Science and Research Committee on Nov. 28th, 2022

[Amee Barber]

It's a good question.

As I mentioned, our research and our labs will remain within Canada as we're building out the fusion program there. We did receive support from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for capital expenditures, which is something that is limited within our existing grant programs in Canada, particularly for research-based capital expenditures.

On top of that, as I mentioned, we are going to locate our demonstration program adjacent to the Joint European Torus, which holds the longest record for net energy reaction, so we have access to their concentration of talent. We also will have access to a supply chain, and that space is actually already regulated for fusion energy and inviting to it.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Has the U.K. endorsed fusion energy?

[Amee Barber]

Yes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I guess, then, that probably because Canada has not endorsed fusion energy, you decided not to build here.

[Amee Barber]

Also, there is no current regulation for fusion energy. We are very eager to see an opportunity to build out our first commercial site within Canada and have struck a number of partnerships with entities like Bruce Power and the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to—ideally—bring that here.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Okay.

You mentioned in your submitted remarks that—and I quote—“...Canada’s well-known commercialization gap is what could hamper the potential for these disruptive technologies to be delivered to market.” That's a very troubling statement. If this government fails to address a “well-known commercialization gap”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Mr. Mazier, I'm sorry. That's the time. Perhaps you would like to ask Dr. Barber for a written response.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes. That would be good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you.

Mr. Mazier, I will also thank you for correcting the honorifics for Dr. Barber.

It is really very important that we get this right, so I'd like to say thank you, and I would like to apologize to Dr. Barber.

Thanks to both of you.

We will now go to Ms. Diab for six minutes, please.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Let me start by thanking both Dr. Barber and Dr. Smith for being here today. We're really honoured to have both of you here with your talents and expertise.

Let me direct my question to you, Dr. Smith.

We're here to study ambitious research goals that we hope will solve some of Canada's and the world's biggest challenges. I'm really happy that you ended with giving us your input in terms of what national strategy you believe Canada should be leading on in a number of areas.

You talked about sustainable health systems adequately staffed, and I'm very interested in the area of brain disease and dementia that is affecting so many Canadians. Can you tell us a bit more about that, and what government can do, what we can do as parliamentarians, what researchers can do and how you and others as well can help to move this along?

[Kevin Smith]

Thank you for an excellent question and the privilege of talking with you.

Speaking of dementia and brain disease, organic brain disease is particularly a disease of aging. While Canada is still a young society relatively, we are, of course, an aging society. We also look at the expenditures of health care, which provincially approaches 50¢ on every tax dollar during COVID and around 42¢ pre-COVID. It's by far Canada's most expensive social program and, I would suggest, possibly the most valuable.

When we look at dementia, we see remarkable basic science with great understanding of the underlying issues of dementia and disease. We see wonderful clinical trials and fantastic infrastructure around better understanding population-based research as it relates to dementia and dementia care.

Of course, there's more and more interest from philanthropy. Generous donors are investing $250 million per year in research and education through the two foundations of the organization that I work with, the Princess Margaret Foundation and the University Health Network.

We bring together the remarkable scientists who are aligned around dementia care. I would encourage you to also look more broadly into the technical disciplines as we think historically about traditional research teams. Traditionally, they wouldn't have included AI scientists, data experts, data lakes or all sorts of remarkable engineering colleagues and academic engineers.

We truly are at the cutting edge in Canadian science, literally across every discipline. It can be brought together for a true moonshot on brain disease and particularly dementia, which we know is what most Canadians identify as one of their greatest fears of aging.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much for that.

My colleague has a question as well. I'm going to let Dr. Powlowski ask it.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I have a question for Dr. Smith.

I think, if you were to ask Canadians what would be, in their judgment, the greatest moonshot, it would be a cure for cancer.

If we look at how both in Canada and globally we responded to the pandemic and how well we did, how quickly we came up with a vaccine, it really showed what was possible.

Is the same thing possible for cancer? Is it a matter of having the political will and being willing to put the money in? Could we come up with a generalized cure or a cure for individual cancers within a reasonable amount of time if we are willing to put the money and effort into it?

[Kevin Smith]

I absolutely believe that we can dramatically improve the journey. Cancer patients in Canada have come a long way. Cancer has become, in many cases, somewhat of a chronic disease with a recurrence of cancers and people's mortality being dramatically reduced. When I look at childhood leukemia particularly, it's almost eradicated.

Absolutely, we have the capacity to do that. I also think that the declaration by the United States and President Biden that cancer is their moonshot offers a North American consortia of cancer care and cancer research. It also allows us to stop the brain drain. All of our most remarkable cancer scientists will be potentially drawn to the United States with an unknown investment in cancer prior to this commitment. By aligning ourselves, because science knows no borders, as you folks know, we really and truly are able to leverage the investment of multiple economies. I would absolutely and enthusiastically endorse cancer as that moonshot.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

If I still have time, you may want to use this opportunity—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

You have 45 seconds, Dr. Powlowski.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Are there any projects at UHN cancer research that you think are particularly promising?

[Kevin Smith]

I think one place where the provinces and the Government of Canada can come together as a first in the world is the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the broader Toronto cancer community. We do not have the number of facilities we see arise in the United States and other parts of the world, carbon ion facilities and beyond. As we think about new treatment approaches that are proving less damaging to surrounding tissue and giving more positive outcomes, I think we absolutely can focus again on new therapies and new treatments. Canadians currently have to leave the country for proven technologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt.

As you can see, you have a very interested committee. We're all very grateful for you both being here.

We'll now go to Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to give you a heads-up that I'm going to take five seconds at the end to speak to my motion, which was put on notice today.

My first question is for Mr. Smith.

The University Health Network conducts cutting-edge research in multiple health care fields, in order to develop new expertise and identify new therapies that will benefit human health. Cardiology, neurosciences, oncology, infectious diseases and genomic medicine are just some of the network's research fields. The needs in health care are, without question, tremendous.

With that in mind, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how the government should allocate health care research dollars.

[Kevin Smith]

It's a great question, Monsieur.

I think the challenge, obviously, is whether we're going to focus the moonshot and be very purposeful about outcome, metrics and measurement, or whether it will be a continued investment through the tri-councils and beyond, including industrial research.

My own personal view is that it has to be both or all of the above—philanthropy, the tri-councils, investment by provinces and investment in infrastructure.

Then it really will come back to a strategic plan within each of the institutions and across collaborative institutions, which will talk about what kind of investment they're receiving and what kind of results they're expecting. It will then bring together evaluators to ensure that Canadians are getting the greatest value for money, whether that's a traditional research measurement—high-impact journals, highly cited work or work that translates into patents and discoveries that can then generate an economic benefit—or whether it provides results in a more traditional academic environment through the creation of basic science that can be exploited.

My own view is that we have a healthy research ecosystem in Canada, but we have vulnerability. We're seeing other nations invest a great deal more. We're seeing, as an example, that at the National Institutes of Health, the current U.S. administration is offering a $10-billion increase, which is actually the collective investment we make in the tri-councils.

To me, it means keeping pace with other nations' investments and ensuring that the brain gain we enjoyed 10 to 20 years ago continues and that researchers see Canada as a bright and vibrant place to remain.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Smith. That was very clear.

Moonshot programming channels a lot of money into a small number of projects. As you know, support is desperately needed in a number of health care fields. If we pour a lot of money into expensive moonshots, are we likely to overlook other equally important research projects?

[Kevin Smith]

It does require us to discuss what a healthy ecosystem looks like. What does the continuum look like? Does it need to be a disease-specific moonshot, or could it be an underlying scientific theme that we understand has relevance to many disciplines and many diseases, and hence my comment on the inflammatory response?

Where I work, the focus for almost all of the diseases is on inflammation and repair. Be it heart disease at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, organ transplantation at the Ajmera Transplant Centre or brain disease at the Krembil Brain Neuroscience Institute, the underlying theme is truly inflammation and repair and the sequelae of inflammation. A moonshot that would benefit almost the entire scientific ecosystem as it relates to health and human well-being would be a very fundamental basic science investment. My own personal view would be that it should be inflammation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Leading-edge science is a highly international playing field, so the competition is very fierce. Countries have to compete with one another to keep their best and brightest and attract talent from elsewhere. Canada is struggling to compete with other developed nations. Canada is actually the only G7 country where the number of researchers per thousand people dropped over the past six years.

I'm eager to hear your view. Why do you think Canada is having such a hard time attracting and keeping scientists?

[Kevin Smith]

For researchers, obviously their first loyalty is to their science and finding the antecedent conditions for success. That means availability of research funding and availability of funding for students—and your previous panel spoke about this—and availability of a livable wage for those undertaking fellowship training and beyond.

It's the opportunity for the expensive infrastructure that many research endeavours require, not unlike what the Canada Foundation for Innovation invests in. There is, of course, unlimited demand for tri-council funding. There is a very large amount of excellent science that we are unfortunately unable to fund.

Then there's the international competitiveness.

However, I don't think it has to turn us off or down. I see the green book, Madam Duncan, and I'll be quiet.

I have just a quick thought. Looking at international science, I don't believe we have to bring everyone to Canada. I think we can look at models like the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research and buy pieces of the very best researchers anywhere in the world, and they would come to Canada for periods of time. If COVID has proven anything, it's that we can collaborate around the world without movement, and nowhere more so than in science.