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.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Very good.
Dr. Engelhardt, what progress has the Government of Canada made in continuing to engage the Canadian HIV/AIDS stakeholder community in the work of CHVI?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada
I'm going to, if it's agreeable to you.... I have to admit that some of this predates my being with the federal government, so some of the details I'm not as privy to.
Steven, would you be able to respond to that?
Head, Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative Secretariat, Director, Office of HIV Vaccines, Public Health Agency of Canada
I think, as I indicated earlier, we're currently providing funding to the Canadian AIDS Society and a number of other stakeholder groups as well in the HIV community. For example, in Montreal a couple of months ago, there was a large meeting called the Canadian HIV/AIDS Skills Building Symposium, in which over 500 people affected, working on the front lines, came together in Montreal to improve their skills and their capacity. We sponsored a workshop focusing on HIV vaccines and other prevention technologies such as microbicides to try to raise awareness and understanding of these complex issues and to try to increase their engagement in working with the scientific community moving forward. Our intention is to try to be collaborative and work with them in moving this forward.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you very much, Mr. Uppal.
Now we'll go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Rainer and Steven, you've done it again: you've contradicted previous testimony. Maybe that's what happens when you become engaged in this tangled web of deceit and obfuscation. You just said, in fact, that—
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
We've heard this line of questioning from the NDP member, and she's questioning the integrity of our witnesses. She has attacked Dr. Butler-Jones, who is not able to be here to defend himself--
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I realize that the witnesses here all have different opinions, as does each of us as parliamentarians around the table, but—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Dr. Carrie, what committee rule has been breached that you know of?
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Parliamentary behaviour, personally attacking our witnesses....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
I need the actual rule. This is a matter of debate, not a point of order.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
No, continue from where we stopped when this debate started. You have used up over a minute.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I think it was 30 seconds, when I just made my opening comment.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I have a time keeper right beside me, so I'll be able to....
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
You have just said, in fact, that while the expert committee that was brought in from all over the world to evaluate the bids was at work, suddenly the study appeared, sponsored by the Gates Foundation. In fact, on March 16, Butler-Jones was very clear when he said:
Once it was clear that none of them were successful, we found out that in fact additional capacity has developed in the last few years that made this unnecessary.
Again I say that when you start to give us a line that isn't based on fact, it starts to diverge all over the place.
I want to ask Bill and Don and Dr. Sekaly, what would be the reason for this change of heart? We know it's not based on anything to do with the bidders not meeting the task at hand. We know that Winnipeg actually was told that they were successful. We know that it has nothing to do with capacity, because in fact the very reason for this in the first place is still there today.
So my question is, what's the reason? Do you have any sense of why this government is trying to scuttle this project? Is it petty politics because Terry Duguid was involved in Manitoba? Is it big pharma politics because they don't want to concede the agenda to a non-profit or generic sector? Is it regional politics because if Winnipeg were going to get it, then Quebec would be left out? Is it ideological politics in terms of AIDS and trying to find a vaccine?
What would be the reason for stopping something this significant that would put Canada on the map, that would have been important for Winnipeg, that would have actually made a difference in terms of preventing AIDS and finding a cure?
Bill, Don, Dr. Sekaly, could you please answer that?
President, Canadian Association for HIV Research
I can't speak for what's in the minds of our public service or our political representatives. I don't know what it is, but I think you've given us the perspective that it's political. You offered ten political ideas as to why something might have happened.
I can say that when I got wind of the decision, I got mixed messages. I got two reasons, not one reason: that none of the proposals fit the requirements, and second, that we have new capacity. When I hear that kind of argument, it makes me think there's probably something else as well that's unspoken. I wouldn't call it deceit. I would say that maybe there was a policy change somewhere that has happened in the five years or more of the program and that this proposal is no longer favoured.
You said it was political. That's your opinion. It's okay.
President and Chief Executive Officer, PnuVax Inc.
Well, at the moment I've just been back in Canada for the last year and I don't know enough of the background, but it's still a mystery to me. I think that's the simplest statement I can make.