Evidence of meeting #11 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We have to vote on the amendment.
Mr. Del Mastro, you're going to have to repeat that amendment. Could you, please? And then we will vote on it. So everybody take a deep breath.
Thank you.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
I was just saying that the committee acknowledges that it provided the ministers short notice, and as such it may have been difficult to realign their schedules.
If I could speak to this just briefly, I do think reasonable people around the table will recognize that providing a week's notice or less for folks to appear at committee is unreasonable. In fact, any committee that I've served on here at Parliament has put in requests for ministers to appear but they have never in fact indicated that the minister should appear within a week, understanding that ministers keep busy schedules. We all keep busy schedules; theirs are busier and their responsibilities are more significant.
In that regard, I think the committee, if it wants to appear as being reasonable or rational, should vote in favour of the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you. The amendment has passed. Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis is abstaining.
Now we will vote on the motion.
Bloc
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
If you'll just be patient for one minute, we'll get this. Everybody's input is here.
Now I am going to--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I'll read this, and then in due course we'll go to the next thing.
This is the motion as amended:
The committee expresses its concern to the House that Ministers Toews, Aglukkaq, and Clement did not appear before the committee on April 22, 2010, in relation to its study of the cancellation of the HIV vaccine manufacturing facility under the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative, as requested by a motion adopted by the committee on April 15, 2010. The committee understands that it provided the ministers with short notice, and as such it may have been difficult to rearrange their schedules.
And that was passed, as amended.
Ms. Murray.
Liberal
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Madam Chair, I would like to propose an amendment that adds to the amendment that was just adopted to say:
However, the ministers have refused to appear before the committee and have not proposed any other dates.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
That is my understanding, Madam Chair, as to what has actually happened.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
There has not been a request for another date. There has not been a request for a scheduling consideration. It's a refusal to appear before the committee, with no other date proposed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you, Ms. Murray.
Okay, I think we're clear on that:
However, the ministers have refused to appear before the committee and no other date has been provided by the ministers.
(Amendment negatived)
Now let's go back to the original motion.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Now we're going to go on to the presentations. We have our guests here, and I would like to get into the presentations and into the questions and answers.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study on the cancellation of the HIV vaccine manufacturing facility under the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative, we have two witnesses this morning. We have by video conference from Winnipeg, from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Dr. Frank Plummer, the scientific director general, National Microbiology Laboratory.
Welcome, Dr. Plummer. We're very pleased to have you here this morning. Can you hear me, Dr. Plummer?
Dr. Frank Plummer Scientific Director General, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada
Yes, I can.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you.
With us also, from the Public Health Agency of Canada, we have Dr. Butler-Jones, chief public health officer.
We will begin. I understand, Dr. Plummer, you are going to be the one who's giving the opening remarks, and then we're going into questions and answers. Is that correct?
Scientific Director General, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada
That's correct.
Scientific Director General, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada
Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Frank Plummer and I'm an infectious disease physician and an HIV researcher. As you've heard, I'm a scientific director of the Public Health Agency's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, and I'm also the chief scientific officer of the Public Health Agency of Canada. I'm also a distinguished professor at the University of Manitoba.
Being here with the chief public health officer brings back memories of our last appearance here together, when, during committee proceedings, we were in the process of alerting the world to the presence of the pandemic H1N1 virus in Mexico and Canada and activating our agency to deal with the problem.
I would also like to thank the committee for allowing me to appear by video conference. I would normally have attended in person, but I have a speaking engagement on the future of infectious disease research at the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce later this morning, and they had sold close to 300 tickets, so I didn't want to disappoint them.
With that introduction, I would like to address my opening remarks to two issues: my involvement in the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative and my relationship with the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.
Concerning the Canadian HIV vaccine initiative, I was involved in the discussions among various parties, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Government of Canada, that preceded the creation of the CHVI and led to the design of the initiative. I was a lead, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in negotiating the terms of the memorandum of understanding with the Gates Foundation that created the CHVI. In April 2008, at the time the requests for proposals for the pilot lot vaccine manufacturing facility was released, I recused myself from involvement in the review process. That was because of my involvement with the Gates Foundation as a recipient of grants, and collaborations between the National Microbiology Laboratory and the International Centre for Infectious Diseases, which was planning to submit a bid. After that, I had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in the activities related to the vaccine manufacturing facility and no knowledge of the outcomes of the review process. I fully respected my recusal.
Concerning my relationship with the International Centre for Infectious Disease, I was a co-chair of the task force that recommended the creation of the ICID to then Minister Rey Pagtakhan. I was also initially a member of the board of directors of the International Centre for Infectious Disease. I voluntarily resigned from the ICID board in August 2006 because the Public Health Agency of Canada, and in particular the National Microbiology Laboratory, was discussing a number of collaborative projects with the ICID. In October 2009 I was approached by Dr. Lorne Babiuk, who is the chair of the board of the ICID, regarding the vacant position of president and CEO. He was concerned that they would have difficulty in filling the position with a top-flight individual because the organization was in a rather tenuous situation. Then he asked me, as someone who is knowledgeable about the ICID, the infectious disease world in Canada, and individuals in Winnipeg, if I knew of any potential candidates. At that time, I mentioned a number of names to him and continued to do so periodically.
That is the full extent of my involvement in the process of selecting a new president and CEO for the ICID. I resent assertions that this is somehow improper.
That concludes my remarks, and I would be glad to answer questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you very much, Dr. Plummer.
Now we'll go into our seven-minute round for questions and answers. I'm going to be very mindful of the time, and we'll begin with Dr. Bennett.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Thanks very much. We do appreciate you both coming back.
The issue that was raised, I think, by the candidates for this facility.... They raise some concerns about the Gates study and whether or not, really, there is a difference between a theoretical capacity around the world to be able to produce enough vaccine for a pilot project and a practical on-the-ground reality of that capacity.
I would like to hear from both of you--in particular you, Dr. Plummer--that if you had a terrific candidate for a clinical trial, without this new facility, do you believe that the commercial producers of vaccine would be prepared to stop their lines in the middle of a flu epidemic to make enough vaccine for your study or clinical trial? I think what we learned in the fall around H1N1 is that we didn't even have the capacity to make two different vaccines at the same time. We actually had to stop one and start the next, and it really did cause problems.
How would a commercial enterprise, which is accountable to its shareholders, stop a commercial run in order to make enough vaccine for you to be able to do your clinical trial?
