Evidence of meeting #8 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was facility.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thanks for all of your testimony on this complex issue.
My first question is for Mr. Engelhardt and Mr. Sternthal. Were there any members of the government involved--in person, on paper, or over the phone--in the discussion in the fall of 2009 concerning whether to proceed with this project, which of the applicants would be in the lead, or whether the project should be cancelled?
Head, Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative Secretariat, Director, Office of HIV Vaccines, Public Health Agency of Canada
When you say “members of the government”, do you mean officials?
Head, Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative Secretariat, Director, Office of HIV Vaccines, Public Health Agency of Canada
Of course, throughout the process, we kept our minister informed that this was being undertaken, that we were undertaking a review, and what the review included. Of course, our advice, as we developed that at lower levels of organizations, the government departments, and the Gates Foundation, was shared with our minister, who was informed about the fact that we felt that--
Head, Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative Secretariat, Director, Office of HIV Vaccines, Public Health Agency of Canada
This initiative was to be co-funded by the Department of Health and the Department of Industry—so the Minister of Industry—as well as CIDA, which is under the Minister for International Cooperation. So definitely all three ministers would have been briefed and kept informed of how this process was proceeding.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
And in being briefed, were there conversations, or was there involvement or decision-making by those ministers or other ministers?
Head, Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative Secretariat, Director, Office of HIV Vaccines, Public Health Agency of Canada
This was, of course, as Dr. Butler-Jones indicated to the committee in March, advice provided up through officials, and it became the Government of Canada's position—
Head, Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative Secretariat, Director, Office of HIV Vaccines, Public Health Agency of Canada
In terms of the timeframe, it was towards January when this was communicated to the applicants.
Liberal
Head, Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative Secretariat, Director, Office of HIV Vaccines, Public Health Agency of Canada
With Dr. Engelhardt, discussions were ongoing, and that advice was being generated during the fall.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
Madam Chair, the information flow was really unidirectional: on process and how far we had achieved the process. Obviously we're obliged to inform our minister on an interesting project like this—where we were, were we meeting, the milestones, the process—but there was not a judgment call requested, or a request, if you like, for approval from the minister at all. This was done, in that sense, within the government, within the officials' group—including during last fall.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
So there were no conversations involving other ministers last fall in wrestling with this decision. Is that correct?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
Not in wrestling with the decision, no; there was no influence that way.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
We have heard very contrary views to those of the officials on basically all of the criteria that were suggested as a reason for this cancellation, whether it be dollar sustainability, technical capability, or the need for the facility.
Mr. Engelhardt, you mentioned that eventually the decision was made by someone somewhere that this facility would not provide as much value as spending the money on other priorities. That would assume there was an assessment, a cost-benefit analysis, if you will, of certain other priorities that was then tested against the cost-benefit of spending the $88 million this way. Can you table that cost-benefit analysis? Your testimony has been very vague as to what other priorities were assessed as providing greater value. I would like to see that assessment, if there is one. Could you comment?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
I think what I said—and I hope I was clear, but perhaps I wasn't—is that the overall issue of dealing with HIV/AIDS on a global basis has many large components. I don't mean to be vague about it here.
From a strict cost-benefit analysis...? Steven could respond to that. There was no additional study carried out that assessed cost-benefit of the multitudes of other opportunities that were there—
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
But I wrote your words down directly. You said It was cancelled “because it would not provide as much value as spending it on other priorities”, so I assume that someone has assessed those alternative priorities, if that's the basis for the decision to cancel this program.
So my last question is, how much money collectively had been invested to get this project from 2002 or 2003, when it was first conceived, to this point when one bidder was informally advised that they were successful? How much was sunk into the process? Could you answer that very quickly, Doctor, or Mr. Sternthal?
Head, Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative Secretariat, Director, Office of HIV Vaccines, Public Health Agency of Canada
We can provide that information after the meeting, if you'd like.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Gerson, you obviously have a great deal of experience in this area of vaccine development, and you mentioned that you have been involved in several vaccine projects with a number of organizations. Have you had any affiliation with any of the applicants in this case?
President and Chief Executive Officer, PnuVax Inc.
I had not before any of this occurred. After the first evaluation, the first phase was to look at a pre-proposal from each applicant and decide which ones would then be asked for a full proposal. After that, there was a gap. Then there was a request for people to review a second round of proposals, and I declined to be involved in that. The reason I declined was that I was moving back from Korea to Canada.
After that, I was asked by Western to help with theirs, but that was totally after the first evaluation, and I had nothing to do with the second. And I had nothing to do with the one that led to this conclusion.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
And had you worked with any of the companies prior to this project?
