Health Committee on Nov. 30th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Prigent.

We now go to Monsieur Malo.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Dr. Beaudet and Dr. Prigent, thank you for being with us this afternoon.

We understand very clearly that the government wants to invest more in business-related research. However, from our viewpoint, that must not be done to the detriment of basic research. In our opinion, short-term public health research must not be sacrificed for the benefit of long-term research.

What do you think of that view?

[Dr. Bernard Prigent]

You are absolutely right. We are currently dealing with complex research and development issues, which are issues being faced by the scientific community, both private and public, and which require closer cooperation. In fact, this calls for an enhanced quality of research in public institutions that do not serve private ends, but simply innovation.

We need to increase the rate of investment in public research. This is a very clear mandate of the institutes. I'll give you with some perspective: the investment that Canada makes in the institutes represents $700 million. The overall budget available to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry is $100 billion for the 20 largest companies. It is much more important for the institutes to find partnerships enabling it to align with the private sector on clearly defined objectives where the two can complement each other. We're not talking at all about seizing power over the private sector, quite the contrary.

Quebec is the best illustration of the power of these cooperative arrangements. The launch of the Quebec Consortium for Drug Discovery is an obvious example of what the three sectors—if you include the government—can do together. This is an initiative that helps build on the strengths of all three partners. This kind of initiative is the envy of the other Canadian provinces and has an extraordinarily high profile outside Canada. It could only have happened because the players sat down around the table, determined the research policy and matched the competencies of the two communities.

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

Dr. Beaudet, I'd like to ask you my next question in the wake of Dr. Prigent's answer to my Liberal Party colleague.

Dr. Prigent said that everyone around the governing council table has a certain interest since they all belong to various organizations. You said in your presentation that the members of the governing council do not approve grant applications.

Have certain members of previous governing councils recused themselves at times when the council sat? If so, in what context? Can you elaborate a little on that subject?

[Dr. Alain Beaudet]

I can definitely do that.

First of all, I would like to go back to the question from your colleague Ms. Bennett.

In fact, they are all potentially in conflict of interest. There is a vice-president for research. Is he speaking for his university? Should we have former vice-presidents of research? There's also a dean of faculty of medicine. Is he speaking on behalf of his faculty of medicine? Should we have former deans of faculties of medicine?

We want people who are in the thick of the subject because health research changes extremely quickly. We want the country's leaders, people who absolutely and completely know all research aspects, both basic research aspects, which you referred to, and more applied research aspects, commercialization aspects such as aspects of research on health services.

The important thing is to be able to have expertise around the table. We are clearly looking for varied expertise that enables us to respond more effectively to our mission as a whole.

More specifically, it is quite rare for members of the governing council to have to recuse themselves because we do not make financial decisions. Active researchers nevertheless do sit on the governing council, and they may at times feel uncomfortable in certain discussions.

For example, one council member is an active stem cell researcher. When we discussed ethical issues related to stem cell research, that member recused himself. This is a question not only of conflict of interest, but of apparent conflict of interest as well, to which we are very sensitive. We do not want to give the impression that we favour one player over another. We are very sensitive to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Beaudet.

Now we'll go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

And thank you, Dr. Prigent and Dr. Beaudet, for being here.

I want to begin by saying, Dr. Prigent, that I have no doubts about your professional expertise, your integrity, or your significant experience. This is really about whether it makes sense to have someone who is currently a vice-president, or in any position with a major drug company, sitting on the governing council of the CIHR. I know you said the governing council doesn't actually give out money. The governing council governs the CIHR, whose mandate is to make decisions about where to target money, what priority areas should be focused on, how we can increase the research capacity in this country, and how we can support a new generation of health researchers. So it is rather important.

My question to you and to Dr. Beaudet, who I believe submitted your name in the first place--

[Dr. Alain Beaudet]

Correct.

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

--is how do we explain your position to all these scientists--and you've heard their names--who have brought forward big concerns when you would have to recuse yourself much of the time and would put a particular slant on a body that's supposed to be absolutely independent in terms of health research?

[Dr. Bernard Prigent]

The nomination of someone representing any sector does not touch on the mandate of independence. The independence is there. I find it hard to believe that the presence of one person from one sector could derail the mandate of the governing council.

Once again, I have been asked to sit on the governing council as a citizen and as someone who brings experience. And that experience can be brought to the service of the public good.

I tend to take my cues from the international environment. As I said, when you look at the Medical Research Council, the United Kingdom is paying a lot of attention to issues similar to those here. And they have this as a standard practice. If you look at the similar body in Australia, it's the same. If you're looking at a similar organization in France, it's the same.

So the principle, if you like.... And I fully share your concerns. But we cannot have a situation where, when it comes to thinking strategically about the health of Canadians, we're creating some kind of intellectual apartheid, with some people not being asked to the table.

I find it extremely surprising. If there's one thing I pay attention to, it's the conflict of interest. I think it's important.

If you go into a private research institution and a public research institution, there is no difference. These people come from the same background. They have the same goals. They want to do good and they want to bring innovation to the service of patients. It's important to take that into consideration when you're looking at the appointment.

I understand the sensitivity, but it's really important for Canada and for CIHR to move forward and tackle--

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

I think what folks are saying is that there are other ways for CIHR to in fact tap into the private sector expertise, and there are advisory bodies, and there are other ways in which we can benefit from your expertise based in the commercial sector. But I think an appointment of this nature on the governing council tells folks that in fact we're prepared to undermine the independence of the body and open up a possible trend in terms of commercialization on what should be absolutely neutral, independent bodies, particularly when it comes to drug companies--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I just have to say you're so on the edge right now. I'm trying not to interrupt you, but just be reminded of what I just told the committee. As it's set out here, you're verging on the nomination process itself. What you're supposed to be focusing on is Mr. Prigent's ability to do the job and what his qualifications are, not his outside interest--

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

And according to the parameters of the committee's purview, it is to also examine the ability of the individual to talk about that position in terms of the requirements of the office. So I'm asking about the requirements of the office. In fact, I would specifically ask the question of the conflict of interest and what that means for the body, and what it means for the entire field, especially in terms of the context of Pfizer. Whether or not all of the mistakes that Pfizer made were in your time or not, your name is there in some of the most difficult cases. In fact, I think it's probably fair to say that your name is associated and it's tied to papers where there's been a significant history of transgressions against the integrity of science. I think that has to be understood and therefore taken into account in terms of assessment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You are way over time, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I'm sorry.

Perhaps you'd like to make a comment on that.

[Dr. Alain Beaudet]

First of all, I'd like to reiterate that Dr. Prigent is not representing Pfizer. Actually, if he was representing Pfizer, the outcry wouldn't be from the community; it would be from all the pharmaceutical companies that would also want to have a representative.

Dr. Prigent is representing himself. He is bringing his unique expertise to the table. It's an expertise, quite frankly, that I cannot believe was not there at CIHR previously. We're talking about the sector that is the third largest investor in R and D in this country. We're talking about a major player in health research, and we wouldn't talk to them? We wouldn't ensure that we align a vision?

I think we have to start doing things differently. I think we really have to first listen to each other and understand how Canada can do better on the world stage in terms of being truly competitive in health research. That's what we're talking about here. If we want to align our agendas, if we want to do that and as a country be competitive, we have to look at ways to work together with the private sector. I think we need to learn how to do that. Who better qualified than someone like Dr. Prigent to help us do that better?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Beaudet.

We'll now go to Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you Madam Chair.

To follow up, Dr. Beaudet, you mentioned expertise. As you know, before I was the PS to health, I was the PS to industry, and one of the biggest complaints I got was that there's not enough real-world experience. Government makes these programs and regulations without enough input from the private sector. You mentioned that this sector is huge in Canada. Occasionally, government, though well meaning, is sometimes not very practical in promoting things like innovation, commercialization, and applied research.

That's what we want to do as a country. We want to create good quality jobs; we want to stimulate the economy. You mentioned we were given a D. So there are some things that we need to do better. Internationally and in Canada, these types of appointments are nothing new. We talked about the health research board in Ireland and what they've done. If we look at the amount of research and development that Ireland has seen over the last 20 years.... Dr. Prigent, you mentioned that Australia, the United States, and the U.K. all have private representation. In Canada, even four provinces have the private sector involved.

So my question to you, Dr. Beaudet, is what has been the experience in these countries around the world? Are these countries prisoner to the private sector agenda? How are they finding this type of expertise to have on their agencies?

[Dr. Alain Beaudet]

First of all, I can only state what I know. I know for a fact that there's a heavy presence in the U.K. on the board of MRC of the biopharmaceutical sector, and I must say that they are fairly successful at curbing the trend and doing things differently in terms of innovation and public-private partnership. I think it has certainly been a major plus in that country.

I am also familiar with the CNRS in France, where there have also been, as you know, members on the board from the biopharmaceutical sector. There again, I can see only positive aspects. It's obvious that I would not have recommended Dr. Prigent to Minister Aglukkaq if I didn't feel it was an area where I thought we needed to do better.

As you know very well, we are in the midst of an economic downturn. I happen to believe that the way we're going to get out of it for good is through research and innovation, and it's not the public sector alone that's going to do it. It's the public sector and the private sector, and we have to work together. We have to understand what the needs of the private sector are. The private sector must understand where the public sector is going. We have to join our efforts. As Dr. Prigent mentioned, when I was head of the FRSQ in Quebec, we did that in a variety of initiatives.

I can tell you that we're not talking here about the protection of the intellectual property of a specific company. We're talking about areas at the pre-competitive level, where research benefits everyone. It benefits the public sector. It benefits Canadians, and of course it also benefits the private sector. That's what we want, isn't it? We want the private sector to invest more. We don't want to see them investing outside Canada. On the contrary, we want them to come back and invest in Canada so that we can actually gain economically from R and D investments.

I think we have a role to play in helping them do their job and doing our job better. It's our mandate. It's in the act.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Dr. Prigent, your résumé speaks for itself, and I don't think anybody at the table would dispute your immense body of experience. We do want to encourage more people in the private sector to become involved and help better communicate and work with governments, because at the end of the day, as we were saying, we want greater commercialization, innovation, research jobs, those spinoffs to our economy.

I was wondering if you could explain for the committee how you think your experiences qualify you for the role, and give us some thoughts on where you think the CIHR needs to go to position Canada globally, given the context Dr. Beaudet was discussing.

[Dr. Bernard Prigent]

I think one of the specific things that I will bring to CIHR is the experience that I've acquired working in various provinces, where that research for the right interface between public and private has been set in motion.

If you look at Quebec, if you look at British Columbia, if you look at Ontario, there is a series of initiatives at the provincial level that has encouraged and fostered innovative partnerships. We've talked about the creation of a consortium, which is at the pre-competitive level. In British Columbia, there has been the launch of not only the CDRD, the Centre for Drug Research and Development, but your government has launched centres of excellence for commercialization and research. Many companies have embraced those initiatives, and I think these are lessons, these are early days. But I think as an individual who is working and immersed in some of those initiatives, there is some experience that I can bring back to CIHR. CIHR is trying to develop an agenda to force the relationship with the private sector.

The other areas where clearly I'll be able to provide insight is around the reinforcement of the clinical research capability, or, even more so, as was mentioned, the patient-centred outcome initiative, which is much broader than the clinical development of drugs, if you like. There are many elements where I think my expertise can enrich the thought process and the thinking among the members and the leaders of that initiative.

Those are just short examples. Another interest that goes beyond my current appointment is my background in global health. I know that CIHR is looking strategically at partnering around the world with global charities and other governments to address global health. I'm extremely convinced that a closer collaboration with the private sector can bring solutions to the health of many people in need, in Canada and beyond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Prigent.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thanks for being here to speak with us today. Like other intervenors, I wouldn't question Dr. Prigent's integrity or his understanding of conflict of interest. I acknowledge that pharmaceutical products have an important role in health care, as does commercialization. But here's my concern: we're struggling with our health care system across the country. We have a demographic that's going to put more pressure on the system, and we know we need a new paradigm. We also know that pharmaceuticals contribute to one out of nine emergency visits to Vancouver General Hospital, and that those visits are more likely to result in admissions and longer hospital stays. So the new paradigm—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Ms. Murray, can I just interrupt you?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

No, I'm actually getting to the point, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

No, you are going outside the scope of questioning and you have to go back to where you're supposed to be.