Health Committee on April 15th, 2010

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Perhaps Dr. Bernstein--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We'll now go to Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

There are so many questions I'd like to ask.

I've been hearing from you today about the importance of the plan and an integrated international plan that does include research. It does include discovery, and it will ultimately include manufacturing facilities if they're required, as far as capacity around the world, and I understand that was the big reason for cancelling the manufacturing facility.

I'd like to start with Dr. Bertozzi, because I get from your comments that you understand the disappointment, and I respect very much the fact that you have a global HIV perspective, great partnerships, a coordinated effort, and the reality is that resources need to be focused on the best uses and the most up-to-date priorities in a fast-changing global environment.

I am wondering if you could speak to the current status of the HIV vaccine. Is Canada able to make a significant contribution without the vaccine facility?

[Dr. Stefano Bertozzi]

We absolutely believe that Canada can make a very significant contribution across a wide spectrum, everything from the basic science, the clinical science, supporting clinical trials. Canada is very well positioned to contribute in a broad spectrum. That's why we remain 100% committed to making this work even if the money is reallocated from the manufacturing facility.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Are you able to comment on the current status of the HIV vaccine?

[Dr. Stefano Bertozzi]

The current status in terms of...?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

The research, what we're finding out.

[Dr. Stefano Bertozzi]

What Dr. Bernstein and I have both commented on is that there was really a sea change with the results from the Thai trial. I can tell you our principal focus right now is on following up on that Thai trial, on those very exciting results from last summer, and following up in a way that can accelerate a similar trial being conducted in Africa with vaccines that are appropriate for the sub-types of the vaccine that are present in Africa, without at the same time losing sight of keeping alive, in parallel to that, other vaccine concepts in case that doesn't work.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

It sounds as if things are changing quite quickly.

Comments have been made by members of the committee about how the government showed a lack of respect for the Gates Foundation. I was wondering how you have found the working relationship with the Gates Foundation and the Government of Canada.

[Dr. Stefano Bertozzi]

I'm sorry, I'm unaware of any comments, certainly by us, that there was any lack of respect shown.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

No, there wasn't any by you. It's just that other members of the committee inferred that in previous testimonies and questions.

[Dr. Stefano Bertozzi]

I have to say that I have never experienced anything other than the ultimate respect.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much. I appreciate you saying that.

We know it was not an easy decision to cancel the manufacturing facility, and you knew there were going to be some disappointed applicants. There was a lot of money invested.

Can you explain to the committee how difficult the decision was and be able to demonstrate and explain to us how it wasn't taken lightly?

[Dr. Stefano Bertozzi]

I can tell you that before I joined the foundation I participated in a similar process, and I felt that disappointment very acutely. I think anybody who's participated in a request for proposals understands that disappointment is often the outcome, whether it's because you don't win or because the process doesn't go forward. I think any time you make a decision where people put an awful lot of effort into something and you have to go back to them and say, I'm sorry, it was all for naught...that's not a decision anybody takes lightly.

The problem is that you're charged with husbanding extraordinarily scarce resources. We have this extraordinarily large problem, and if we believe that reallocation of those resources to something that's more urgent should be done, then, inasmuch as you don't want to hurt the people who applied, the potential benefit associated with reallocating them is so much bigger that you have to make that tough choice. And believe me, it's harder to do that than just to follow the path you were on.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I do understand--I think the majority of the committee understands--it was a difficult decision.

Would you say that in your opinion, by making this decision, by reallocating, by focusing on the new priorities, on what the science tells us today, in the long term we'll actually save lives?

[Dr. Stefano Bertozzi]

I absolutely believe that. And as you heard in the remarks made here, there are more good ideas than there are moneys, even reallocating those funds. So of course it's exciting that we have so much good work to be done. I wish we had more money to do it.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That makes a lot of sense.

I was wondering if I could ask Dr. Bernstein as well. You mentioned that there has been such a fast-changing culture out there, and new science, new discoveries, and you're coming up with a new strategic plan. Is there anything that you could give this committee, like a heads-up of where that plan is changing, where we're going to be going over the next few years?

[Dr. Alan Bernstein]

In general, the real challenge, and it's a nice challenge to have, is how do we build on the scientific progress that's been made, really, over the last two and a half years? Dr. Carver mentioned one, and I'll go into it for a moment for the committee, because I think it's illustrative.

Quite recently, a number of groups have identified broadly neutralizing antibodies that are made by people infected with HIV. Why is that so exciting? You all know that every year, when a new flu strain comes out, we have to make a new flu vaccine. When H1N1 came on the scene, there was a big rush here and elsewhere in the world to make an H1N1 vaccine. Flu is a cakewalk compared to HIV. The flu virus does not change very quickly. It changes about once a year. HIV changes extremely rapidly. So you can build a vaccine against one strain of HIV, but if HIV changes every time it infects a new individual, then that vaccine will be useless against that individual who has just been infected.

So how do you make a vaccine that's broadly neutralizing? Is it possible? What's so exciting about this result that was referred to is that we, as humans, actually make antibodies, proteins in our body, that are broadly neutralizing. So that's a proof of concept as well, that it is possible. Not only is it a proof of concept, but the next question is, how do those antibodies work? What are they recognizing on the virus that allows those antibodies to be broadly neutralizing? If we can identify that, and it should not be that difficult, then we can go the next step, and can we incorporate that knowledge into making a vaccine?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Bernstein, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I've been trying hard not to.

[Dr. Alan Bernstein]

I'm on a science lecture here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I know, and it was very good, but we're about to go into our second round. I'm the gatekeeper. Sorry.

We're now going into five minutes, questions and answers.

Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your timekeeping and I'll try to be respectful.

I want to thank all of you for your presentations this morning.

I want to add that I am not a regular member of this committee. I have been sitting in on these hearings, in large part because of my concern of what's happened to the facility in Manitoba. I thank the two Manitobans who are here today for their appearance and their presentation.

You are all undoubtedly aware that the rumours are rampant, particularly in Manitoba, about the perceived, alleged political interference in this project. I say this with respect to the other bidders, but there was an expectation and an understanding by many in Manitoba that they had been the successful applicant. For reasons of politics, and politics at many levels, we have an understanding that this project was not awarded to Manitoba. I say that being respectful of all that we've heard here, particularly from the Gates Foundation.

Ms. Medwick, I wonder if you can comment on your knowledge of perceived political interference and whether there are minutes of meetings at your organization that reflect these discussions that took place.

[Heather Medwick]

We were told we were the recommended applicant going forward--not necessarily the successful applicant, the recommended applicant.

What has happened to the awarding of this contract has certainly been discussed at our board meetings. There was a delay in the decision. It was to be in the fall of 2009, and the ultimate decision came forward in January 2010.

There is certainly concern that there is not a clear answer as to what happened to this decision--how it was made. I don't know if it was political. I don't have an understanding or direct knowledge of whether it was political, but there is a concern that we don't really understand the decision.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

The allegations in the Winnipeg press, and perhaps the national press as well, are that in part, or maybe in total, this was because the previous CEO was required to step down once it became known that he chose to seek the Liberal nomination in a Winnipeg constituency.

Can you comment on your perception? Does anyone else wish to engage in whether that's a valid comment?

[Heather Medwick]

Our former CEO was leaving to pursue other opportunities. That is correct. He left in July. His departure, beyond that... There are allegations in the paper that there was political interference in his leaving. He was leaving to run in the election regardless.