Health Committee on March 18th, 2010

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

I'm not sure what you mean by the question.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Was there a scientific review for this project, was there a steering committee, and was there a departmental decision?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

There was the review committee, as Ms. Wasylycia-Leis identified, that had reviewed it, and all the reviews were discussed in May. There was a steering committee for the whole process. And at the end of the day there were recommendations that came forward from the total process that identified that none of them met it, and following the information from the Gates Foundation, there was not a need to proceed.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

There was a ranking from the scientific committee. Did any of them make it past the steering committee?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

All of them had deficiencies. None of them were able to... The way they were presented--and all we can do is work from their proposals--none of them met all the criteria.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Did anyone make it past the steering committee?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

The steering committee is the facilitative committee. That's in terms of the whole process. The external review and the internal review come together. None of them were without deficiencies that would allow it to go forward.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Dr. Butler-Jones, with respect, did anyone make it past the steering committee?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

That's not a point; I'm not sure...because nobody makes it by until all of that comes together and the decision is made.

There was one proposal that was felt to maybe have potential, but it had serious deficiencies. So that means it does not make the bar.

At any point, none crossed the bar in terms of being adequate as a presentation to be ready for funding.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay.

What, if any, political support was there for ICID, which was bidding for CHVI?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Was there any political support for--

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

This was a non-political process in terms of the agency's role, the other departments' role, and the review process. It was a non-political process. It was an independent process. What other comments politicians might have is totally separate from the process.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

What, if any, political support there is for L5L?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

L5L is the concept for--I think the committee is aware of it--a different way of doing high-level containment in clinical studies and so on. We're exploring what might be involved in that, the value of it, and so on. We're still in the development of what might be a proposal.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Before I hand it over to Dr. Bennett, I just want to point out that this is Brain Awareness Week. Over the next 20 years, brain issues will become the leading cause of death and disability, and I'd like to mention the need for a national brain strategy in this country.

Now I'll hand this over to Dr. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I guess there's some controversy, particularly in the public health community this week, in terms of the statements of the government ministers. I guess as Canada's doctor, I wondered if you would set the record straight as to whether you believe that contraception saves lives.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Clearly, as it relates to maternal and child health, appropriate programs across the spectrum, including contraception, are an important part of public health. Which aspects governments choose to focus on and provide any investment in that make a difference is helpful to the public's health. Public health planning will involve a comprehensive approach, and governments, agencies, organizations, and independent individuals focus on different aspects of that. It is all welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Malo.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities has advised pharmacists since January 1 to stop selling natural health products for which the Health Canada approval process has not been completed. So it is clear that if the approval process had been completed on December 31, 2009, that advice would not have been given by the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities.

I would like to know, since the Ordre des pharmaciens does not advise its pharmacists based on frivolous considerations, what Health Canada's reaction is to this advice. Those people certainly based their recommendations on something concrete. What was Health Canada's reaction to the advice given to pharmacists? Did it state an intention of finding a way to eliminate the ambiguities in relation to what Ms. Boudreau earlier called the change from the DIN to the NPN as the sole factor in the regulations? Did Health Canada not evaluate incremental or interim measures so that from now until the entire approval process is completed, we can be sure that products on the shelves are safe, which I think is what everyone wants, but that producers and retailers are not unduly punished?

[Michelle Boudreau]

Thank you, Mr. Malo.

Yes, of course, we are fully aware of the NAPRA decision, which is fairly recent. For products that formerly had a DIN and now have an NPN, so are now natural health products, they were dealt with very efficiently by us. First, under the regulations, we gave them six years, which is a fairly long time. Then, the applications that had to be sent to us to transfer these products were quite simple. They were processed within 15 to 20 days. There were never backlogs in that category of applications. We completed all the applications we received within the time allowed in the regulations, that is, by the end of December 2009.

Regarding the NAPRA decision, it is clear to us that the NAPRA and Health Canada have the same objective. As you mentioned, we have to make sure that products are accessible, but also safe and effective. So we continue to work with the people at NAPRA. They are members of our external committee, which I referred to a few minutes ago. We continue to work with them to find potential solutions and internal administrative solutions. People have to be able to prioritize their applications and we have to be able to process the applications more efficiently. The improvements we have made in the last 12 to 18 months have helped a lot. If you look at our figures, you will see that most applications have been processed and finalized within that period, covering about the last two years. That is the kind of work we are continuing to do. As well, we work quite closely with consumers, who are also members of our external committee.

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

Could transitional measures be considered?

[Michelle Boudreau]

For the moment we are not planning any transitional measures. I assume you are talking about transitional regulations.

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

That's right.

[Michelle Boudreau]

No. At this point we are more considering administrative solutions. We have already implemented solutions relating to the way the work is done in the directorate. That being said, we will see how things go. Certainly we are working very closely with NAPRA to find a solution and recognize, as you said earlier, that there can in fact be an impact on the industry.