARS and important information gathered from the communities in terms of the flu pandemic or the flu virus...?

It's well known that you have a policy of making sure that more than one contractor is on hand. Why was it not reviewed then, and why weren't there changes made so we weren't faced with the mess we were facing this year?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Every vaccine manufacturer in the world has had challenges producing vaccine. That having been said, Canada has had the most secure and best supply for its population of any country in the world. It is as good as anybody—

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

That was not my question.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

That is the bottom line, though, if you look at any other country in the world in terms of access to vaccines for its population. Since that's the bottom line, I think that is important to make note of.

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

But the bottom line, Doctor--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, your time is up.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

In terms of GSK, the current manufacturer is the only vaccine manufacturer that produces vaccine in Canada for influenza. It's still the only one.

We did do a review when the company bought out ID Biomedical. We also revisited with the provinces and territories as to their desire to have a domestic manufacturer. They confirmed that they wanted and needed a domestic manufacturer.

Canada is only one of nine countries in the world that has domestic capacity for the production of influenza vaccine, for seasonal or for a pandemic, which is the key issue here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you--

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

[Inaudible--Editor]...then why not produce?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

There's not the same security issue for seasonal vaccine as there is in a pandemic.

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

So the statement made publicly about actually revisiting the single-source contract is not true?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, but you've gone over time, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, by a minute.

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

Madam Chair, this is important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You know what? We all have important questions. I myself would like to--

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

It's a point of order, Madam Chair.

The government publicly said it would be reviewing the single-source contracts and that was said before this meeting. Now I'm asking why we can't get a straight answer on that and whether we're moving towards or away from the single-source contract.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm sorry, this is not a point of order, it is debate. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Butler-Jones.

As it is the Conservatives' slot now, I've asked permission to ask a question.

If you look at page 176 of the estimates, the Public Health Agency of Canada is granting $3 million to the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute for the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance.

Could you please elaborate on how this grant will support the Canadian strategy for cancer control?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

It's a named grant. Again, research and work in this area is collaborative. The different organizations involved in cancer research, cancer control, etc., in the country all have a part to play. We have elements of our work that contribute to that overall work.

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I may be missing the nuance of your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

This particular money is targeted for the breast cancer alliance, which is very good. But is there anything else you can tell me about a cancer strategy that we put forward? Can you tell me how this will support the control of this disease? Do we know specifically what this money is going into?

I just saw that on page 176. This $3 million is a lot of dollars, valuable dollars, and it's targeted for the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, which is very good, but I'm just wondering how that money is being used. Is it being used for research? What is it being used for?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

It is used for coordinating, so we have the most effective research possible—the sharing of findings, the collaborations around research, etc. It's an important partnership that predecessors to the agency were involved with. It's just one element of many and it really is a close collaboration. We work very closely with CPAC and with others as well in terms of the different roles we play to actually enhance not just research but the application of research, prevention programs, etc. They come together, and that information, that research, really contributes to the overall plan to ultimately deal with not just breast cancer but other cancers as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I heard the other day that there was a prediction that cancer would be the leading cause of death within the next five years. I didn't know whether that was substantiated in terms of research or whether it was something people were speculating on. I do know that, for instance, more and more farmers are coming forward because they're having cancer and they're speculating that it is because of exposure to herbicides and things like that.

I know this is stretching the estimates a little bit, but do you have any information on this side of it?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

I can speak in terms of trends of cancer. Cancer and heart disease are the two biggest killers. As we age, as we survive other diseases, we're more likely to get cancer. Individual rates for any given age for many cancers are decreasing, not increasing. So your risk of getting stomach cancer at the age of 50 now is less than it was in the 1950s. With the reductions in smoking, the risk of getting lung cancer also is declining for those groups. On the other hand, as we've seen increased rates of smoking in young women, we've seen lung cancer overtake breast cancer as the largest killer of women, at least amongst the cancers.

As we move forward, given cancer is a variety of diseases, it is a mixed picture of increases and decreases. In general, though, the risks of most cancers have declined, in part because of the reduction of major...including natural cancer-causing agents like aflatoxins in foods—we've seen some improvements in stomach cancers and others as we move forward.

We're obviously all keen to prevent as many preventable diseases as possible. Cancer as a whole, heart and lung diseases, and stroke are our biggest killers. Again, there's lots of room for improvement in prevention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

We have just about three more minutes and then we have to go into votes.

Is there anyone from the Liberal side who would like to ask a quick question?

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just would like to go back to the natural product licensing. What will it take, given that this hasn't been working? I see some funding in here, but according to the numbers I'm distilling out of the order paper questions from the ministry, it's more or less $400 per item that still needs to be dealt with. That seems low from my understanding of how these things are tied up, some of them for five years in the backlog.

What level of funding would it take to actually meet Health Canada's goal of addressing this incredible backlog by March 31, 2010, which is the stated goal? That's essentially four months from now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Rosenberg, please.