Thank you, Chair.
I'm trying to find some ways to talk about how outcomes might be different at a public spending level or at a health level if we did GBA well.
A number of us around the table met with representatives from an ovarian cancer lobby a couple of weeks ago. I was kind of stunned at some of their numbers. For ovarian cancer the fatality rate is terrible. There is no vaccine. There is no screening. There have been no major treatment breakthroughs since the early nineties, and no improvement in outcomes because there has been such a poor research investment.
They gave us numbers from the 2013 Canada research survey. In that year, investments in ovarian cancer were $13.8 million; for breast cancer it was $74 million; and for prostate cancer it was $36.5 million. That's just one example of something that looks really out of whack.
I'm curious. Do you have any experience with that file? Can you talk with us a little bit about how, if we had a more robust gender lens at the time of budget decisions and policy decisions and if we did this better, that kind of outcome might improve?