Health Committee on March 10th, 2026

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Yes, Terry, please comment.

[Terry Creighton]

This is a national security vulnerability, as you've pointed out, but it's something other countries are looking at too. In fact, most of our allies are looking at this as well, and how there can be integrated supply chains where we support each other's API production.

There are API producers in Canada. Apotex is an API producer. There's a company called Minakem in Quebec, which is Canada's largest API producer. We can support our own API producers to begin with.

There are many sources of API production in Europe. Also, as I understand, there are discussions taking place between the Mexican government and the U.S. as part of their bilateral agreement, because the Mexican industry is building out their API production.

It's not something just for Canada to consider, and we probably should be discussing, as part of our trade talks with Mexico as well as with the United States, how we can support each other through API sharing.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you.

With the understanding that it is a very integrated supply chain and that obviously it's not going to happen overnight, I want to get your take on what you see as challenges and opportunities to build our own domestic manufacturing capacity and what you see as the way forward here.

[Jim Keon]

We would like the policy environment to be as attractive as possible for generic and biosimilar manufacturing. We think that having the right regulatory system, sustainable pricing and fair intellectual property laws is the basis for all investment. Companies need to have a stable, predictable and sustainable market. We don't have that right now in Canada. We have proposed a number of measures that would improve that.

I think I also said in my remarks that we're never going to make all of the medicines necessary. There are thousands of medicines sold in Canada for Canadian patients. We can't make them all. We need to have secure arrangements with other partners, and we would certainly support Canada entering into supply commitments with other countries and supply agreements to ensure the free flow of pharmaceuticals.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I think that's my time.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, you have six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are with us today for this important study.

My first question is for Mr. Bouvier.

Canada has excellent researchers, and many important biomedical discoveries come from our universities. However, these innovations are often developed and commercialized elsewhere, unfortunately.

In your opinion, what is still preventing Canada from turning its discoveries into drugs developed, tested clinically and produced here?

[Michel Bouvier]

Thank you for your question.

There are a number of barriers that limit the ability to fully produce and commercialize the drugs discovered here. I'll give you just a few examples.

The first is the ability to generate enough capital to ensure that discoveries can be developed here in Canada with Canadian actors. Too often, discoveries are directly licenced abroad. That can be an attractive source of revenue and acceleration, but it cannot be the only source of innovation. We also have to be able to keep our capacity at home, not only to innovate, but also to transform innovations into commercial products.

In Canada, we very often don't have enough capital to establish companies with the depth needed to fully accomplish that. Even when a company is set up, it is very often sold to foreign interests quite quickly. This is happening, once again, because of a lack of Canadian capital to be able to support the development of these companies in Canada for the benefit of Canada.

The other limitation was mentioned by our colleagues. It has to do with the challenges of assessing and approving drugs in Canada. I could cite the example of drugs that were discovered here, by our colleagues at the Université de Montréal, to treat a very rare disease. Those drugs were accepted and approved for reimbursement in Europe and accepted in the United States, but they are still not accepted in Canada.

These are barriers that prevent, in many circumstances, the full development and commercialization of drugs invented here.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Bouvier.

Based on your experience in commercializing research, is intellectual property from universities sufficiently captured in Canada, or is it often harnessed elsewhere?

[Michel Bouvier]

That's a complex issue. Some of the intellectual property is actually captured here when the valorization structures attached to universities are able to properly negotiate knowledge transfer. Universities are able to grant licences abroad while providing the parameters necessary for a significant, fair share of revenues to be returned to Canadian institutions.

Unfortunately, this type of structure is not necessarily as widespread as it should be in Canada. That was more or less the vision the federal government had when it created the centres of excellence for commercialization and research program. The idea was to provide Canadian universities and high‑level research institutes with a structure that enabled them, among other things, to advance their discoveries as far as possible. There's a myth that an academic discovery necessarily leads to a product or a drug.

In reality, there are a lot of steps, usually referred to as the valley of death, between discovery and commercialization. We need to have the means to bring a discovery to a stage of maturity that will enable it to be commercialized. Also, there are structures that will help either start up a spinoff company, which keeps the intellectual property in Canada, or grant operating licences to foreign companies while ensuring that the licencing conditions allow for the value generated to be fairly shared.

Unfortunately, Canadian universities are not always very well equipped to ensure the two parts of the equation that I've just described.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

You said that the centres of excellence for commercialization and research program supported platforms such as the Institute for Research on Immunology and Cancer and IRICoR, but that it was discontinued in 2018.

In your opinion, what tangible impact has this decision had on Canada's ability to develop drugs that come from university research?

[Michel Bouvier]

Locally, it had an impact on IRIC and IRICoR, where we had to greatly reduce the development of new projects. We had to focus on a few projects with the own-source revenue generated by valorization. It prevented a virtuous cycle where even more valorization revenue could be generated and reinvested in research.

On a larger scale, the centre of excellence in commercialization and research wasn't the only one in Canada. Other centres have also been impacted nationally and have had to scale back or curtail their expansion. Some even completely halted both.

I think that has had a very significant impact, not only on the development of new drugs, but also on the innovation needed to produce drugs. That includes methodologies and drug synthesis techniques.

Developing new biologic drugs requires significant innovations, and when innovations are not supported here, they are not easily used locally in the various sectors of the life sciences and biopharmaceutical sciences ecosystem.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

In your opinion, was it essential to bridge what is often referred to as the valley of death?

[Michel Bouvier]

Absolutely.

The program worked very well. I think the strategic decision not to keep it going was not based on the program's performance, but rather on a new vision of how Canada should invest in research and major initiatives.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you. That's the end of that round.

We'll go into the five-minute rounds with Ms. Konanz.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Watson.

Can you confirm that Apotex is involved in the production of the opioid apo-hydromorphone and have you had any contracts for apo-hydromorphone with the federal government in the last decade?

[Jeff Watson]

I can't confirm a contract with the federal government, but I'd be happy to provide that information to you.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

If you could table that for the committee, that would be great. Thank you.

Mr. Watson, as I'm sure you're aware, my province of British Columbia has seen enormous damage to human health because of opioid addiction. You've asked us to trust you and include you in the buy Canada component—

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Ms. Konanz, we have a point of order.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Once again members of the committee are asking questions that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand of pharmaceutical sovereignty.

I would ask you, Chair, to ask members to please make their questions relevant to the study we are here to discuss.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Ms. Konanz.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I think everyone here would agree that the manufacturing of opioids is part of pharmaceutical sovereignty, so I will continue.

You asked us, Mr. Watson, to trust you and to include you in the buy Canada policy, but it's widely agreed upon that this crisis began with the oversupply of prescription opioids dating back to the 1990s. It has obviously cost many lives and caused tragedies.

Will Apotex take responsibility and agree to a settlement with my province, B.C., and provide compensation for these harms?

Mr. Watson.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

Again, I'm struggling to see the relevance of the line of questioning here. I think the member may have even referred to lawsuits.

I would request that the chair ask members to stay on topic and ask questions relevant to the study. We're doing a study here.

Thank you.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I can imagine why members around this table might get upset by this line of questioning, because it is a very upsetting subject. In order to understand whether we can trust the companies and the representatives who want us to buy Canadian, we need to find out whether they are trustworthy.

One of the things I'm asking about is the class action that was brought by my province, B.C. You've been opposing that in court for seven years now, even all the way to the B.C. Supreme Court. You want Canadians to support your efforts in domestic drug-making today, and you want us to trust you. Canadians, obviously, would like to trust you, but you won't take accountability for these past failings.

Can you speak to this?