Health Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

This is out of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

It is a city that I like, and you don't attack the chair. I'm sorry.

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

Yes, or like the minister responsible for Manitoba. There's been barely a peep from anyone about the fact that, by all conclusions, and whether or not it was inappropriate for an official out of the agency to say this or not, Winnipeg had won in every category and had been recommended.

Now, that may have been at the scientific level, and I think that should raise concerns on its own. The fact needs to be noted that these 19 scientists from all around the world came and looked at all four bids and concluded there was a clear winner, or a ranking, as Dr. Butler-Jones has said. That gives hope to people.

In fact it didn't surprise any of us, because we have Dr. Frank Plummer, and he's well respected and he's known the world over for his breakthroughs in terms of HIV and AIDS. It's because we have Dr. Allen Ronald, who's also been a pioneer in this area. It was because a consortium brought together the international association vaccine initiative, the Canadian association, the serum industry, the biggest generic company in the world, and Cangene, the biggest biotech manufacturer in the country, and spent three quarters of a million dollars. It didn't surprise anyone. It seemed to be the logical place.

Naturally, we're trying to find out not just why Winnipeg lost. In fact, we've all lost. All four bids are gone. That means Canada has lost. And it is about a non-profit facility, and it was designed for that in the first place, because the private sector doesn't necessarily make room for scientists to do exploratory discovery research. The scientists who have come to us during these hearings have said that. They've talked about biding their time waiting in line. This centre was going to be a place to work on vaccines, maybe not just HIV but tuberculosis or other areas that could have been centred here. It would have created, wherever it was located, whether it was going to be in.... What's your riding?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Peterborough.

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

Whether it was going to be in Peterborough, London, Quebec, or Winnipeg, it would have been a boon to Canada because it would have been a centre of research. It would have been a place for Canadian scientists who are skilled and expert in this area to do their work where they would have had easy access. It would have created more jobs. It would have attracted more scientists. It would have put Canada more on the map. It would have had a return on investment, as opposed to what I think we're now doing. Sure, this money will go to development and research, but it won't have the same impact, and there will be problems.

If the scientific community made the recommendation--the scientists who came--why wasn't that heeded? I'm not talking about politics. Why did the bureaucrats change the recommendation? Secondly, why would you bring in 19 scientists from around the world to do this review of the bids when you know that the Gates Foundation has a massive study going on about capacity? If in fact that study is going on, you know what it's for, and it is about doing due diligence, you wouldn't bring in a scientific community at the same time to do the review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, your five minutes are up.

Dr. Butler-Jones, can you wrap this up?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

Thank you very much for the question. There are actually a number of questions and points in there.

I guess it would be helpful if what I said, which is true, were actually heard: the scientific committee did not recommend any of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Excuse me. The bells are ringing for a 30-minute bell. Do I have consent of the committee to continue for about five or six more minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

This was not a bureaucratic decision. The scientific committee, which is one piece of the review, identified deficiencies in all of the proposals in technical management and financial aspects. When I spoke of ranking, it was a semantic difference. They weren't ranked in terms of who was better than everybody else. Nobody passed the bar. They were all looked at and ranked in the nomenclature as to whether they were better or worse in each of the categories. I don't know how often I need to say it, but none of them crossed the bar on a scientific or total merit basis. That was the bottom line.

I'm not aware of any employee.... I'm just saying if there was an employee and someone came forward and said one of their employees was speaking out of turn--and not just out of turn, but bloody wrong.... It was a lie to say that Winnipeg won. That's just not true, so whoever said it was wrong. They did not have the knowledge, and whoever it was should not have said that and been involved in this. I don't know who it was because nobody will tell me, but to impugn the agency in terms of our processes is totally inappropriate.

Just for the record, it's Allan Ronald, not Arnold.

On the not-for-profit, the process was to have a facility because there was a lack of facilities. The Gates Foundation was involved, and it was their request that if we did this it would be a not-for-profit facility. Being not for profit was not the objective of it. As it turns out, the capacity is there for both profit and not for profit. And $88 million, or however much, will go a lot further than having just another building that will be a monument to redundancy. That's our concern. The capacity study has confirmed that for us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Butler-Jones.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I think we've heard here at the committee again that this is politics trying to supersede sound public policy. We had an allegation just a few minutes ago asking why people aren't standing up for Winnipeg. That may sell back in the riding, but we've just heard from Dr. Butler-Jones again that none of those bids met the bar. Any allegations that some place has lost out are simply local politics playing out on this stage, and it's unacceptable.

There was a bid from my city; there were bids from other cities. It speaks to an entitlement, as far as I'm concerned, when you say, “My city lost and nobody is standing up and fighting for me. Nobody's fighting for us. Where are all these members who should be fighting for their towns?”

Dr. Butler-Jones, I want to thank you for the clarity, because there are a lot of good scientists in this country. When I was first elected I promised the people of my riding that I would fight to ensure they got their fair share, but we're not entitled to more than that. If you want to run a national government and a national public health agency and that's your responsibility, that is a significant responsibility. You should not be subject to political pressures.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

You sound like Vic Toews.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'll be certain to indicate to Vic Toews that political pressure doesn't have a role in public health, that it should be independent of political pressure.

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

What about accountability? Does that count for anything? That's what we're here for.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Accountability matters. In fact, I'll ask Dr. Butler-Jones that question.

Dr. Butler-Jones, if none of those bids had met the bar for what had been set forth, and independent research indicated that wasn't the right way to go, would it have been responsible for you to move forward and plow ahead with it anyhow because somebody thought you should stand up for Winnipeg? Would that have been responsible?

[Dr. David Butler-Jones]

This is a huge opportunity for Canada. We now have $88 million that previously would have been committed to bricks and mortar. It would have created some jobs, there's no question, no matter where it was, due to the production of that facility. But it is not needed in the current environment. The $88 million will go a long way, whether it's for clinical trials or purchasing the time, etc. This is a huge opportunity to further the advancement of the HIV vaccine initiative. This is an opportunity for Canada, and I think Canada will be well served by what we do with it.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Butler- Jones.

I will be reporting the motion back to the House on Monday.

I now have to dismiss everyone. It's time to go to votes.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.