Science and Research Committee on Oct. 8th, 2025

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's clear that we need all hands on deck. We need municipalities that ultimately treat waste water and monitor waste water. We need provinces that generally work in agriculture and that sort of thing. We need the federal government: We do drug approvals and fund research.

Dr. McGeer, you mentioned that you had some thoughts that you could share with us around how we're working with the WHO. How important is international collaboration and our continuing to do that, despite this pressure that we see where people are wanting us to walk away from that?

[Dr. Allison McGeer]

I think there are two pieces to that. One is fundamentally international collaboration. There is no question that, as many people have talked about in the last two days of hearings, microbes don't know what borders are. All of this has to be global. We will unquestionably be better off if we're doing it globally. The prevention of infections in any other country effectively prevents their importation into Canada. The prevention of infections in Canada prevents their export to other countries as well. There is no question that everything we do in science and research is better if it's a global collaboration.

There's another thing that's important, and I do hear myself as I'm saying this: I want more money for AMR in Canada. I also want us to be spending more money on supporting other countries that are poorer and less privileged than we are, because the United States funding is gone. As a consequence of that United States funding being gone, hundreds of thousands of children will die earlier deaths around the world. This is a time when we need to think really carefully about how we see our global responsibilities as Canadians and how much more money we can put into funding programs that will save lives from AMR and from infections in general in other countries. This is really a time when the rest of us need to try to step up and replace, as much as we can, what has been lost with the U.S. programs being shut down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Dr. McGeer. The time is up.

I really want to thank all three witnesses for their important testimony in this study.

With that, the panel comes to an end. I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes while the other witnesses take their places.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Members, I call the meeting to order.

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, you can select at the bottom of your screen 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 will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We are joined by two witnesses for this panel.

I would like to welcome Jenna Sauve—

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

Point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

—antimicrobial stewardship pharmacotherapy specialist. She is joining us by video conference.

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

Point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

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

There is a problem with the interpretation. We are hearing two voices.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We'll try. I will speak and see.

Okay. I'm sorry for that. We will start with our witnesses.

First, we will proceed to Jenna Sauve for five minutes.

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

[Jenna Sauve, Antimicrobial Stewardship Pharmacotherapy Specialist, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Jenna Sauve. I'm a clinical pharmacist specializing in antimicrobial stewardship. I practise in a large academic hospital in Toronto, where my work centres on optimizing antimicrobial prescribing for hospitalized patients. I have also led research on antimicrobial resistance and stewardship education in Canadian pharmacy programs and developed a curriculum framework to enhance the teaching of this content. I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Antimicrobials are critical tools in modern medicine, required by most Canadians at least once in their lifetime. However, rising rates of antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, threaten their effectiveness and in turn the health of Canadians. The World Health Organization has declared AMR as a silent pandemic and one of the top 10 global public health threats. Projections from the Council of Canadian Academies suggest that by 2050, nearly 14,000 deaths annually in Canada will be directly attributable to AMR, which translates to the loss of approximately 38 Canadian lives every day.

The clinical and economic impact of AMR is felt across Canada's health care system. One in four infections is now resistant to first-line antibiotics. For patients, this can mean delays in receiving effective treatment, exposure to more toxic second- and third-line therapies, and increased risk of complications or harm. For the health system, this comes with a financial burden resulting from longer hospital stays, management of drug-related side effects, and the use of more costly antibiotics of last resort.

While resistance occurs naturally, it's accelerated by the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials across the different sectors. Antimicrobial stewardship, which has coordinated efforts to promote and evaluate judicious antimicrobial use, is a key strategy in preserving the effectiveness of these drugs. While many hospitals have established antimicrobial stewardship programs, there remains a significant gap in community-based initiatives despite the fact that the majority of antibiotics are prescribed in these settings. An estimated 15% to 25% of antibiotic prescriptions in Canada are considered unnecessary. Addressing this issue requires investment in improved methods of diagnosing infection and funding for stewardship initiatives that incorporate behaviour change strategies to reduce inappropriate prescribing.

Successful stewardship initiatives also require a well-trained and empowered workforce to implement them, highlighting the need for coordinated educational curricula for health professionals and identification of AMR as a priority by accreditation and licensing bodies.

The issue of AMR in Canada is further compounded by limited access to critical antibiotics. The Auditor General's 2022 report highlighted that Canadians lacked market access to 19 of the 29 antibiotics classified by the World Health Organization as antibiotics of last resort. Furthermore, of the 13 what would be considered novel antibiotics that had become available since 2010, only two were available in the Canadian market, a number that was staggeringly low compared to other high-income countries. This lack of access results in extensive resource utilization to import these drugs from other countries and causes delays in initiating life-saving care for patients. Better incentives are required to encourage pharmaceutical companies to bring these critical antibiotics to market in Canada.

In summary, AMR is not a distant or abstract threat; it's an issue that affects all Canadians. Without the ability to reliably prevent and treat infections, life-saving treatments like major surgery, organ transplant and cancer chemotherapy become far more dangerous, if not impossible. While there is progress being made through the Public Health Agency of Canada's pan-Canadian action plan, there is still more work to be done to deliver the comprehensive and coordinated response that's needed. Funding of stewardship initiatives, particularly in community settings, along with enhanced training of health professionals in this field, will help to promote appropriate use of our currently limited arsenal of antibiotics. In addition, Canada must not just invest in the development of new antimicrobials, diagnostic tests and preventative strategies but also act now to ensure that Canadians have timely access to these new drugs and technologies once they become available.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Our second witness for this panel is Dr. Scott Weese, professor, University of Guelph, and director, Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses.

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

[Dr. Scott Weese, Professor, University of Guelph and Director, Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the invitation.

I deal with AMR in animals and at the human-animal interface, ranging from the individual animal to the population, locally and globally. That's how I'm presenting some of my thoughts and comments.

Really, my theme is that it's a complex problem. I want to emphasize the complexity of the problem, the oversimplification of the problem, the lack of action-based approaches, and the need to consider animal and human health as integrated but separate issues.

You've heard about “one health”, probably repeatedly. It's a one health problem. It's good that we're talking about one health, but we have to remember that one health isn't human health and everything else. One health is human health, animal health and environmental health under a one health umbrella.

Some things are definitely one health. Many things with AMR are strictly animal health or strictly human health. Sometimes we focus too much on one health, not knowing what to do, and it's a barrier to our action, so we need to think about where we can get synergies with the one health approach but not fixate on the one health approach.

As I think Simon said, we don't know the contribution of antibiotic use in animals to antibiotic resistance in humans. It's probably a very small proportion, but if it's a very small proportion of a very big problem, it's still something we need to address, so we have to do it. At the same time, we have to remember that there's an animal health component, and we have to think about animal health, animal welfare, the economics of food production and the food security issues that come along with this.

The World Organisation for Animal Health has estimated that by 2050, if AMR is unchecked, food animal production losses will be equivalent to the food needs of 750 million to two billion people. That's a staggering number. A very small percentage of that impact would be in Canada, but a small percentage of a staggering number is still something we need to pay attention to, so we have to think about the breadth of the issue and about action. Even that doesn't show the issue as completely in animals. We have companion animals, and there are untold impacts on them. We are losing animals to resistant infections.

Just before this session, I spent time doing two emails about two pet animals with life-threatening, multidrug-resistant infections. That impacts the animals' health and welfare and has an emotional impact on their owners and family members.

We need to address AMR in humans and animals. We have to realize that the issues are different. There are a lot of similarities, but there are some massive differences.

A variety of innovation needs were stated in the standing order for this committee. Among them were drug development and surveillance, which are obviously incredibly important issues in human medicine; in veterinary medicine, not as much. I don't want new drugs for our food animals. I want to make sure we can keep using the drugs we have. I have a limited need for new drugs dealing with companion animals, and I want to use them as little as possible.

We have diagnostic testing needs, yes, but all those are too late—we're addressing the end result. We can't address the AMR problem by addressing AMR. We have to address the impact of AMR, but we have to address why we have AMR, and that's because we have antimicrobial use. Why do we have that? It's because we have health problems, or perceptions of health problems. We need to address AMR itself, but we have to address the underlying causes; otherwise, we're trying to keep up with a problem that's much more nimble than we are.

I think that nicely describes antimicrobial resistance.

For animal health, we need innovation, but that's not necessarily new drugs, new tech, new technology, new toys. It's innovation that targets health, better animal management, better nutrition, better vaccines, better access to vaccines and alternatives, better ways to raise animals, better access to veterinary care, changing human behaviour—which is very difficult to do—and getting social science involved. We need things that will improve animal health and human health.

These aren't often considered innovation, though, especially when you're trying to get funding or attention. Raising animals better, making their lives better, rearing them better, and providing better access to care don't come across as innovation very often. It's not tech. It's not toys. It's not sexy, but it's the foundation, and it's what we need to do.

Dr. Otto directly addressed this too—surveillance. We need better information. We need actionable information. Surveillance itself tells us what the problem is, but it has to direct us to a solution. If we have very crude, very patchwork surveillance programs, we don't have the action step. That's probably part of the issue right now. We have surveillance at a very high level in animals, but it doesn't direct what we do. Crude numbers are good for sound bites, but they're not good for action.

We have multisectoral interest, motivation and a foundation for better action or surveillance, but we need sustained funding and, to be honest, the political will to come along with that.

We need to—and we can—markedly improve antibiotic use in animals. We know we need to do that, but we also have to recognize there's a role for them in care. As a veterinarian, my obligation is to take care of animals. Part of that is using antimicrobials. A lot of that is making sure they don't need them.

We have to accept that we're going to use the antimicrobials, but we don't have to accept the status quo, which is using them unnecessarily and not addressing health. Use as little as possible but as much as needed, really, is the approach that we have to think about.

My final point, if I have another 30 seconds, is that it's complicated. This is not something we can solve with a simple, single solution or a single sector. It's everyone doing little things. We need support for sustained and aspirational action. We can't do it with little piecework activities.

The other issue is that this is something that has to be done spanning decades and generations. It doesn't span granting cycles for an agency. It doesn't span election cycles—single cycles. This is something we have to be gearing up for decades, and we don't do that very well. We don't aspirationally plan efforts that are going to impact for years upon years, even though that's what we need to do.

Canada has had a very strong brand with AMR internationally, and that's been slipping. We still have very strong people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Could you please wind it down?

[Dr. Scott Weese]

Yes.

We have the foundation here. We have some very good people. We have some very good structure. We have to get back to where we are with the action component.

I appreciate the efforts of this committee. Thank you for having me here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Dr. Weese.

Now we will proceed with our first round of questioning.

We will begin with MP Ho for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is directed to both witnesses. We can start with Ms. Sauve and then go to Dr. Weese.

Back in 2018, the government received a report on the status of AMR, and the issue was brought in a comprehensive way for the government to take action. It doesn't appear that the Liberal government has taken much action since then. Are you disappointed in the lack of progress in the last seven years?

Ms. Sauve.

[Jenna Sauve]

I think there has been some progress, and definitely some steps [Technical difficulty—Editor]. The witnesses before have cited also the pan-Canadian action plan developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada. I do want to say that there are a lot of great recommendations in that report and in the action plan. It's difficult for me to assess, without the most current information, exactly where we are in implementing some of the steps there. I think that if in the five-year target they were to implement everything in that action plan, we would be in a much better place with respect to AMR than we have been in the past or currently.

There is a one-year progress report on some steps that have been taken. We're still waiting for the report from year two. I would say that progress has been made or is under way, but whether we are on track to meet some of those lofty objectives is difficult to say.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

It's been five years just to come up with a framework, and little has been done.

Dr. Weese, what do you think about that?

[Dr. Scott Weese]

We're looking for more action. It's an action plan, and we need more of an action component. Yes, it's been sitting there for a while, and it was developed over a long process. It's a bit of an outdated action plan if anything, but it still provides an excellent framework.

It needs to be funded. I think that's the biggest thing. There are a lot of things that could be done. There's a lot of interest in doing it. There's a lot of work that's being done, as I think Simon mentioned, off research grants in little pilot activities that could be harmonized together with a more structured approach so that we get a better impact.

Related to that, it was mentioned earlier or in the other session that Dr. Gerry Wright and Dr. Andrew Morris were commissioned to put together a plan for a Canadian network to enact this. A few of us were involved in that. That report really set out how we can act on this, but it hasn't received any action either. There's a foundation there, but we need more will and funding and coordination.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

It's concerning. It's great that you brought up the lack of funding. This report has been collecting dust over the years, and the lack of action is quite disappointing.

I mean, there's only a little over $1 billion of health research funding, which is quite precious if you think of all the vanity projects that the Liberal government has undertaken. We spend well over $60 billion just to service the debt. If you think about it, there's just a bit over $1 billion for health research, while they used research funding for things like we discussed last week. They spent $75,000 to study German children's books. That's research money that's going into that, not even...and that's taken from the funding.

I want to go back to a committee member from the last session, on Monday. We were talking about AMR. Apparently, he alleges, there's a rhetoric, a skepticism, I suppose—I'm paraphrasing—about countries working together. Apparently, there's this rhetoric that they don't want their work being involved in cross-border research and, apparently, “being ready for pandemics is a terrible thing”. I'm quoting here. Apparently that is leading, according to him, to a lack of urgency and trust in science and trust in medicine.

I took some time to think about those comments that were made on Monday, and then I realized that in May 2019, under the Liberal government's watch, the Global Public Health Intelligence Network, the GPHIN—essentially a Canadian federal government agency whose job was to operate as a medical Amber alert system to gather intelligence and spot pandemics, and some of the witnesses here have described this as a “silent pandemic”—saw its resources completely redirected to other causes, which hindered our ability to be prepared for the pandemic. You saw all the chaos that ensued from the federal government's lack of preparedness and lack of action.

Does that concern you that funding is being cut? This government has announced funding cuts of 15% to the public sector. They're redirecting resources for surveillance for pandemics.

Dr. Weese, why don't you start with that? Does that concern you?

[Dr. Scott Weese]

I can't really comment on budgetary issues, since that's not my area of expertise. I can comment on the funding issues. Certainly, there are concerns that we don't have enough money. That is impacting us now, and it's impacting the future.

At a recent meeting that Senator Ravalia convened, there was a comment about CIHR funding and how much AMR funding was going towards that versus other areas.

My take on it is that AMR is a global health issue with a really bad marketing plan. We don't have a lot of interest in it, which doesn't lead to a lot of broad support. The problem is that when we don't support research right now, we don't get research right now, and we don't get trainees who are going to do the research in 20 years, because why would you go into AMR if it's not funded, when you can go into cancer research, which is funded and where you see a career?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but the time is up for Mr. Ho. Maybe we'll come back in the second round.

Now we will go to MP Rana for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for spending your quality time with us.

My question is for you, Dr. Weese. Do you think Canada is playing its due leading role among the world nations in AMR research?

[Dr. Scott Weese]

AMR research is such a broad area that it's difficult to answer that. I would say that Canada has some very strong individuals and some very strong groups that have come together. Those have very good international recognition. From a more coordinated aspect, I think Canada gets less attention now. In my work on the global stage, we don't talk about Canada as an entity coming in.

They started off some really nice programs. CPAR was mentioned before. This has been highlighted for years, but CPAR has lost ground because it has a small number of excellent people with less money doing as much as they can, whereas other countries have taken that on.

From a research standpoint, we have a lot of very good activities going on, with some very good people. We don't have the coordination and the international leadership that we would have had in the past, I don't think. That's my perception. I have a very narrow view of the situation, though.