Science and Research Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2025

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Again, thank you to all of the witnesses.

You're not quite done, Dr. Wright, because my first question is for you.

We've heard a lot about your requests and some of your strong feelings related to funding, but I'd like to go back a little more to the process of approval. Your institute is developing new products. We have heard, during the course of this study, some criticisms of the length of time that Health Canada takes—Canada's Drug Agency as well—in terms of approval of new medications in general. Given your experience, could you give us any recommendations as to how, perhaps, the process might be sped up?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

I'm a fundamental researcher in many universities, so I haven't had the opportunity to face the Health Canada challenges in getting drugs approved.

I have been, obviously, involved in this field for a really long time, and I understand that there are significant barriers to making these things happen. As I said, because Canada is such a small market for the companies that have these antibiotics to sell, I think there needs to be some recognition of that and some way to incentivize. I don't know how that would be, to be perfectly honest, to in some way incentivize Health Canada to be able to recognize that it's a challenging clinical area that requires solutions, and that there is a really significant need going forward. Now's the time for us to figure out how to streamline this.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you.

Professor Outterson, perhaps with your knowledge of what happens globally and in various G7 countries in terms of drug approval, is it just a financial issue, or are there process issues that we could learn from other jurisdictions in terms of approvals?

[Prof. Kevin Outterson]

The regulatory authorities talk together a lot: FDA, EMA and Health Canada. They do coordinate. I was the author of the paper that Dr. Wright mentioned about how Canada's last within the G7 in actual approvals of these drugs.

I don't think that the primary problem is the bureaucracy within Canada. I think the primary problem is that the price is low compared to the size of Canada, so it's not an attractive enough market for the company to go to the trouble of doing that. A lot of these failures to get approvals in Canada are because no one tried, because the market's too small.

If Canada had a pull incentive at the levels I've described, I guarantee you that every company would come to Canada and the rest of the G7, with that as the carrot for them to bother with the registration.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Perhaps you could describe this pull incentive a little more clearly. How would it be allocated? How do you see this working in terms of multiple companies, perhaps, competing? Just describe this, perhaps.

[Prof. Kevin Outterson]

Yes. The shortest answer is that the “Overcoming Resistance” report issued by CCA two years ago describes this all in great detail. I was one of the 10 co-authors of that report.

It would be a revenue guarantee. Canada would say that if you come to Canada, you will receive at least $13 million U.S. per year for this drug for making it practically available here. In the first year, maybe there are small sales. By year six, the projections are that the sales in Canada would exceed that number, so the revenue guarantee wouldn't cost the federal government any money whatsoever. It's a federal guarantee. The drug is still available and used in the provinces and territories, and it's paid for in the ordinary way that happens in those areas.

It's my understanding that the government is working now on a pilot to operationalize this, but the details of that are not known to me. It's been under way for some time, since the CCA report.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Would you have any idea of which organization within government would administer this type of pull incentive?

[Prof. Kevin Outterson]

It's my understanding that it will be at the federal level within Canada, but I do not know which agency. It has not been announced that the pilot is public yet. Surely someone in Ottawa knows: It's just not me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and half minutes.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Outterson, your work shows that inaction on antimicrobial resistance could cost the global economy trillions of dollars by 2050. However, the required investment would amount to a few billion dollars per year.

In your opinion, why is it taking so long for Canada to act, despite such an economic performance?

Do you have concrete estimates on what an effective investment plan would yield compared to the cost of inaction?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Who are you directing the question to?

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

My question is for Mr. Outterson.

[Prof. Kevin Outterson]

I apologize: I missed that it was directed to me.

For the Canadian pull incentive, you're probably talking about two or three drugs at a time, given that it's likely to not be needed after five years. That's a guarantee of $13 million U.S. Really, on average, only about half of that would be spent per year.

CARB-X has asked Canada for something in the range of $6 million Canadian per year. That would cover our pull incentive as we provide charitable, non-dilutive help to companies worldwide, taking them from the hit-to-lead stage to the end of the first-in-human stage.

On the proposal from Dr. Wright, there are two of them that I can think of.

One is to create a specific committee within CIHR, which funds AMR, and increasing that. The second was his request for something like an SBIR. Really, that's less than $1 million or $2 million per year, because these awards are typically $200,000 to $300,000 U.S. There aren't that many companies that actually would use them.

Together, that's a pretty comprehensive program. It would guarantee Canadian research continuing, going forward, and make sure that these new drugs are actually and practically available in Canada without financial barriers to patients.

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

Thank you, Mr. Outterson.

Professor Wright, you talked about the brain drain in research centres.

Do you have any concrete solutions to retain talent in Canada and avoid the exodus?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

Yes. It's the same answer as Dr. Outterson's in this case.

What we need to do is have sufficient resources so that people can have careers here, whether those are in the academic sector or in the biotech or pharma sectors. People just want to lead their lives and bring up their families, and they need to be employed for that. That's what's needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Holman for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the members of the committee, including the witnesses, for coming here on a busy Wednesday night.

Recently, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report concluded that the government's projected borrowing requirements will begin to exceed the maximum amount in 2026-27 as the debt crosses the $2-trillion mark. The PBO bluntly told Canadians, “The government will need to make choices to either [raise] revenues or cut spending in order to [stop] this unsustainable path that we're on.” Already the Liberals are spending more on interest payments for their debt than they are on health care.

AMR is a health care issue. Cutting health costs will cause concerns about the spread of AMR, especially in neighbourhood health centres and also possibly in hospitals.

My question is for Mr. Wright.

You mentioned in your briefing that Canada does not have AMR labs or research. You said, “There is no AMR panel.” It's bundled in with fungal and pesticide research. You mentioned that Canada risks losing academic talent in research on AMR, and that Canada lacks early-stage research. Can you please expand on that?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

Yes, sure.

Let me just qualify that by saying that we have some outstanding AMR researchers across the country. There are a lot at McMaster, but you're going to hear from some from McGill in the second panel. There is an excellent group or cadre of individuals who are working in this area.

Our reality is that we are challenged to keep new, young investigators here who are going to find the solutions of the future. This how science works: It's the young people who drive it, and we need to keep that talent here. What I'm suggesting is that, for not a lot of money, you could maintain the excellence we have and expand on it. Then, in particular, I'm extremely committed to ensuring that discoveries get translated into solutions for Canadians. Translation is a huge gap that's missing here in Canada, and it's something that I think could benefit not just AMR but also all other fields of biotechnology.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Outterson, you mentioned in your introduction, in relation to CARB-X, Canada's role in the opportunity to research AMR, ports of global AMR research and the fact that Canada is on this panel.... You mentioned with regard to fair-share funding that only two countries from the G7, I understand, do this completely: the United Kingdom and Italy.

Is Canada's lack of funding a cause for concern in solving the global problem with regard to AMR?

[Prof. Kevin Outterson]

Canada's economy is about 3.5% or 4% of the G7 plus the European Union, so you're a small but important part of that. If Canada chooses to not do a pull incentive and the rest of the G7 does, the innovation solution will probably be achieved, but the drugs will not be available in Canada. For a relatively small amount of money, done collectively with other G7 partners, there could be a great solution.

One other thing I'd like to say, Mr. Holman, is that we have to remember that this saves a lot of money. If we don't address AMR, every surgery becomes more dangerous and more risky—every caesarean section, every hip or knee replacement, every cancer treatment. The number two cause of death with cancer is infection, not cancer. This is an investment in saving money going forward. I understand that the budget issues are difficult, but this is an area in which prevention is really remarkably cost-effective.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I have a follow-up question for you, Mr. Outterson.

You mentioned that Canada is a small market for AMR drugs, but there are smaller countries in Europe. Are you implying that they're more profitable? Is Canada's being a smaller market due to the lack of funding from Canada or possibly due also to the bureaucracy from within Canada?

[Prof. Kevin Outterson]

Within Europe, there are many countries that are much smaller than Canada. It is a unified market, and Europe is working right now on a pull incentive for all of Europe. It should be announced in November, next month, in Denmark, under the presidency of the European Council. They are also working on this and are trying to make sure that there's access to the smaller countries of Europe, in addition to major markets like Germany.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will end this panel with MP Rana for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry, Dr. Wright. You are not done yet. My question is for you.

You have been working with a lot of grant panels and consultants. Based on your experience, where do you think the funding for AMR research changed over time?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

I can give you a concrete example of this.

There was a significant investment in AMR and bacterial diseases funding in the 1990s and early 2000s through something called the Canadian Bacterial Diseases Network, which was part of an investment in several network centres of excellence dedicated to certain disease areas or areas of biotechnology development, in partnership with small and large businesses. This was game-changing for a lot of folks like me, who were trying to build out their careers at this time. That program, unfortunately, sunsetted in the mid-2000s, leaving only CIHR able to make up that change. There are not a lot of other opportunities out there right now, and that's where our challenge lies.