We've heard a lot of concern, and we have a petition from a lot of people who know about these things. This is somewhat extraordinary. As Professor Downie said, doctors aren't people who tend to go online and sign petitions.
When I was about 12 years old, we had a debate about whether there would be dancing in the church. Some thought that if we held the dance in the church a number of people would be very upset. But if we held the dance somewhere else, everybody would be happy.
We are hearing that someone else could fill this gap who would not meet this kind of protest. There are many other people with expertise in commercialization who have not acquired it on the direct payroll of a pharmaceutical company. We hear voices saying that we need this kind of expertise on governing council, but we've also heard that there are a lot of people who could fill it without generating objections from thousands of people.
My temptation would have been to have a much simpler motion to say that we've heard the witnesses and we cannot recommend the appointment to the minister. People know that we've done the due diligence. People know that we've listened to many witnesses. In light of the counsel to “first do no harm” and the reputation of CIHR, I believe that this committee ought to listen to the dissenters and agree that someone else could fill this job without raising so many objections.
I will listen to Judy if she feels this is the wording she prefers. Or we could simplify it to say that the committee has heard witnesses and calls on the Prime Minister to withdraw the appointment. Moreover, we've heard that there are lots of other people who could do this.
Therefore, this is not a good appointment.