Science and Research Committee on Nov. 28th, 2022

[Dr. Michael Rudnicki, Scientific Director, Stem Cell Network]

The investments in these companies are for the discoveries that are mature enough to be commercialized. What CIHR does is fund the basic research, and we need that robust foundation of discovery.

Organizations like the Stem Cell Network build multidisciplinary teams from across Canada to move that research along the pipeline, through research and development and clinical testing, and bring it to the point where it can be commercialized. We fund projects that are hare-brained ideas that no one else will fund—such as the project that led to the cure for the patient Cate described—as a small catalyst grant or impact grant, and move it along all the way through to larger teams doing the research and development, all the way through to clinical testing.

We don't fund and forget. We manage these projects in live time. We're very different from the funding councils.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

As a follow-up question, because there are so many different areas of regenerative medicine that you're dealing with, how do you prioritize who gets funding and who doesn't? How do you issue that out?

[Dr. Michael Rudnicki]

Stem cell research has paved the road for regenerative medicine to enter the clinic, and it is transforming the practice of medicine.

How we prioritize the research is through expert peer review. We bring in a lot of international reviewers to look at our projects. We don't just evaluate the science; we evaluate the composition of the team and we evaluate the stakeholders involved and the training that they're doing. We evaluate multiple aspects of the project. They have to tick the box for outstanding world-class science.

Regenerative medicine research in Canada is, internationally, at the top end. However, ultimately, it's peer review.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

With all the research you're doing, are you finding that you're coming across any barriers, such as either policies or programs, or something the government has initiated? Is there something you're having struggles with that you need help with?

[Dr. Michael Rudnicki]

There's probably a list.

Certainly the funding cycles that we've faced have made it difficult to roll out support on an annual basis. That's been an ongoing problem.

There are regulatory issues at Health Canada. We're working with all of the stakeholders and Health Canada to help move that along.

We would like to enhance the commercialization of some of our discoveries, but because of our funding agreement, we can't support research in companies. These are very small companies. We have to support the academic aspects.

What else is there?

[Cate Murray]

There's immigration.

[Dr. Michael Rudnicki]

Yes. Attracting people to work in labs and on projects is becoming increasingly difficult. For example, I had a student I was trying to bring in recently. It took six months to get his visa approved. He almost decided to go elsewhere, where it was taking a lot less time.

These sorts of backlogs make it very difficult to bring in people, and it's harder and harder to find people to work in labs.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

That's quite an interesting thing. You said that stem cell research is such a success in Canada. I really thought you would have no problems retaining researchers, keeping Canadian jobs or Canadian researchers right here in Canada, but you're already asking to bring them in from other countries.

Is it still sustainable to have Canadians, or do we need a lot more researchers from around the world?

[Dr. Michael Rudnicki]

We are absolutely an area of international strength. Many Canadians have gone through our training programs. According to a study that we conducted internally, because of our community and the network we've built, they tend to stay in Canada. The retention rate is very high. However, because we are at the top tier of research, we attract many people from abroad.

I have a post-doctoral fellow who did his Ph.D. in the U.S. He was originally from Sri Lanka. He has applied for his permanent residency. He wants to stay in Canada. He's an outstanding scientist. I've had many other trainees stay in Canada and get positions at universities or work in companies, and so on. He's still waiting to hear about his permanent residency. It's really slow these days.

It is a real win-win for Canada when these people decide to stay and make Canada their home.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

That's good to hear because a lot of times we hear that most are leaving Canada to go to other places, so if they are able to stay here....

I see I'm getting the green card.

My question, then, is for Ms. Murray.

You had spoken about how stem cells can almost cure everything. As the moonshot, is the ultimate goal that stem cells will be able to basically even regenerate limbs? Is that a potential? Do you think stem cells can cure everything?

[Cate Murray]

Stem cells have significant potential to treat all sorts of chronic disease, rare disease, illness—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Could I rudely interrupt, Ms. Murray? Mr. Soroka's time is up.

Mr. Soroka, perhaps you would like to ask Ms. Murray for a written answer there.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Yes. I would prefer a written answer to that as well. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much, Mr. Soroka.

Again, we're very grateful to our witnesses.

We will now go to Monsieur Lauzon for six minutes, please.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening. Thank you all for being here.

Thanks, everyone.

I will ask my question in French.

A number of things you said piqued my curiosity, so much so that I set aside almost all of the questions I was going to ask because now I have new ones.

Mr. Banerjee, you talked a lot about infectious diseases. In my riding, we had a situation involving chronic wasting disease, and thousands of animals had to be killed just as a precaution, because the science couldn't show whether an animal was infected or not.

You mentioned a number of extrinsic factors that may be driving the transmission of pathogens from bats or other animals.

Has your research shown that artificial intelligence could play an important role if we had more specific data in the face of situations like the one in my riding?

[Arinjay Banerjee]

Thank you for that question. That's a fascinating question. In fact, there is data as of last week for this, so this is very timely.

My colleague, Dr. Raina Plowright at Cornell, just published a 25-year longitudinal study identifying factors that directly impact pathogen shedding from wildlife species such as bats. It identified migration patterns and nutrition deficiencies in wildlife that trigger pathogen spillover from these animals.

I think that, yes, modelling could predict this, but zoonotic transmissions are very nimble events. They are very rare events. A whole bunch of stuff has to align for the perfect storm for a pathogen to make it into humans. Again, there's a whole body of studies that look at how successful transmission events happen from animals into humans.

Yes, I think data-driven modelling is certainly a good place to start. You can imagine the diversity of mammals on this planet. Where would you sample and what would you prioritize? I think having that surveillance and having that modelling to estimate certain focus points for sampling and monitoring would be a very good place to start.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you.

Do you use that data in your research?

How could the government support those types of projects so that they become moonshots?

[Arinjay Banerjee]

There are very good surveillance programs in the U.S., and not just within the U.S.—American colleagues are surveilling overseas.

I think what we really lack in Canada—this is through conversations with my colleagues in Canada—is that we really don't do surveillance. We don't have a good surveillance model for our own country. We have very little in terms of surveillance for threats overseas that may come on an airplane into our country. Zoonotic events are not restricted to Canada. These events could happen anywhere on the planet and if it gets on a plane, in less than 24 hours the pathogen could likely show up on our borders in Canada.

I think that having some sort of a program that will complement.... I was listening to the previous panel about how moonshots could potentially be international collaborations. For zoonotic pathogens and for emerging infectious diseases, we absolutely need to work with our colleagues overseas. We can't go in and start sampling in countries overseas without collaboration from colleagues in that country.

Data sharing is another critical aspect. If you're trying to identify pathogens, why would somebody want us to surveil their country if their pathogen would have trade implications for them? An example is rinderpest in livestock.

Something we need to be cognizant of when we are designing these studies is empathy. I always use this in the classes I teach. Perhaps we must also identify what is mutually beneficial—not only identify threats, but propose solutions.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you for the answer.

I have a question for you, Mr. Singh.

I was quite inspired when you spoke about credibility, imagination and inspirational moonshots. You talked a lot about how we could improve the way we farm.

Recently, the government established living laboratories involving farmers. They will carry out research activities on the soil to support reduced fertilizer use and nitrogen fixation. The idea is to find ways to farm differently to benefit human health.

Could there be more government programs to support new ways of farming?

[Dr. Baljit Singh]

Thank you very much.

The answer is yes, there could be other ways. The most critical way would be integrating our system and aligning it with the moonshot idea. Right now, we have quite a bit of fragmentation in our ecosystem, coast to coast. That's where the imagination part comes in—to bring it all together.

I think my time is up. I'm happy to send a written note to the honourable member, if he so desires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you so much.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like the witness to get back to us with more information. I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Monsieur Lauzon.

Thank you to Dr. Singh for the kind offer.

Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, you have six minutes. Go ahead.

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

Good evening, Madam Chair. It's nice to see you again for the second hour of today's meeting.

My questions are for Mr. Banerjee.

The COVID‑19 pandemic drastically changed how we do things when it comes to funding, research, co‑operation and, obviously, scientific communication.

I'd like to hear how things changed for you.

[Arinjay Banerjee]

Thank you for the question. I think I'll step back a couple of years.

When COVID-19 showed up, we were one of the first to mobilize. At the time, I was at McMaster University and the University of Toronto. I think the biggest challenge we faced was in personnel. We had no personnel capacity in Canada to work with risk group 3 pathogens. When we were planning to isolate the virus and use it to develop therapeutics and vaccines, the first thing we had to do was start training people. I was fortunate that I had done my Ph.D. on highly pathogenic coronaviruses, so we were able to mobilize people and train teams of experts who could start working with SARS-2.

What's been very fascinating is the amount of collaboration that came out of this. I really think the virology community in Canada, and my colleagues working across disciplines.... Everybody stepped up. Everybody came through. We worked long hours and nights to get this virus out and share it with colleagues who were studying it, in order to help vaccine development studies. I'm a naturalized citizen, so I'm an immigrant to Canada. I was extremely impressed by the hard work my colleagues in Canada, across disciplines, put into studying and understanding this virus. I was very moved.

At the same time, I was also very frustrated that while we were studying the virus, we were also writing research grant applications. I didn't understand why the money couldn't come in to help us identify this pandemic-causing virus. At the time, it was called a “novel coronavirus”. My colleagues and I were all writing grants to keep funding the studies we were doing to help Canadians and the global population.

It is very refreshing for me to see all these major infrastructure investments made by the Canadian government to facilitate studies that require high-containment facilities. At the same time, a part of me worries a bit. Will this funding be sustainable? If we don't continue to train our trainees....

I work in a high-containment lab. It takes us three to four months to train someone so they can competently work without supervision. Each time they graduate or leave, because the program's been defunded, it takes us three to six months, again, to train someone. God forbid a new pathogen shows up. That's just too late. I'm very worried about long-term sustainable funding.

It would be great to keep Canada at peak performance for high-risk pathogens.