Evidence of meeting #49 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was research.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, the reason we're here today is to examine the qualifications, and we need to stick to that line of questioning.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Chair, I am doing that, because in fact the fundamental issue at stake here is the question of conflict of interest and the question of a vice-president of Pfizer being appointed to the CIHR. When in fact we have someone coming to this committee to defend that appointment who also gets a considerable amount of money from Pfizer, I think it's rather important for the committee to know this and rather important for me to pursue a line of questioning that at least establishes the credibility of the witnesses on this particular issue.
4:05 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
Perhaps I can answer that.
4:05 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
Yes. I would say the major interaction I've had with Pfizer is that I've run a large international multi-centre trial looking at the use of quinapril in post-bypass surgery. This was a study initiated by a Dutch investigator and me. It's one of the five largest cardiovascular surgery studies ever done, and we proved that the medication was ineffective, and our hypothesis was that it was. The second—
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
That's important, but I was just asking how much money you've received from Pfizer in support of research. That was it.
4:05 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
I couldn't tell you, I couldn't tell you.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Quite considerable, okay. Let me just ask a further question, then.
4:05 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
I can continue, if you wish, on—
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Actually, I have some more questions, because in fact, speaking of your research, there's a copy of an article here that you've co-authored with three members of Pfizer's staff. The connections are very important for this matter, and the questions have to do with your ability to testify here today.
I would like to ask you if you can tell us about the ethics committees with the CIHR and their concerns, raised with the standing committee on ethics and then with the governing council, about this appointment. Can you clarify for the record what concerns were raised, how they were raised, and what was done about them?
4:05 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
The standing committee on ethics questioned the...or mentioned its concerns regarding the nomination of Dr. Bernard Prigent, and those were presented to us by its chairman--
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
So it's the ethics advisers from each of the 13 institutes getting together, raising their concerns, taking them to the standing committee on ethics and then going to the governing council, correct?
4:05 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
No, my understanding is that the standing committee on ethics expressed its concern, and after this--
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Where did the standing committee get its concerns? Who raised concerns with it?
4:05 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
I think it came, from my understanding, from them and they then asked their president to present their concerns. He did, we discussed them in detail, and as you know, the president of the committee signed the letter supporting the candidacy of Dr. Prigent--
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Right. I appreciate that, but I think the concerns came from heads of the ethics committees of the institutes to the standing committee, and then the standing committee raised it with the overall governing council. Despite the concerns raised, you decided to proceed with the appointment.
Let me ask you one more, Dr. Rouleau and then Mr. Brenders.
I thought maybe you'd have a concern because you had written as recently as November 12 in an article, and I quote: “Although reporting biases have been shown to occur regardless of the funding source, they appear to be more likely in studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry than in studies funded by other sponsors”.
Doesn't that in fact nullify your argument that everybody's in a conflict of interest? There's no difference between pharmaceutical holdings--
4:05 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
What has that got to do with Bernard Prigent?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
What has it got to do with an institute that oversees Canadian health research?
Don't you see, from your point of view, that the body that in fact oversees research... I mean, your governing council decides how many institutes there shall be. You decide the strategic objectives of the CIHR. Surely where you come from matters in terms of making those decisions. So I think there is an inherent conflict of interest that you've really not addressed today.
But let me ask Dr. Brenders this, because she's going to cut me off really quickly. You're a registered lobbyist, right?
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
That's fair enough. There's nothing wrong with registered lobbyists being here. I just wanted to put that on the record.
But it's rather interesting that you come here to defend this appointment when Dr. Beaudet, who's the president of the CIHR, sits on your board of directors and you are a friend of CIHR. I mean, there's a lot of overlapping and interlocking memberships here, which really makes me--and I hope everyone here--question the value of your testimony here today. I mean, isn't there a vested interest in your presentation?
4:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, BIOTECanada
I think it's a fabulous representation of the collaboration that goes on in Canada. Advocacy is a component of what we do to help build Canada's industry and research institutes. We work very well with CIHR, with NRC, NSERC, a host of universities--the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia--and two hundred and some odd companies in every jurisdiction across the country.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Fair enough, but my question has to do with, in fact, the governing council of the CIHR. There's nothing wrong with commercialization, nothing wrong with all kinds of advisory committees involved in drug companies and food manufacturers, whatever. That happens all the time, and we need the advice and the collaboration.
We're talking about the governing council. Surely to God you see the potential for a conflict of interest here if in fact you're so aware of these interlocking memberships and the interests that are involved.
Let me ask Jocelyn Downie--
4:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, BIOTECanada
Well, to answer that question now, if I might--
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
Conservative