Health Committee on April 15th, 2010

[Dr. Keith Fowke]

Thank you.

I'll just comment on what we should be investing in. I'll leave my colleagues who have more experience in vaccine production to comment on the latter.

In terms of research, I think we need to invest in doing the best quality research in the heart of the pandemic, that is, in Africa and Asia. We need to bring Canadian research excellence right into the heart of the pandemic and work with researchers from those low- and middle-income countries, to really work at the heart of the problem. The large team grant through the CHVI was a mechanism to do that. And then I think we need to invest in discovery science.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Fowke.

We'll now go to Mr. Uppal.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for being here today and answering some very important questions.

The members opposite questioned the motive behind this decision. They falsely claimed that the decision not to assign the winning bid to ICID was for political reasons. It's unfortunate that the Liberals would practise such mud-slinging with unfounded accusations for their own political gain.

If it was true that this decision was made for political reasons, one would assume that the Government of Canada would have withdrawn all of its funding to ICID. Has this been the case?

[Heather Medwick]

I just want to make a point of clarification from something that was asked before. When I said we are not arm's length, I meant that we were independent of the government in every way. We don't receive core funding from the government. Our funding is project-based, and we have received funding for projects from the federal government but also from other sources.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

So you do receive funding from the federal government?

[Heather Medwick]

Project-based funding.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Very good.

How much money do you receive from the government for your operations?

[Heather Medwick]

For core funding for the operations we receive nothing. For project-based funding in the past year from the federal government, I don't have the exact figure, but it would probably be around $2 million.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Around $2 million.

[Heather Medwick]

Between $2 million and $3 million for sure.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

In general, how have your relations been with the government, past and now?

[Heather Medwick]

Very good. We've brought forward project ideas and they've brought project ideas to our organization. It's been a positive working relationship.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Very good. Thank you.

Frankly, the Conservative government is spending more than $84 million per year in HIV and AIDS funding in Canada. In fact we've provided more funding to HIV/AIDS than any other government in Canadian history. I was wondering if the witnesses could comment on Canada's international standing as a leader in HIV/AIDS research and funding. Maybe Mr. Bernstein?

[Dr. Alan Bernstein]

That's a good question. Let me first put that in context, and it's partly in response to Mr. Dufour's question. Global funding for HIV/AIDS vaccines--so not HIV/AIDS, but vaccines--has dropped this past year by 10% because of the economic downturn, at a time when the scientific progress has never been greater. So there's this frustrating disconnect between the opportunities for funding and the actual situation.

Having said that, in terms of Canada's standing, I think there are very real strengths across Canada, both in terms of therapeutic research of the kind that Dr. Carver was referring to and in terms of community-based research. CIHR has a very large community-based research program called the HIV trials network, which conducts trials domestically across Canada. Those are all very good examples of strengths of Canadian science.

There are good strengths in basic science. You've heard some from Dr. Fowke in terms of basic research coupled with epidemiological research looking at exposed and infected individuals and sex workers in Nairobi and other places.

I think there are some very real strengths of Canadian science. Again I look at it in my current role as something that should be built on.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Dr. Fowke.

[Dr. Keith Fowke]

I would agree that we can't be good at everything and we have to pick our places where we can really accelerate. In the Canadian HIV research, in addition to the things that Dr. Bernstein has mentioned, I think we're very good in mucosal immunology, understanding the immune system and how it works, and we're also very good at understanding why some people are exposed but not infected. So I think there are areas where Canada can accelerate and hit above their weight.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Dr. Bertozzi.

[Dr. Stefano Bertozzi]

There's no question that Canada has been a leader. Canada has hosted three of the international AIDS conferences and no other country has done that. The presence in Kenya and in Karnataka, India, are two landmark examples of Canadian leadership. But I can't miss the opportunity with so many members of Parliament here to suggest that financially Canada could certainly do more.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Stefano Bertozzi]

The foundation has to date awarded approximately $200 million to Canadian institutions in support of this effort. We would very much encourage Canada to play a bigger role in supporting the global fund and supporting research in this area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Dr. Duncan, who is sharing her time with Dr. Bennett, for five minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As a scientist, I am struggling with the power of one: one Gates study, one vaccine, and the course changes. This is generally not how science is done. It's a build-up of evidence.

We have repeatedly heard about the need for a vaccine. On the last day, this was described as a missed opportunity. Today, people are confused as to why this process didn't lead to a decision about a Canadian research organization, when we have such talent in Canada. So I'm going to come back to process.

Ms. Medwick, I am concerned when a government employee makes a recommendation to an independent board. How did that make you feel?

[Heather Medwick]

Mr. Stefanson was a name that had been brought forward before to have a role in our organization, potentially on the board. We have a board process in place for selecting a CEO. It's to go to competition. We have an executive search committee--

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

This would not have been a competition.

[Heather Medwick]

Our response was that his name would be put forward to the executive search committee. That was our response.