Health Committee on May 21st, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Sorry, I stand to be corrected. I told you it was a long day.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I want to touch upon a couple of things you mentioned with regard to the military. I think that's probably something that the whole panel could speak to a bit.

We seem to miss the opportunity sometimes. You used the words “guinea pig”. I can use that to some degree. My son is in the military and has served overseas. He mentions a couple of things all the time—that we're lacking in certain things that we could potentially use if someone would just allow us to use them, and they would love to be that person.

I wonder if anyone on the panel can speak to that, that we're missing the boat potentially in using our military—who so choose, if they're in battle or wherever they are around the world—to test products in conditions that may not be used by most Canadians.

[Dr. Geoff Fernie]

I had the fun of going on a helicopter mission in the worst snow storm this winter at night. It was designed to try to make me vomit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I guess you were in Winnipeg.

[A voice]

Did they succeed?

[Dr. Geoff Fernie]

No, they didn't.

But to experience the problems faced by front-line troops...they often feel ignored, as your son will have recognized. We're not talking about big strategic procurement and we're not talking about the F-35; we're talking about their food rations, their boots, their neck strain in helicopters, and equipment just to look after and protect our soldiers.

There are opportunities there, but the system seems to be fairly slow in processing, and of course we have the Canadian problem of wanting to make sure we are going along with the Americans and all the NATO allies all the time. It's sort of designed for failure.

I'll give you an example. A helicopter needs a cushion to sit on. It's very uncomfortable and you vibrate to death. It's taken a long while to develop the material for the cushion. It was presented at a meeting recently and one of the air crew opposite me said, “Oh, I'd like one of those”, and was told, “Oh, no you can't have that yet. It's got to go out to defence requisition.” I said, “I'll take it down to Spadina Avenue tonight and get it sewn up.” No, it was going to take several years to get the cushions.

There are many practical examples.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm so sorry, but your time is up. We'll have to now go to our five-minute questions and answers.

We're going to have another doctor, a physician here. Dr. Sellah will begin.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here with us.

I don't want to be pessimistic, but since we began this study on technological innovations in the health care field, some months ago, the witnesses who come before us have all said practically the same thing, which is that Canada has good researchers, that is to say good scientists, and they are recognized internationally. We have also learned that Canada is rife with pilot projects, but that those who work on them work in isolation, and a novel idea could only with great difficulty become a flourishing business that could be of benefit to Canadians.

Today, while listening to your comments about commercializing these innovations and all of this technology, it seemed to me that this is yet another challenge.

What should the federal government do to find the missing link between an innovative idea and the applied use of that idea, for the greater benefit of Canadians?

My question is addressed to anyone who feels they can answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to take that question?

Dr. Haj-Ahmad.

[Dr. Yousef Haj-Ahmad]

That's a very good question. In my experience of over 30 years of being a professor and an entrepreneur and of running a biotechnology company, starting up a fuel biotechnology company, I have found that the NRC's IRAP is the most innovative machine to fund research in Canada. It's not just the money; they also have the people in it.

In my view—I'll just be very brief—this definitely can push innovation in Canada much more rapidly than this new program that is being created overnight, into which are parachuted so many people to administer it who don't know what to do, and in which lots of money is wasted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I think Dr. Paige would also like to comment.

[Dr. Chris Paige]

This is really an excellent question. My response would be that the government should not think there's just one thing that government can do to solve the problem. It's a complex problem at many levels, and the federal government can be effective at several. We've mentioned infrastructure; we've mentioned the innovation fund; what my colleague just talked about with IRAP is also important. I think it's a suite of services that meet the needs at several different levels. There's not going to be just one answer to that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Do you want to make a comment on it, Mr. Kirkconnell?

[Paul Kirkconnell]

I could address it. I agree with the last comment, that it will be many different solutions.

From a venture capital point of view, the venture capital action plan, as we understand it, is being rolled out. Time will tell, but it looks as though it's a step in the right direction. The venture capital strategic investment plan, which is for much earlier-stage projects and which we will be implementing at BDC, also seems to be a step in the right direction.

I would say—and it's a little bit along the lines of what you're talking about—that people tend to talk about venture capital as if it were engineering: if you do this, do that, or pull this lever, it's fixed. It's probably more like biology: you do a little bit of this, a little bit of that, and the whole ecosystem reacts back at you, and then you have to figure out what you're going to do with that reaction. It's going to be more of an evolutionary process in the right direction.

Frankly, at least for venture capital, I'm hopeful—this is not a prediction, and I have no crystal balls—that we might be going in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Very good. Thank you so much.

Now we will go to Mr. Brown, please.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you for all the commentary so far.

I have a general question to the panel.

I would suggest that our investments in technological innovation are also huge and have a huge potential for job creation. I want to touch upon that angle a little bit. I think of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, which did the clinical trials on an artificial pancreas in Hamilton and Waterloo. Seeing the hundreds of jobs created in those two cities was quite impressive.

Maybe you could touch a little upon that benefit, when a government invests in technology innovation in health care—whoever wants to go first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Who would like to start that?

Dr. Haj-Ahmad, go ahead.

[Dr. Yousef Haj-Ahmad]

There is much more to it than putting out a product. There is a tremendous amount of benefit in the training, not only studying things but doing things practically, with hands-on experience. For instance, a small company like Norgen probably has had at least 100 people with practice in doing things hands-on walk through its doors over the years, so definitely there's a tremendous amount of benefit and skill in the labour force.

[Dr. Geoff Fernie]

I dream that, one day, everyone who gets a master's degree in my institute has enough to start a company. They may not succeed, but we’ll support them and have mechanisms to support them that won't include venture capital—it will be too small for that—but it will be a development of high-value jobs.

We teach business students, engineers, and clinicians, all together, to work together to create that kind of culture. There will be a lot of high-value science jobs. Manufacturing is a little tougher because we have to be competitive—and we're still trying to find ways to do that because it involves automation, which involves access to capital—but the designers, the people who run the company, the IP is owned in Canada.... That's the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I think Ms. Power wanted to also comment, Mr. Brown.

[Chris Power]

If you look at the investment in research and innovation in any of our areas across this country, you will see an enormous return on investment through a variety of things. As part of ACAHO, we've done these studies across Canada to look at the impacts of that investment in research and innovation. Whether it's start-up companies, clinical trials, and everything in between, it is enormous and a wonderful return on investment. In all of our centres, thousands and thousands of people are employed in this kind of work.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

On that point, I'd suggest that's the type of thing we should be looking at more.

In my riding, there was a company—Southmedic—that does masks. They had a plant in China. They moved back to Canada with an Industry Canada loan—that they're going to pay back—but they created 60 jobs in my riding. Those are, I think, the dream spin-offs that are well-paying jobs, too, high-value science jobs, as Geoff said.

Sorry, Paul, I think you wanted to add something.

[Paul Kirkconnell]

I'll add a comment about your unfortunate desire to not have venture capital because you're too small. I'm going to go back to my example of venture capital as a biological entity. You are now seeing the whole definition of what is “at scale” in venture capital. We used to think we understood that. It was going to be the $200 million fund, and if they couldn't put x millions to work—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Could you make all your comments to the chair, please, not to each other? Thank you.

[Paul Kirkconnell]

Not to each other, okay.

It used to be the case that if they couldn't put $10 million or whatever to work, it wouldn't be interesting. We're now seeing the development of what traditionally would have been viewed as very small venture funds of $15 million, $25 million. They're targeting just the types of opportunities my colleague to the right was describing.