Science and Research Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2025

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

With respect to government funding, what policy or structural changes would you recommend to better support AMR research and antibiotic development in Canada or globally?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

I think you've heard a lot of them today.

My interest would be to fund the front end, which would be to make sure we invest more in the early-stage investigations, fundamental research and discoveries, through places like CIHR.

I think an SBIR-like program would help us push some of these discoveries out of the lab and make us competitive for agencies like CARB-X, which Dr. Outterson runs and Canada supports financially. That ecosystem has an opportunity to be fleshed out. I think that would be optimal for the country and for the health of Canadians going forward.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Where do you think we are doing well? Where do we still have to improve in AMR research?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

Honestly, we have an outstanding public health service here, which is working tirelessly in areas like surveillance and trying to really make sure we're staying on top of AMR in hospitals and on farms.

We're doing quite well in that area. We're doing very well in fundamental, discovery-based work. We're punching well above our weight in that area, despite the challenges we face.

Where we're falling down is in moving those discoveries out of the lab and trying to do more to develop a biotech sector around infectious disease, which I think will actually help move the needle in this field.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

What role do you think partnerships between government, industry and researchers play in advancing AMR research in Canada?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

Certainly government is playing a role.

One of the challenges in this field, which has changed dramatically since I entered it in the early 1990s, is that the large pharmaceutical industries have abandoned this field. The people who used to make drugs in this field—the Mercks and the Pfizers of the world—are not in this business, for all the reasons that you've heard before. The return on investment is too low.

That means we must, as a society, invest in this area if we're going to prevent the challenge that Dr. Outterson just noted, which is having every medical intervention be more dangerous than it needs to be.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Are there any collaboration models that you think are working well or not so well?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

There are great examples of this in a number of areas where governments and industries have come together, with each bringing capital to the project to be able to move things forward in areas such as vaccinology and some areas of drug development. We've seen this in manufacturing, for example.

There's good reason to think that we could do the same in this field.

Again, I just want to caution that one of our challenges in this field is that large pharmaceutical companies that we used to see as being able to help fund some of these programs are simply not in this field anymore.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Dr. Wright.

I'll see you soon at McMaster University. I've already been three times over the year. I'll see you soon over there.

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

Great. We look forward to seeing you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

This panel has come to an end.

I really want to thank all the witnesses for coming today and providing your important testimony for this study.

I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes, so that the witnesses for the second panel can come in.

Thank you once again. The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses for the second panel.

Welcome to all the witnesses for this panel. Thanks a lot for appearing before the committee.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For this panel, we are joined by Dr. Henry Skinner, chief executive officer of AMR Action Fund GP. We are also joined by the Deans Council for Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine, represented by Dr. Joseph Rubin, professor, department of veterinary microbiology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, and Dr. Maud de Lagarde, assistant professor, faculty of veterinary medicine, Université de Montreal. Our fourth witness for this panel is Dr. Dao Nguyen, founder and director of the McGill AMR Centre.

All of our witnesses are appearing by video conference.

Welcome to all of the witnesses. Thanks a lot for coming and appearing before the committee. All of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will go into rounds of questioning.

We will begin with Dr. Skinner.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

Thank you.

[Dr. Henry Skinner, Chief Executive Officer, AMR Action Fund GP]

Thank you.

I want to thank the Standing Committee on Science and Research for inviting me to testify today. My name is Henry Skinner. I'm a microbiologist, a life science investor and the CEO of the AMR Action Fund.

The AMR Action Fund is the world's largest venture capital fund solely dedicated to late-stage antimicrobial research and development. It was created in 2020 through a collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and philanthropic organizations like the Wellcome Trust, which recognized that AMR is a fast-moving threat that imperils the health of everyone and could cost the global economy trillions of dollars.

My fund is trying to mitigate this threat and protect patients by investing in small and mid-sized companies that are developing urgently needed therapeutics for the most dangerous drug-resistant bacteria and fungi, which the WHO and the CDC call “priority pathogens”.

I have been investing in biotechnology companies for 25 years, and the decline in investment and innovation in the field of antibiotics is alarming. Like most venture capital funds, we are structured to exist for approximately 10 years, which we hope is enough time for policy-makers around the world to enact appropriately sized incentives and to correct the market values that make discovering and developing new antimicrobial treatments nearly impossible, as highlighted by the Council of Canadian Academies report of September 2023.

We focus our investments on biotechnology companies that are conducting clinical trials in humans to test for safety and efficacy, which is the stage of drug development where the costs are highest and where the need for external funding is most acute. While the fund has approximately $1 billion U.S. under management, a single clinical trial can cost several hundred million dollars, so we must be extremely selective with our investments. Our goal is to bring two to four novel antimicrobials to market by 2030. So far, we've made 12 investments and have obtained one antibiotic approval. To date, however, we've not invested in any Canadian companies, and that's not a reflection of Canadian innovation. In fact, there are some promising R and D programs across the country, especially in the earlier stages, with labs leveraging machine learning and AI to aid antibiotic discovery efforts.

However, all antimicrobial developers, whether they're based in Edmonton, Boston or Lyon, are up against extraordinary market challenges that make it exceedingly difficult to attract investors. In all other therapeutic areas, the market rewards innovation through sales volume, which means delivering cholesterol pills, cancer medicines or obesity shots to every patient who could benefit. Due to the way bacteria and fungi evolve, though, clinicians are instructed to use new antimicrobials only when absolutely necessary in order to preserve the drug's effectiveness, and they hope that resistance takes longer to build. This is necessary for public health, but it makes it exceedingly difficult for investors and companies to justify spending money on antibiotic research and development. Antibiotics are not blockbusters. Sales of the top 10 antibacterial products don't even add up to $1 billion. In comparison, a single cancer drug can generate more than $20 billion in sales in a single year.

Antibiotic research and development is incompatible with the fiduciary responsibilities of private investors, who need to generate returns. Each year, venture funds invest tens of billions of dollars into biotech companies, but less than 0.1% of that money is invested in companies developing antibiotics. This represents the classic tragedy of the commons, which only government policy, including Canada's, can address. At the same time, it will make their biotechnology sectors more attractive to private investors. Policies known as pull incentives can change how antibiotics are valued and reimbursed, and they can reward companies that take the risk and are successful in developing new, urgently needed antibiotics for patients in need.

Pull incentives have been successfully piloted in England over the last several years for two novel antibiotics, and a permanent program will now cover more antibiotics and expand across the United Kingdom. As Italy finished its G7 presidency last year, the Italian Senate authorized the use of up to 100 million euros for higher reimbursement of innovative antibiotics. To date, eight medicines are included in that program.

However, a pull incentive in the United Kingdom or Italy alone is not sufficient to attract investment in antibiotic drug developers. The programs in the U.K. and Italy must be joined by other G7 markets like the U.S., Japan and Canada, as well as the entire European Union. Only then will pull incentives reach the size necessary to assure investors and drug developers that antibiotics are a financially viable field of medicine.

As you know, in the Government of Canada's 2023 budget, Canada committed to develop a pilot program to secure access to new antimicrobials for the people of Canada. It is important that the Government of Canada move this forward and make a financial commitment that truly rewards innovation. By valuing these new projects appropriately, the program would encounter greater participation in the pilot and lay the groundwork for a sustainable national program. Canada has a moral responsibility to contribute its fair share as a G7 member and high-income country. I feel the same about Japan’s inadequate pilot program.

I believe the design of the pilot should address barriers at the hospital level to providing access to new and newer antimicrobials. Taking pressure off the hospital budget, coupled with the appropriate stewardship protocols, would ensure that the program would succeed in getting the right drug for the right patient at the right time.

Effective antibiotics are essential to a functional and efficient health care system in each province and territory. When used appropriately, they enable and reduce the cost of providing high-quality health care.

Thank you very much for inviting me to testify. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Dr. Skinner.

We will now proceed to Dr. Rubin.

Dr. Rubin, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please go ahead.

[Dr. Joseph Rubin, Professor, Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, and Deans Council for Agriculture, Food and Veterinary Medicine]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify and share my perspective. My name is Joe Rubin. I'm a veterinarian and microbiologist and a professor in the Department of Veterinary Microbiology at the University of Saskatchewan. I've been working on antimicrobial resistance, primarily in companion animals and food products, for nearly 20 years. My current roles are as an educator of veterinary students in the areas of bacteriology and infectious diseases and as a researcher, where I study the problem of AMR from a number of perspectives.

There are three areas I would like to highlight today where I can see a need for additional support: first, research into evidence-based antimicrobial stewardship for companion animals; second, support for global collaborations to tackle resistance in low- and middle-income countries; and third, support to harmonize diagnostic testing in veterinary labs, with the goal of improving both passive surveillance and antimicrobial stewardship.

With respect to the first topic, the committee has heard testimony about the importance of stewardship to improve how and when antimicrobials are used, so that we can preserve their efficacy. Antimicrobial stewardship necessarily looks different in each context where it's applied. What might work in a large human hospital may or may not be appropriate in the diverse environments or for the patient populations that veterinarians care for. An individually owned dog is quite different from a dairy cow, a barnful of broiler chickens or a hive of bees. The stewardship approach to each of those situations is necessarily different. In veterinary medicine, more data is needed to support stewardship in companion animal practice.

The goal of stewardship is to change prescriber behaviours. This is quite a difficult thing to do. For companion animal practitioners, we've largely relied on passive antimicrobial stewardship, which essentially consists of providing knowledge and information through continuing education conferences and workshops. In the context of human infectious diseases, we know that more active approaches have a bigger impact on prescriber behaviours. Furthermore, there are areas in which we lack data to inform how antimicrobial use can be optimized. For instance, reducing the duration of therapy can greatly impact the amount of antimicrobial that an individual animal is treated with. At a population level, this can multiply to make a big difference.

With respect to the second topic, the committee has heard that AMR does not respect borders and that the threat of resistance is global. Through international travel and trade, resistant bacteria and resistance genes can be easily transported intercontinentally. It's therefore in our best interest to assist low- and middle-income countries to build regulatory, diagnostic and stewardship capacity in the veterinary and human health sectors. Meeting the threat of resistance where it's most rapidly emerging will not only protect Canadians but also reduce the burden of resistance on vulnerable individuals, such as small-scale sustenance farmers, who may be disproportionately impacted.

Finally, in Canada there are improvements that should be made in veterinary diagnostic microbiology. While our domestic diagnostic labs are doing a good job in providing services to veterinarians, changes could be made that would have both surveillance and stewardship benefits. First, national harmonization of the antimicrobial susceptibility test methods used will ensure that all the data these labs generate as part of their routine work can be directly compared across the country, facilitating passive resistance surveillance. Second, developing a harmonized strategy for how lab results are reported would advance stewardship goals. For instance, including relevant data from current treatment guidelines, such as the veterinary Firstline application that was mentioned previously, along with lab reports that go to prescribers would provide additional context to help veterinarians optimize their therapy.

In conclusion, as other witnesses have testified, antimicrobial stewardship is essential in our fight against AMR. In companion animals, more resources, including grants, are needed to support the development of effective strategies to help veterinarians optimize their use of antimicrobials and ensure that current best practices are implemented. Second, we must take a global perspective and work with our colleagues internationally to combat the emergence of resistance in low- and middle-income countries. Finally, I suggest providing support to develop harmonized susceptibility testing and reporting protocols amongst Canada's veterinary diagnostic labs.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Dr. Rubin.

We will now proceed to Dr. Nguyen.

Please go ahead. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Dr. Dao Nguyen, Founder and Director, McGill AMR Centre]

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the science and research committee. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify to you today.

My name is Dao Nguyen. I speak to you as a physician working at McGill University's teaching hospital as a professor of medicine and microbiology, as a researcher who studies difficult-to-treat bacterial infections and, last, as the founding director of the McGill AMR Centre and a new AMR Quebec network, where I lead the efforts to structure and mobilize a diverse ecosystem of over 150 academic researchers at McGill University and across Quebec with government, public and private partners across the human, animal and environmental health sectors.

First, I would like to paint a brief picture of what AMR looks like through the lens of a physician. I would like you to imagine that a loved one is diagnosed with cancer, which is curable but requires chemotherapy. During chemotherapy, which significantly weakens one's immune system, you develop a fever, a typical sign of infection. For this, you are immediately prescribed antibiotics, for which I might do a test to figure out what kind of infection you have. If the infection is caused by bacteria not resistant to the antibiotic prescribed, it will likely work. This will take a few days of antibiotics, and no one will think twice about it.

However, if you have an infection caused by a drug-resistant bacteria, particularly one resistant to carbapenems, a powerful type of antibiotic that is considered a last resort, then the initial antibiotics will not work. With the current diagnostic tests at hand, it may take three to five days to get an answer, if at all, about what microbes caused the infection and whether the microbes are drug-resistant. During this time, the infection can overwhelm the body, with the risk of dying increasing to upwards of 50% with treatments that are more toxic and complicated, if available at all.

The scenario could happen to any patient who has surgery, gets a pacemaker, develops pneumonia or suffers a wound. All of these important medical interventions carry a risk of infections and complications, and they could be jeopardized if prevention or treatment of infections were no longer effective. At best, this means an average of a one-week-longer hospital stay for each case of infection, and at worst, this means risky and unsuccessful procedures or treatments or deaths for countless conditions, from hip replacements to cancer. The rates of these carbapenem-resistant bacteria—that is, a resistance to a last-resort antibiotic—have already reached 70% to 80% in certain regions of the world today, as we speak. In Canada, the rates are much lower, but the trends are alarming, with rates having gone up as much as tenfold in the last 15 years, so the AMR crisis is knocking at our door, and we're not equipped for this.

To respond to this, we are in dire need of innovative solutions. We need new treatments to deal with the drug-resistant bacteria; we need diagnostic tests that are much faster and more accessible to know when we are dealing with drug-resistant infections and what antibiotics to use, and we need surveillance systems that are more comprehensive and timely. To get there, research and innovation done in a collaborative manner are essential to the solutions to addressing the AMR crisis. This is recognized by the pan-Canadian action plan, numerous national action plans globally, and reports, including from the WHO.

Where do research and innovation largely come from? Academia: With our community of researchers and teachers, we are a major asset and an important part of the solution.

First, academic research is a critical source of innovation. For example, McGill ranks first in North America as the university that has launched the greatest number of research-based start-up companies. In 2023 alone, there were 28 companies, most of them in the life sciences and medical technologies sector. This speaks to the potential for AMR, but the research and development ecosystem in Canada to nurture early discoveries is largely lacking, as you have already heard from Professor Wright earlier this afternoon. Beyond Canada, we know that academic inventions and founders are responsible for more than a quarter of all medicines approved in the last 20 years, with trends going upward in the last 10 years. For certain medical conditions, this represents over 80% of treatment.

Second, as a researcher myself, who interacts with and mobilizes hundreds of my colleagues around AMR, I can say that academic research in Canada has notable strengths and existing initiatives upon which we need to build. For example, in Quebec, Mila, a world-class AI institute founded by Professor Yoshua Bengio, whom many of you may know as the grandfather of deep learning in AI, has an incubator that has launched over 50 start-up companies and projects that bring AI tools to antibiotic discovery.

Last, academic communities are important conduits to mobilize and structure the AMR ecosystem. Our experience with the AMR Quebec network is a good start and an example.

What do we need now? We need to build and support an AMR ecosystem that integrates academic research and innovation with government and public stakeholders, industry and end-users.

To get this, we need strong leadership and persons and entities dedicated to AMR with a specific mandate to mobilize political will and resources and to coordinate activities across sectors and jurisdictions.

We need somebody who can be heard by both decision-makers nationwide and professionals; we need a government structure to organize this AMR ecosystem, and we need resources commensurate to the problem of AMR—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but your time is up.

We'll now proceed to our round of questioning. You can always bring your points forward in the rounds of questioning also.

We will now start our first round with Mr. Baldinelli for six minutes, please.

Go ahead.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Before I go to my questioning, I just want to place the following motion on notice. It deals with artificial intelligence and goes to the government's announcement from September, when it launched the AI strategy task force. There are the consultations that are taking place this month, and then the task force is supposed to be sharing some of those bold ideas they have gathered in November.

I want to table this notice of motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), the Standing Committee on Science and Research undertake a study of no fewer than four meetings on the federal government’s approach to artificial intelligence, considering the committee’s mandate to study matters related to science and research, which includes AI technology, and that the committee invite:

(i) the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation to appear for one meeting for no less than two hours,

(ii) federal officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and

(iii) a range of AI industry representatives and experts; and

that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

Madam Chair, we have sent that notice of motion to the clerk, and that will be shared with all the colleagues.

Thank you for that. With that, I will begin my line of questioning.

I'll start with Dr. Skinner.

Thank you for your comments, which were quite illuminating in a sense. I've seen some of your comments and you talked about AMR now killing nearly 1.3 million people a year. We've had other panellists appear, talking about the cost to the provincial health care systems at about $1.4 billion a year. We've heard from other panellists again, witnesses, talking about the difficulties here to get therapies to market. In regard to the Health Canada special access programs, in terms of antimicrobial therapies, it was mentioned that only three out of 18 new antibiotics launched worldwide are available here in Canada.

I want to get to some of what your comments were. I feel that right near the end of your comments you were running out of time. You were talking about the 2023 pilot program and moving this forward, and the notion everyone's been talking about today—about the push and pull incentives—and you talked about real incentives and barriers at the hospital level. I just wonder if you could expand on that, please.

[Dr. Henry Skinner]

I'm happy to.

I think our work is supporting biotechnology companies that are bringing these important medicines to patients, or trying to. A number of them have gone bankrupt. They have raised hundreds of millions of dollars, approaching $1 billion, and brought the drug through successful clinical trials into approval, only to go bankrupt because they couldn't afford to keep the lights on after the drug was approved. That's how difficult this market is. That's how challenging it is.

We're not even talking about what it costs to then expand into other jurisdictions. To get approval in the U.S., maybe a first step to then getting approval in Canada and to getting approval in other jurisdictions, is absolutely necessary to bring it to patients where the need is, yet the companies don't have the resources to do that.

This has become so challenging that other investors simply refuse to consider investing in this field any more. We've heard that large pharmaceutical companies have left the field, and that has created a whole series of challenges in supporting innovation here.

All those things conspire to keep these needed drugs out of the innovation pipeline and unavailable to patients around the world. If we don't create these pull incentives so there's a market to keep the drugs available once they've been approved, there simply won't be any more coming.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Nguyen, you spoke right at the end of your remarks about creating the AMR ecosystem that's required. I think it was during our first meeting.... Our briefing notes that the analysts prepared talked about 14 departments, agencies and programs working on the whole AMR side. From a bureaucratic standpoint, 14 departments, agencies and programs all having a voice and trying to provide input as part of that ecosystem.... How do we address that?

I don't know if you had an opportunity to hear some of Dr. Wright's testimony earlier, but I found it quite enlightening with regard to his two asks to government: developing a way to keep our talent in Canada, and having a translation of the discovery that's done here into downstream implementation.

Can you follow up and expand on your comments on this notion of creating this ecosystem?

[Dr. Dao Nguyen]

You've pointed to the ecosystem as being incredibly complex, not only in terms of the department and agencies but also in terms of the jurisdiction. Above and beyond that, the consensus that has come through our work with stakeholders is that one of the key things that are lacking is strong leadership, leadership that transcends agencies and transcends sectors to try to coordinate and see the big picture.

An example that has come to the audience is Dame Sally Davies—you know, somebody who has the ability to wield political power and has the resources and who also can make the sectors—human health, animal health and veterinarian—speak to each other.

From there on, governance for the different needs will have specificities. In terms of the research and innovation ecosystem, I would argue that that's a challenge of integrating the academic research, the industry and then, perhaps, government-supported research.

The leadership and governance are something that we need to think about broadly in terms of a path forward.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Are you finding the same situation as Dr. Wright in the excellent work that you're doing, that you're losing talented researchers to foreign countries because of the better opportunities there, because of the investment opportunities and the investment climate in other countries?

[Dr. Dao Nguyen]

Absolutely, I think that, whether it is lost to other countries or to other fields, that means that one may have a very talented young scientist working on antimicrobial resistance, and once they've—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. Time is up for Mr. Baldinelli. Maybe you will get an opportunity in the second round to answer that.

We will now go to MP McKelvie for six minutes.

Please go ahead.