Health Committee on May 21st, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Does anybody else want to make comments?

Mr. Casey and then Mr. Kirkconnell.

[Andrew Casey]

I would echo the sentiment that we're probably not in a world where we're trying to reinvent the wheel. I would say, though, that we have to be cautious not to be afraid of some failure. You can turn that around and become overly cautious because you're afraid to fail.

I think if you look at our industry, there are a number of tries that just didn't work, but that research went on to become something else spectacular. If you take it at face value and say, we don't want to go down that path because somebody already looked at it, I think we run the risk of missing out on something. The world changes so quickly that there are opportunities out there we could miss if we're not a little more open to trying new things and taking a second look at some therapies.

I'll give you one concrete example. AZT was a drug that was developed for cancer and did not really perform up to expectations. The new wheel, if you will, ended up being one of the most successful drugs for AIDS and HIV, and it's the AZT drug. That was somebody who came back at that one with a fresh approach, a fresh look, and that's research and innovation at its best.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Mr. Kirkconnell.

[Paul Kirkconnell]

I would just, one, echo that we have to embrace failure.

The other thing is that big pharma is far more open today than they were certainly when I was there, in terms of what they're looking for. They will give you the road map for what they're looking for, whereas 10 years ago it was a deep, dark secret. Now they invite VCs and academics to come over, and they'll tell you what they want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You have very little time, about 20 seconds, Mr. Lizon, if you want to make a comment. Sorry about that.

I think, Dr. Paige, we do have 20 seconds, if you want to make a final comment.

[Dr. Chris Paige]

I will just say that we've heard of push and pull, and both things happen. We have scientists who work with industry because they want to make one of their machines better, and we have the engineers who can do that. Some of our most successful products right now are software improvements for companies that are selling the product. At the same time, the discovery comes from us and then we have to bring in the money. Both of those things are happening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Doctor.

Now we'll go to Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to ask a couple of quick questions.

Mr. Casey, for BIOTEC, is it an annual $400 million that you get, or is that what the fund has right now?

[Andrew Casey]

That's the entire fund. It's $400 million—$125 million was set aside for life sciences and clean technology.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

How much for life sciences?

[Andrew Casey]

It was $125 million for life sciences and clean technology as a bundle.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Okay. Is there a return on the life technology? Do you determine what a return is, or how do you determine your projects?

[Andrew Casey]

No. Essentially what the government is doing is putting funds into a VC and hoping to leverage private sector funds that will exceed that by I think a third or three times that amount. They would be the first in, first out, so it de-risks it. It's essentially a way to reinvigorate the VC fund for the industry, or the funding in the industry.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Who decides how to distribute the money? Is it BIOTEC itself?

[Andrew Casey]

I wish it were within my purview to do so. No, the way it's being structured is still in development. We're working closely with the Department of Finance, and the minister has put in place a senior representative from the industry to basically define the parameters and how it can best be structured, because every industry is different.

When you look at our industry, it's a global industry; you have headquarters in a number of different countries around the world. Our presidents and CEOs who are representing those companies here in this country have to go back to those head offices and say this is why they need to invest some more money in Canada; there's a new fund, and they have to explain it. We're in the process of basically defining how it should work so that it best suits our needs.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Again, would it be based on research? Would it be based on development? Would it be based on hiring x number of researchers or buying x number of—

[Andrew Casey]

I have not seen any definitions like that attached to it. I think you want to have it as flexible as possible so that it can run in a number of different directions. You don't want to have it driven by pure job numbers or geographical locations.

I think you want to make sure that it recognizes that we're all competing in a global economy and that these decisions are being made on that global basis. So you have to find a way to make it as flexible as possible.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Is it going to be up to the applicant to find a matching dollar or...?

[Andrew Casey]

Absolutely. The industry is going to have to come up with some money, yes.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Haj-Ahmad, for me, when I envision research in biotechnology, I envision a scientist saying, you know what, we need to find a little green or blue pill, or whatever, to find a cure for cancer. And that's all that person is going to do.

Now you turn around and say they should be doing something else so they can earn money while they're looking for a cure for cancer. How do I reconcile the two? Maybe you were lucky, or are you one of the few lucky ones?

[Dr. Yousef Haj-Ahmad]

That's a very excellent question. I've asked this question very often. If there's a will, there's a way.

They need to completely overlap, because otherwise you're simply diluting your effort and you cannot succeed. What you're good at, that is the area where you could commercialize, one. Second, you could bundle a few patents; you have one patent and you bundle it with the others, and they support each other—

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

So as you're doing the research, you're coming up with a new discovery and a—

[Dr. Yousef Haj-Ahmad]

Very often I've noticed it's a one-trick pony: one patent, one company. That's not good enough. Sometimes it is fine, but sometimes you could bundle a couple of patents together and you'd have an overlap with the two.

Focus is our number one issue. Right now, for example, we're focusing on diagnostic and demand in a resource-limited area. Okay, it's a resource-limited area. Where in Canada? Up north is resource limited. If you collect a sample and you want to ship it, you have to ship it by airplane down south to diagnose somebody. Diagnosing somebody on site, by a nurse or by an individual, is resource limited. We'll be able to prescribe medicine precisely and quickly.

This technology can be provided to the military. The U.S. military is very much interested in this area. You could also use the same thing in a resource-limited area in the middle of Africa. It could be in the Amazon rain forest, being able to do very advanced diagnostic. Why did we choose this? Because of sample preparation.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

But even that takes money, does it not?

[Dr. Yousef Haj-Ahmad]

Yes, sample preparation is at the heart of good diagnostics. So we generate enough revenue to finance this kind of research. There's no way we could have done it 10 years ago.