Evidence of meeting #81 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A video is available from Parliament.
Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice-President, Resource Planning and Management Portfolio, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Again, thank you very much for the question.
SPOR was constructed on a premise that we would cost-share 50-50 with our partners. No SPOR expenditures will occur unless matching funding is available. For example, on the support units, the national set of research centres being established across the country, the provinces are coming forward and they are paying their 50%.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I'd like to carry on with what Dr. Morin was speaking to with regard to the medical marijuana. My expertise and background are as a retired member of the RCMP, and I did a number of years of drug work. I applaud the ministry for the initiatives they've taken on revamping the regulations with regard to the medical marijuana initiative.
I do believe that everyone in this room would concur that for some cases medical marijuana has been found to be a very good source of pain relief, as well as other opportunities that are available, but there was rampant abuse in the old system. I wonder if you could provide to this committee some of the improvements in the new regulations that will better satisfy not only those who will be able to have marijuana for medicinal use but also those who were concerned about its rampant abuse.
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
Thank you very much.
I'm very pleased, Madam Chair, to respond to this question.
As the committee has reflected in the past, or discussed in the past, the courts have been clear that what we need to maintain in the country is reasonable access to marijuana for medical purposes, but there have been challenges with the way the system has been structured.
The go-forward plan is to treat marijuana as much as possible like other narcotics that are used for medical purposes. We want to create the conditions for a new industry that would be responsible for its production and distribution, where the quality is controlled.
Therefore, under that system, Health Canada would no longer receive applications from program participants, but rather, a new supply and distribution system based on licensed producers, who would be audited and inspected by Health Canada, would be established. The production of marijuana in homes and in communities would be phased out, so as I said, it would treat this medication, which is very helpful when used for medical purposes for some individuals, as was noted, more like other substances—controlled through licensed producers, and as prescribed by medical practitioners, shipped to patients directly.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Further to that, Madam Chair, one of the concerns I've heard from patients is that the THC levels, or tetrahydrocannabinol levels, will be vastly changed so that they will not receive the THC level they are expecting, and different strains will provide different medicinal properties to them.
I wonder if you could speak to that a bit from the perspective that the new program will potentially regulate the types of strains that will be available to patients.
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
Thank you very much for the question.
We are doing the consulting now. We are in the phase of putting out the proposals and getting the feedback.
One thing we have done is to put out information to potential licensed producers. We are in dialogue with them, asking them to think about what the seed strains might be. A variety of strains might then be available, for example, and some people might find more pain relief from certain strains than others.
Again, in a more highly regulated, regularized environment, we would be able to have several strains that licensed producers would develop. At this stage, that's still in development, as we are in the transition mode.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I suspect, and do concur, that removing this from the dwelling-house and outdoor grows to a viable commercial facility will also assist those who are in the market of growing medicinal marijuana in their ability to provide a reasonable product at a reasonable price. Is that correct?
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
Yes, our assumption is that for licensed producers, it may well be a very competitive market. We'll audit for quality, and our assumption is that they will work hard to provide the best possible price.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you again for staying.
I have a few questions I'd like to ask. One of them is about CIHR.
As you know, CIHR has had a 30% reduction in its scholarships. That seems not to be actually in keeping with the government's agenda, which is to help train highly skilled workers, especially in certain biomedical and other technologies. I wondered how that would affect it.
There's also another part about CIHR I wanted to ask. As you know, CIHR is transferring $510,000 to commercialization efforts. Is that coming out of the reduced budget—as we know, the budget's reduced by about $45 million—or is that new money that is going to be given CIHR to do that?
Those are the two questions, Mr. Roberge: scholarships and the money for commercialization.
Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice-President, Resource Planning and Management Portfolio, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Thank you very much for the questions.
With respect to the scholarships, there is no change in the levels of scholarships being provided, so I'm not aware of the percentage reduction you're referring to. Our existing programs, the Vanier, the Banting, the Canada graduate scholarship programs, are all functioning at their steady-state levels. There is no change in those programs.
With respect to the additional money, the $500,000, comparing these main estimates to the previous main estimates, it's about a $43-million envelope, so it's a relatively small variation. Once again, this is not incremental funding as a result of budget 2013. That money is aimed at SPOR, so it's not impacting that particular line object in the budget. It would be smaller adjustments, which I really can't explain here and now but would be happy to provide additional detail on.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you.
I notice that contributions went down in terms of the infrastructure for first nations and Inuit by about $93 million. This is a community that has had third world health statistics that are not getting any better. How will that reduction address the need to deal with high suicide rates, high obesity, high diabetes, and an explosion 185 times the non-aboriginal rates of TB in Canada? As you know, it's no longer ordinary TB. It's drug-resistant TB that we might be seeing here soon.
How will that deal with those major problems that are coming up?
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
Thank you very much for the question, Madam Chair. I'm happy to answer it.
Because we're comparing all-year funding with supplementary estimates (A), (B), and (C) in the previous year to the main estimates in this year, the funding looks very significant, as was noted, but I can certainly flag for the members the reasons for that.
The first is that the innovation fund that we spoke of—the infrastructure on telehealth and on accreditation, which was noted—has been renewed and has been announced in the budget, so you as a committee will see that come forward in the supplementary estimates. That was an infrastructure program so it is not reflected in the main estimates, but it will come before your committee.
Another significant area was that we provided upfront money to the First Nations Health Authority. Obviously, there's a huge undertaking to do this very important transfer that we're doing in British Columbia, so there was one-time money provided to the First Nations Health Authority for readiness. What we will see in 2013-14 will be the transfer of the whole of the money. That's just one of the things that come out of the fund.
There was a coding change, I was told, and there is some reduction in non-service delivery organizations, which I think we spoke about last time before the committee. So there was the elimination of funding to NAHO, for example. We had some funds that were for front-line delivery, which we've protected, but some of those non-service delivery reductions occurred here as well.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Ms. Yeates, will the new money that goes into the budget be the equivalent of the $93 million that's been cut?
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
The combination of those four items I mentioned is the difference in total.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Okay, thanks.
I noticed that in your estimates the Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence are being cut by an extraordinary amount. What's going to replace those?
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I missed the title.
Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice-President, Resource Planning and Management Portfolio, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Thank you for the question.
This program is a tri-council program, so it's administered by the three granting councils. A national competition is run. The results of that competition determine the relative share of each council. The competition is yet to be run. The money is in the fiscal framework and is available. Once the results are known, and if health researchers are as competitive as they always are, we would expect to again have comparable funding. But, again, we don't know the results of that yet. It's not a cut.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Dr. Roberge.
Thank you, Dr. Fry.
We'll now go to Dr. Sellah.
NDP
Djaouida Sellah NDP Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the minister's assistants for staying with us.
I would also like to wish Mr. Roberge a happy retirement.
In the report on plans and priorities, under the priority titled “Promote Health System Innovation”, the following is stated:
Work with provinces, territories and other health care partners on health system renewal, innovation and sustainability.
Does this mean that Health Canada will participate in the Council of the Federation's working group?
If so, could you tell us more about that?
Deputy Minister, Department of Health
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Working with the provinces and territories is among our objectives. However, the issues we deal with can change. For instance, a few years ago, we focused on the waiting list issue. We talked about health human resources. For the time being,
the Council of the Federation is a council of the premiers of the provinces, and at this time the federal government has not been invited to that particular group of discussions.
NDP