Evidence of meeting #2 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
When I asked the minister earlier whether or not at any time there was a recommendation moving forward with respect to the HIV vaccine production facility, she said no. I asked her twice. She said no a second time.
I then asked Dr. Butler-Jones with the Public Health Agency of Canada, and he did not answer this question specifically. When asked a little later on by my colleague from the Liberals, he said there was a recommendation going forward. There was a ranking. That is a recommendation.
He then indicated that when it went to the next step of departmental review--and we know that the departmental review included not just the Public Health Agency of Canada but also Health Canada, Industry Canada, and CIDA--the decision was made based on criteria that were not presented to the four bidders in the first place when they made their propositions. It was then rejected.
My question now is who is telling the truth?
10:45 a.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
What I said is true. The advice from a committee that's providing technical advice on scientific merit is one piece of it. That is not a recommendation. That is advice coming forward. So we're talking semantics, perhaps, about what is a recommendation versus advice.
I don't know where to take that, because it comes forward and then we have to review it in terms of all of the merits of it, not simply the scientific merit of it. And the recommendation coming from that was that none of them passed the bar. That is what I know.
10:45 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Right. But based on the initial criteria, which provided the guidelines for the bidders to make their proposals...which added up to a lot of money in the case of the Winnipeg consortium, $750,000 at least, if I'm not mistaken. As Kirsty and others have said, it could be up to $2 million for all the bidders. A lot of money went into putting in bids based on criteria that were then not included in the decision. So that's a highly questionable process to begin with.
My question is really back to the minister. I asked her if at any time there was a recommendation moving forward.
You said “no”, Madam Minister. There was a recommendation moving forward based on the original criteria and the process that was put in place. Why did you say there was no recommendation moving forward when there was? Who intervened, and when, to quash this process and in fact cancel a very important initiative that would have ensured the production of a vaccine on a not-for-profit basis?
I know you said earlier, Madam Minister, that we should look at our responsibilities vis-à-vis the taxpayer. It would seem to me that when we're talking about a made-in-Canada facility that would operate on a not-for-profit basis, that is so important to the world and to Canada that in fact the head of Canada's HIV researchers said it will now be difficult for them to test their work now that a non-profit facility to get potential HIV vaccines into clinical trials has been shelved....
I also want to reference the international AIDS vaccine initiative, which described, in a letter to the Prime Minister, unprecedented advances that have occurred in the AIDS vaccine field this year, and specifically the discovery of two new broadly neutralizing antibodies by a research consortium that are breakthroughs and important to be tested and produced in such a facility.
Minister, what are you hiding? Who's behind all of this? What is the real reason for cancelling a process that has been in the works for three years? Certainly you can't fall back on a study done in July of 2009 showing, in fact, that there's a capacity in the for-profit sector, which we knew all along, and certainly knew in 2007.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU
I'll just start off by saying that my answer is no different from Dr. Butler-Jones'. No one is hiding anything here. The four organizations did not meet the criteria of the terms for submissions to establish that. No one is hiding from the fact that this capacity issue is no longer an issue for Canada. We've been upfront about that. We have the report we've said we would table, and the organizations did not meet the criteria established for such a facility.
To balance the need issue as well as to make the best use of Canadian taxpayers' money, there was no need to proceed with such a facility in Canada when there was capacity. Most importantly, the four companies did not meet the criteria.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Which criteria, in terms of the initial proposal, did these bidders not meet?
10:50 a.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
Sustainability was a key part of the proposals. They did not meet it.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
10:50 a.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
Self-sustaining, and capacity to actually continue as opposed to build it. Once you build it, then you need to maintain it. None of them met that criteria--
10:50 a.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
Can I just say, this is a proposal thing. I cannot get into the details of each of the proposals. That's inappropriate. The point is that there was a fair and open process, with appropriate evaluation, and you're suggesting that somehow I would alter that or somehow the minister altered that. We did not.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Why would Winnipeg, in fact, be told that it met all the criteria and then some?
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
I have no idea. I did not state that. I never heard that. I think that was an inappropriate statement by whoever made it, because it was untrue.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I, like probably many others in this room and across the country, really enjoyed greeting the world with the Olympic Games, and we're currently, of course, now enjoying the Paralympic Games.
When I was in Vancouver I was incredibly impressed with how things flowed, but I know a lot of background work and a lot of things were happening to make it a success. I think it would be of interest, for the committee and many others, to understand how our health portfolio worked closely with health partners to ensure public health and safety before the 2010 winter games.
Thank you.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU
Thank you for that question.
A lot of great work was done through the Public Health Agency of Canada as well as Health Canada to prepare for the Olympics, and I would like to offer my thank you to the group and acknowledge the successful program that they were able to establish.
The emergency preparedness and the safety and security of Canadians during the whole Olympics was a very high priority for the Government of Canada. The Public Health Agency of Canada contributed to the high level of preparedness for the Olympics through the provision of resources in several areas, such as quarantine services, the activation of the emergency operation centres, and sending members of the health emergency response team to Vancouver as well as to Whistler.
In particular, the Public Health Agency of Canada deployed the health emergency response team—trauma physicians and nurses and other medical professionals—to the mobile medical unit in Whistler to support the medical staffing requirement.
Finally, the Public Health Agency of Canada also deployed two microbiological emergency response teams to mobile labs in B.C. to support the 2010 games. As part of the RCMP-led task force, MERT was part of the overall health and safety protection systems that were set up in Vancouver 2010. The team also consisted of infectious disease lab experts with specialized lab equipment designed for easy transport, and they were equipped to provide on-site and rapid diagnostic testing to help respond to the threats of infectious agents, whether natural or man-made.
There was a lot of great work in this. I thought it was quite successful.
Dr. Butler-Jones may want to add more to that.
10:50 a.m.
Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada
“Go Canada Go” at the Paralympics.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
If there's a little bit of time left, following on the theme of research into Alzheimer's, could you share with us, Madam Minister, any of the successes we've had with Canadian health research in the last year? I know that Canadians are particularly proud of the investment we have in health research.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU
Thank you. That's a great question.
Our government is proud to support the work of the many outstanding health researchers we have in Canada. Our researchers are recognized as being at the leading edge of many fields of health research.
I'll take cancer stem cells as an example. Canadian researchers have pioneered this field of research, which is leading to new approaches to treating different types of cancer.
The success continues. As of last November, two Canadian-American research teams led by researchers at the Toronto Princess Margaret Hospital were awarded grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. Over the next five years, these teams will study the potential for stem cells to treat leukemia and eliminate solid tumours. Our government is contributing $40 million to support those projects through CIHR and Genome Canada.
As minister, I'm greatly encouraged by the research discoveries being reported almost daily in the media. Again, these discoveries are bringing us closer to better treatment for diseases that affect many Canadians.
Thank you.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Mr. Brown and Minister Aglukkaq.
We now have one last question, which will have to be extremely brief.
Dr. Duncan.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have just two things. I want to make sure that, one, we get tabled the recommendations for listeriosis and what has been accomplished and whether the whole recommendation was met for all 57, please. And also the chronology of what happened with CHVI. Where I struggle is that if this were something that was going to be undertaken, and there was this commitment to do it, and there was the ranking of the science, why didn't we go back and say “You haven't met the criteria for sustainability”? If they passed the science, why didn't we go back?