I think Dr. Downie had a response.
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.
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.
3:50 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, Professor of Law and Medicine, Dalhousie University
My understanding is that historically they sought the expertise with respect to commercialization by going to the private sector but not the commercial health sector. They recognized and explicitly decided not to go to pharma because of the conflicts of interest. They thought they would get the expertise with respect to pharma by talking with them.
Consult with them, have advisory committees or whatever, but don't put them on your governance table. That's the approach that has been taken historically. So this is a shift.
3:50 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculties of Law and Medicine, University of Toronto
I can point out the example of the Swedish Research Council. They have a member on their governance council from a public-private partnership organization that looks at, and basically has a specialty in, the creation of public-private partnerships.
There is a lot of expertise out there that can be canvassed and that can be obtained--in many different provinces in the country, actually. It is very possible.
It is wrong to present opposition to this appointment as an opposition against commercialization and against partnerships. I think you can have perfect partnerships and perfect promotion of commercialization without bringing the very significant conflict of interest on the governing board level. It's a question of balance and it's a question of the degree of conflict of interest.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
It sounds like part of the concern is the fact that this is an active senior member of an existing high-profile company. Would you be supportive in principle if it were someone with a pharma background but they were retired, for example, or working at a think tank? And if you are comfortable with that, do you have names to propose to the committee?
3:55 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, Professor of Law and Medicine, Dalhousie University
I would agree that this is the way to diminish conflicts. I don't have names at the tip of my fingers, but they would not be difficult to get for you. There are lots of people with that expertise that we could get for you.
3:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculties of Law and Medicine, University of Toronto
In schools of business, even, people do work and consult with pharmaceutical companies. They have connections and have experience, but they do not have the direct and very significant conflicts that are brought to the table when it's a representative of one particular industry and not the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
3:55 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
The interaction with the pharmaceutical industry is very complex and is done at multiple levels. It's not just commercialization but how we partner with them. I could give you many examples of how we have... I've been involved in doing research with pharmaceutical companies that have acted and changed the way we practice today. So to have somebody whose--
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you. I actually have another line of questioning, and my time is tight, so with your permission, I'd like to ask another question.
I heard a comment that over-prescription is a concern for our health system. In connection with this appointment, I would suggest that the lens of pharmaceuticals as a solution would be more applied--
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Be careful with your questions. You're supposed to be directing them towards this gentleman's qualifications and not inferring other things. This is what the examination is supposed to be about. Can you be aware of that?
3:55 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, Professor of Law and Medicine, Dalhousie University
I would like to talk about the qualifications piece and the role of the governing council.
Precisely what you pick up on are the strategic decisions the governing council makes that affect things like whether we are going to do research into over-utilization, certain kinds of uses, and advertising--all the kinds of things causing problems for our health care system that have been driven by pharma interests. Will this person at the table shape CIHR strategies in a way that is problematic, because they are shaped by a conflict of interest? It does go directly to the qualifications issue, I believe.
3:55 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
Jocelyn, we don't micromanage those things. That type of thing wouldn't be discussed by the governing council. We're there for strategic direction, not for micromanaging. That's how it works at governing council, I can tell you. I'm a member of governing council.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Dr. Lemmens, do you have any comment on that question of the qualifications not being suitable for the overall strategic needs of the council?
3:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Faculties of Law and Medicine, University of Toronto
Yes, for sure I do. I think the governing council would actually make decisions about large strategic initiatives. It could, for example, launch an initiative on research into the impact of patented medicines on pharmacare programs, as I mentioned in my presentation. Or it may actually decide that overall there has to be more emphasis on or more support for the drug safety and effectiveness network. If these large strategic decisions are not made at the governing council level, I do not know where they are made.
December 7th, 2009 / 3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for being here with us this afternoon.
Dr. Rouleau, since you sit on the governing council of CIHR, allow me to direct my first question to you.
What I believe to be the major concern CIHR's independence. The comments we hear tend to assert that the presence of an industry representative could compromise CIHR's independence. On the other hand, I understand that the members of the governing council have supported the appointment of Dr. Prigent.
Could you tell me why, in your opinion and that of the members of the governing council, the presence of Dr. Prigent is not a threat to the independence of CIHR.
4 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
That is a good question.
Firstly, I believe it is important to remember that all GC members have a conflict of interest since we are the ones who get the money from programs that have been developed. Consequently, he is not different in this regard. Furthermore, I can tell you that we are watching each other very closely to ensure that everyone adheres to the ethics code. That is the first thing.
Secondly, I know Dr. Prigent. Several others know him too and had an opportunity to work with him on various projects and were impressed by his abilities, his integrity and his ethical values. This is why we believe he has the qualifications we have been seeking for quite some time.
It is interesting to see that these two persons here ask us what we, in CIHR's GC, were looking for. As a member of the governing council, I know that we have been looking for a long time for the kind of skills that he possesses.
So we believe this person is honest and able, just as all other GC members are. He is not really any different. Finally, I can tell you that we are watching each other to ensure the best ethical practices possible.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
What is the real and individual power of the 17 members of the GC?
4 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
Individually, no GC member has any power because everything gets decided by a majority vote. Therefore, Dr. Prigent will introduce points of view we might not have considered before. In order to develop partnerships with industry, we will need a really good grasp. This is not a person who has been retired for a long time, and things change very rapidly. I can tell you that things change from year to year and one has to be real close to the reality of this group and to everything to do with biotechnology in order to be able to understand how best to work with them for the common good. The influence of an individual is minimal.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Last week, when I asked Dr. Prigent if his appointment could lead CIHR to adopt a policy that would favour the short term over the long term, to the detriment of basic research, he was very clear that this was not his philosophy or how he viewed his mandate.
Yourself, since you carry out daily basic research or social research whose direct and immediate benefits are more or less tangible, do you see him as a threat to the type of more basic research that you carry out?
4 p.m.
Dean, Faculty of Medecine, Université de Montréal
That is not so. One of our major problems is trying to close the gap between discovery and implementation. There is another gap in bringing this to the bedside and bringing this to the community. In many situations, we have common interests with industry. So we can go quite a long way on that basis. It is important to keep this in mind because I read lots of things about the concern people might have because someone of the industry is at the table. However, GC does not make decisions at that level. We used to do that in the old days. But five years ago, we received an outside evaluation from an international committee that told us to stop micro-managing and to do our job as a GC. So this is what we are doing now, we no longer micro-manage.
Making decisions on specific programs is not part of our job. We have scientific directors and a scientific council. They have the abilities to make those decisions and they make them, not us.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you very much, Dr. Rouleau.
We'll now go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
4 p.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, and thanks to all of you for being here.
Let me start with you, Dr. Rouleau. You are a member of the governing council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, correct? Could you tell us how much money you've received from Pfizer in support of your research?