:
Colleagues, I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 24 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research.
Today's meeting, as you know, is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
Tonight, based on Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 26, 2022, we are continuing the study of the international moonshot programs.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.
For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. With regard to interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
Members in room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. Members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.
In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.
I see tonight that we have Mr. Powlowski, Mr. Williams and Mr. Garon joining us. Welcome to you all.
Now I'd like to welcome our witnesses.
We have Dr. Art McDonald, former Gray chair in particle astrophysics, professor emeritus at Queen's University and, of course, a Nobel Prize winner. He is appearing as an individual.
We also have, from the Gérard Mourou Center for Ultrafast Optical Science, Dr. Brandon Russell, who is a research fellow.
I would like to welcome you both. Our committee is very excited to hear your testimony. You will each have five minutes to present. At the four and a half minutes, I will hold up this green card, which lets you know there are 30 seconds left. We aim to be fair, so please wrap up your discussion to be within the five minutes.
With that, I welcome you again.
Dr. McDonald, the floor is yours for five minutes.
:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you this evening.
I want to let you know that Canada is in a position to compete at the very forefront of the fields of particle physics and astrophysics internationally through the presence of SNOLAB, which is the lowest radioactivity laboratory in the world, two kilometres underground near Sudbury. SNOLAB experiments are addressing questions that are also the strong focus of the largest accelerator facilities in the world, including the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Fermilab in Chicago and the J-PARC accelerator in Tokyo. In the future, the results of these experiments at SNOLAB can have as great a scientific impact as we had with the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, for which a Nobel Prize was awarded in 2015.
These questions are absolutely fundamental to our very existence and to our knowledge the composition of our universe and the way in which it has evolved. They're the top of every list of scientific questions internationally.
First, what is the nature of the dark matter that holds our galaxy together and appears to have five times as much mass in the dark spaces between the stars as in the stars themselves—and us, of course—in ordinary matter? We have a very remarkable and complete picture of how the universe has evolved since the big bang, which was about 13.5 billion years ago. The gravitational effects of dark matter are essential for an understanding of that, which has now reached a complete nature, with the exception of, “What is the dark matter?” It's completely unlike any of the particles or any of the matter that we have identified on earth in any of our experiments to date.
The Large Hadron Collider is trying to produce them for the first time here on earth, hoping that they have as high energies as are necessary and as were available in the original big bang to do it. We know that those dark matter particles exist in our galaxy. We are moving through them. With our experiments at SNOLAB, we are creating an ultralow radioactivity environment to get rid of everything else, except perhaps signals from those dark matter particles hitting our various detectors.
We've made considerable progress on the development of detection techniques already at SNOLAB. There are major international collaborations, in some cases, with more than 400 scientists from 90 institutions and 14 countries that have designated SNOLAB as the location for larger-scale experiments such as ARGO. It'll push the sensitivity for dark matter detection by factors of hundreds of times greater than today's sensitivity, to the point—ironically, for me—where the only interfering background in the experiment will be neutrinos.
Such experiments will cost upward of $300 million, with substantial contribution, however, from international partners. A lot of those contributions are being spent here in Canada. At least one of these will be seeking funding within the next 10 years.
Secondly, from a physics question, it appears that the big bang produced equal numbers of particles and antiparticles, such as positrons, the antiparticle to electrons. Almost all of those antiparticles have decayed away, leaving us a universe dominated by the ordinary matter from which we and the stars are formed.
There's a theory as to the fact that that decay in the early universe was dominated by processes involving neutrinos. The experimental programs at Fermilab in Chicago and J-PARC in Tokyo are dominated by searches for properties of neutrinos that are needed in the theory in order to understand how the antimatter decayed in the early universe. These are multi-billion-dollar programs with strong, international participation.
A further part of this theory is explored by the ultralow radioactivity measurements at SNOLAB. Neutrinoless double-beta decay is the rare radioactivity we seek.
The two foremost international experiments of this type, each of them in excess of $300 million, have declared that SNOLAB is their location of choice for their site. We may also need an expansion of SNOLAB, which could cost in excess of $200 million in order to accommodate these future large experiments.
These are moonshots, building on Canadian leadership in one of the most fundamental and internationally visible areas of science, and we have the stepping stone to that through SNOLAB, although, granted, going two kilometres down doesn't exactly seem like a moonshot.
SNOLAB was created by a CFI program in 2003 that was designed to bring international scientists to Canada to work with Canadians—
:
Thank you. Hello, everyone.
I would first like to thank the committee for inviting me to discuss the research that is being performed in the field of plasma physics at the Gérard Mourou Center for Ultrafast Optical Science. My name is Brandon Russell, and I am a research fellow at the University of Michigan, where I recently completed my Ph.D. in electrical engineering.
Although I am currently working in the United States, I grew up in Alberta and attended the University of Alberta for my undergraduate degree. During my time at the University of Alberta, I was initially involved in research in the field of nanotechnology. However, through an internship at the Stanford linear accelerator national laboratory in California, I was introduced to the field of plasma physics. This is an extremely exciting and impactful field of research, and I have been passionate about it ever since.
My graduate studies were focused on progressing the high-energy frontier of this field, wherein large ultra-intense lasers are used to create extremely energetic plasmas. My current research is focused on creating the theoretical framework needed to design experiments for the next generation of laser facilities that are currently being constructed around the world, including the extreme light infrastructure, ELI, in Europe and the ZEUS laser system at the University of Michigan, which will be the focus of this speech.
Prior to the funding of ZEUS in 2019 by the National Science Foundation, the University of Michigan had the Hercules laser system. Hercules was a mid-scale laser system, taking up several standard laboratory spaces. This laser was built under the leadership of Gérard Mourou, using the technology of chirped pulse amplification for which he jointly won the Nobel Prize in 2018. This technology allowed the laser to reach extremely high intensities, large enough to accelerate electrons to a significant fraction of the speed of light. In fact, the Hercules laser held the Guinness world record for the most intense laser in the world. Many experiments were run on this laser, both by students and researchers at Michigan and by external collaborators. These experiments studied a diverse range of topics, including particle acceleration, X-ray generation for medical and materials studies, and the study of magnetized processes relevant to astrophysics.
Since then, many similar laser systems have been constructed throughout the world, including many more powerful lasers called petawatt laser systems. For reference, the United States power grid operates at around one terawatt, a thousand times less than the power of the laser pulses generated by these petawatt laser systems.
In North America, many of these laser systems belong to LaserNetUS, a network of laser systems that researchers can apply to for time to run their own experiments. Although the majority of these lasers are at U.S. institutions, the Advanced Laser Light Source in Quebec also belongs to this network.
These mid-scale laser facilities allow us to tackle scientific problems with a significant impact at the level of fundamental science and with the potential to have great societal impact. Some of these problems include accelerating electrons to energies comparable with those of conventional several-kilometre-long particle accelerators, creating compact X-ray sources for diagnosing advanced materials and ultra-fast medical imaging, proton acceleration for cancer therapy, and nuclear fusion as an alternative energy source.
However, it should be noted that nuclear fusion experiments are generally performed at large-scale laser facilities, including the National Ignition Facility in California. Recently, there has been an international push—largely in the United States, Europe, and Asia—to develop a new generation of multi-petawatt lasers that can access an extremely energetic regime of physics where strong-field quantum-electrodynamic processes can be studied. These processes that appear in this regime are theorized to occur in the most extreme astrophysical environments, like those surrounding black holes and highly energetic stars known as pulsars.
Given a high enough laser intensity, we could access this regime by simply shooting a laser into a vacuum. However, such intensities are far outside the reach of current laser technology. Instead, we can achieve similar results by colliding a high-energy electron beam head-on with a laser beam. Several facilities around the world are currently racing to apply this concept, including the University of Michigan, where the ZEUS laser has been purpose-built for this concept.
The ZEUS laser was funded by the National Science Foundation to be a user facility where researchers can apply to run their own experiments. The facility recently ran its first experiment, successfully demonstrating operation of the first components of the laser system, and it is expected to begin operation at full power in late 2023. At that time, it will be the most powerful laser in the U.S.
This facility has already brought together talented scientists and students for the design and construction of the laser, and it will continue to bring in researchers internationally to perform experiments. Collaborating on novel, highly impactful experiments at this facility will allow students to receive a unique set of skills and gain useful connections for their future careers.
For these reasons, I believe the work being done at the University of Michigan and generally in the field of plasma physics is in line with the motion adopted by the committee. I hope that what I have talked about can give insight into how laser-plasma physics, which already exists at a few institutions in Canada, may be expanded upon to bring in talented researchers.
I would, again, like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak about this work being done at the Gérard Mourou Center for Ultrafast Optical Science at the University of Michigan. I am happy to take any questions.
Thank you.
:
I will answer, but let me start by pointing out that the money recently awarded was in fact for the operation of the SNOLAB facility over the next seven years. It was not capital investment. It was matched, in fact, by the province, to a substantial degree.
How do you set priorities? It's very difficult. I don't envy you in terms of the advice you're going to give the government. Many things come into this. You want Canada to be doing the things that are important in science and that will have a short-term benefit for the Canadian public in health and in areas where you clearly want to be a world leader in order to provide the appropriate support to a Canadian populace.
However, I think it's important for Canada to also be a leader in basic science in certain areas where it has natural advantages. Obviously, in SNOLAB we have a natural advantage. We should be building on that, because we can be a world leader in natural sciences as well.
I would point out that the people we educate in Ph.D. degrees, for example, in very basic sciences, go on to a wide variety of other occupations. We did a survey 10 years after the SNO experiment stopped taking data. We found that 75% of people educated in the process of doing work on the basic science experiment were in a wide variety of other jobs. Twenty-five per cent of them were in academic positions. I'm pleased to say that 35% of them were women, which is high for physics, and it's increasing.
The other 75% worked for J.P. Morgan, the government and medical research laboratories. Basically, they were trained in evidence-based decision-making, which is needed in all aspects of our society. We could attract them because we had things at the frontier of science. They were trained in such things, including the frontiers of technology. They have gone out into society and are making contributions across the spectrum.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good evening everyone. Thank you to our two witnesses for being here.
I'm going to start with Professor McDonald.
Society places a lot of value on applied research, which results in direct applications that can quickly be turned into consumer products that generate profits. I feel, though, that basic research tends to be the prerequisite for the development of major industries. Genome sequencing comes to mind, as does all the basic research that the University of California, Berkeley does, research that led to the creation of Silicon Valley.
I believe that basic research is a public asset first and should be largely funded by the government. What do you think? On the whole, does Canada recognize that basic research is a public asset that must be publicly funded?
:
I certainly agree that it's very important that there be a balance.
What Canada needs is strong support for basic research. I think the funding councils require strong support. Another topic on the table is adequate research funding for individuals at the faculty, post-doctoral and student levels, right now. I was on the committee chaired by David Naylor. We certainly, at that time, found that levels of funding were lower than required. They have increased, but they are still in difficulty within the basic sciences.
I think that needs to be balanced with a recognition that there is also a need for Canada to be technologically and commercially related to that and actively involved in the latest technology. In a number of instances, this comes from basic science. In fact, the type of people I was describing, who go into industry even though their degree may have been in basic science, are of value to industry because they are able to look across the horizon, beyond Canada, at that new idea that came up in Germany or wherever. They know what it means. It is basic science that creates the understanding of when the technological breakthrough is going to be.
Canadian industry needs people trained in applied science and basic science, in order for them to be able to access the latest in what's happening internationally when it comes to innovation. Balance, from my point of view, is what's important.
My next question is for Mr. Russell.
It's important to attract talent and researchers to Canada, and for that to happen, a certain number of conditions have to be in place.
During the Trump administration, immigration was a major issue. A number of countries went to great lengths to set themselves apart from the U.S. and to attract researchers. Australia and New Zealand seem to have done a pretty good job of that, but Canada had trouble turning the situation to its advantage even then.
As far as student scholarships and research funding go, does Canada have what it takes to attract young researchers and talent, when the conditions are ripe?
My next question is for Mr. McDonald, who has seen a whole lot of students in his career.
We've talked about the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, NSERC, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. For the most part, their federal scholarship and grant amounts are still exactly what they were 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
Clearly, we want to be involved in moonshot projects; we want to fund them and carry them out. We also need to have a pool of researchers trained here, in Canada.
In addition to making sure we can carry out moonshot projects, do we need to do more when it comes to graduate student funding, so those students stay in Canada?
:
I started back in 1984 with the SNO experiment, and we had a single thing in mind. There was a big question in science to be answered, and fortunately, with the support we got in Canada, we were able to do so.
SNOLAB itself, as I said, was created in 2003 with a program that was led by David Sinclair and Carleton University. I was still involved in the SNO project, although I was actively involved in the ideas that went into SNOLAB. All of us who were working on it recognized that there really had been a change as a result of the measurements that had been made with respect to neutrinos in terms of understanding where those neutrinos fit into the overall model of elementary particles and how that influences how the universe evolves.
The fact that the dark matter was not neutrinos means that we now have other particles to look for that are different from anything that has been seen. That was a program we could see; it was in the proposal to CFI, and it could be a substantial program going forward.
As I've said, there have been smaller-scale experiments that have been taking place in this area. The demonstration that SNOLAB itself functions extremely well and is the best place in the world to do these types of experiments has triggered international interest.
Yes, it was in our mind as we started out, and we were fortunate at the time. The existence of CFI is an indication of how Canada has progressed in its funding. It did not exist when we were trying to get SNO funded, and we had to go through a variety of different hoops, let's say, in order to get it funded. The existence of a single funding agency that can deal with infrastructure in Canada was a real addition to the scene.
You're involved in particle physics and those kinds of questions like astronomy. They tend to be a part of science that, at least I think, involve big science because of the questions you're asking. You have to get particles moving very fast and you have to look far distances.
There's always this balance when I think of policies around funding big science versus smaller science, I guess you could say—basic science versus applied science.
Do you have any advice on how you would weigh that? Maybe you're biased. I'm biased, but we're faced with this. As a committee, as a government, as decision-makers, we want to make science flourish here in Canada and take advantage of the things we have.
:
There's certainly a significant continuing interest in these fields.
We were very fortunate, for example, in the field of particle astrophysics, which is related to SNOLAB very strongly, in being successful with a Canada first research excellence fund. In the process of that fund, which has been in existence for about five years, there have been 15 faculty members across the country recruited, and the equivalent number of faculty members in addition have been attracted to the universities that have built up programs in this area. This area of particle physics has become very interesting. Canada is one of the leaders in it. In addition, hundreds of students and post-doctoral students—I don't know the numbers—have been educated over the last five or so years just in connection with that program alone.
That's an example of the fact that not only are individual scientists interested, but scientific departments across the country have also been very pleased to move forward with new positions. These positions are picked up by the universities now that the Canada first research excellence fund will finish in two years' time.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much to both of our witnesses. We're truly honoured in this committee to have the calibre of witnesses we're getting, particularly on a topic that is, as Mr. Lobb indicated, a new one for many Canadians. It certainly is for us. I think we're learning quite a bit, which is part of what we're doing in this committee. That's why it was struck. I think part of it is to increase our knowledge as parliamentarians so that we can better understand it ourselves and be able to make policies accordingly.
Dr. McDonald, I read with interest that you hold a degree in physics from Dalhousie University. I'm a Nova Scotian and I went to Dalhousie, and so did all my kids. They're all still there.
You talked quite a bit about SNOLAB, and it is fascinating. I think some of us on the committee might be looking forward to attending that facility. Maybe we'll see you there. You also talked about how Canada should be looking at where it has a natural advantage, and that we need recognition in the world. I cannot agree more with that.
Where else can you point us to? From your perspective and with all the experience you have, what else should Canada be looking at, and where?
:
I'll answer you, but of interest, one of my first summer jobs was working at the steam plant in Glace Bay that produced the steam for the reserves of Canadian heavy water that we used in the experiment. I'm from Sydney originally.
I think Canada has a significant advantage in artificial intelligence in quantum devices and quantum computing. It may be in that sequence of quantum devices first, followed by quantum computing. Geoff Hinton and his colleagues in artificial intelligence have made a major shift in the capability of artificial intelligence. I think that's an area that's very important to be supporting.
In the health care area, I have been waiting for some time to see the effects of learning about the human genome starting, essentially, in the year 2000. We now have an understanding of genetics. We also have the ability to use genetics to make quick diagnoses. I think we're going to have a revolution in medicine as we go forward. I talked to my colleagues, such as the head of the department at Queen's, and he tells me what he's looking for is personalized medicine. That is a way you can attempt to tailor your treatment based on the genetic information you obtain, and obtain quickly, going forward.
Those are a couple of areas that I would target.
:
There's not a lot of time to ask this question and get a response. It seems to me that in this committee, which is very interesting, there's an extreme gap between what we're talking about and what you know and what we know.
I have a bachelor's degree in biochemistry. I'm a medical doctor. I have no idea about what dark matter is about. I have no idea about what plasma is. I can certainly understand the fundamental importance of this kind of knowledge in understanding the universe. I can also understand this may lead to benefits, ultimately, in terms of medicine and energy. In various ways, we can see a benefit from it.
Are you frustrated with the fact the people who know about the field of research, and what is important....? There's a gap between them and their ability to get the people who have the money and make the policy to understand the importance of this field and where the money should be going.
I know there are people in NSERC and CFI who presumably have some expertise and can say we should be putting our money into this or that, but is that enough?
How can you talk to the people who ultimately have a source of money—which is us—and convince them that this is something we ought to be putting our money into?
:
Well, fortunately, there's another McDonald, named Bob, who helps a lot in some of these things.
What you say is very understandable.
I, of course, know very little about your expertise. I think peer review is a very important process in all of the decision-making that happens in Canada. There is peer review at various levels. The peer review that happens for individuals with the granting councils is important. You also have to escalate that when you're trying to make your decisions on your moonshots.
At the time of the fundamental science review, there was a recommendation by a major overview committee for the government, with representatives of academia and industry together, giving an overall perspective for how science and technology should be carried out in this country, and a road map for that sort of thing. I think it would be of great advantage to your committee if such a committee of experts, coupled with government experts, were in fact in existence.
I'm going to continue with Dr. McDonald.
You mentioned the human genome project, which I was going to bring up anyway, but you did it on your own, as well as personalized medicine.
I know Pieter Cullis at UBC has written a book on that subject, on things that have flowed from these moonshots, these big science projects.
As I understand it, that human genome project involved a lot of co-operation and sharing of data. My experience in the science world was somewhat the opposite. While a lot of scientists are doing their projects, until they publish, they don't share information.
Do you have any sense that we have to change that paradigm and encourage more open collaboration, and that these moonshots have to involve teams of scientists working together and sharing ideas and data throughout the project?
:
There's no doubt that these moonshots are of such a scale that Canada can't do it alone. There has to be international co-operation. By its nature, these large international co-operations involve the sharing of data very freely among hundreds of scientists.
It's very important that data is not released before it has been properly assessed by the experts, so you have to have the mechanisms whereby there are these opportunities for two experts in that field to come together and come to a conclusion, even if it's only preliminary. They can then be helped by others. There has to be a certain degree of internal work before you release it to the general public or you won't have the peer review on articles that is very necessary as well.
I think that all of these moonshots are, by their nature, international because they are of a scope where the particular topic is something that will be of interest across the world.
I should also point out that these major research projects also push technology right to the frontier. I mean, we're working on things with our projects right now that will result in improved detection devices that will, for example, reduce the dose you need to use in positron emission tomography. There are different things in different areas, but there are effects of pushing technology or even pushing companies to improve their technology that result in immediate and helpful new things.
:
I call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses, and we welcome them tonight.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.
For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either 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.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses.
Appearing as an individual is Dr. Banerjee, a research scientist and adjunct professor from the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan. From the Stem Cell Network, we have Cate Murray, president and chief executive officer, and Dr. Michael Rudnicki, the scientific director. From the University of Saskatchewan, we have Dr. Baljit Singh, vice-president of research.
We'd like to welcome all our witnesses. We're grateful that you would join us tonight. We're eager to hear from you.
Each group will have five minutes to present. At the four-and-a-half-minute mark, I will hold up this green card. It will let you know that there are 30 seconds left. I aim to be fair, so if you could wrap up after that time, it would be much appreciated.
We will go to the testimony now, and we will begin with Dr. Banerjee.
The floor is yours for five minutes.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to this discussion. This session is my first time, so I'm nervous and excited.
I'm joining you from the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization. We are based at the University of Saskatchewan, which is situated on Treaty 6 territory and the homeland of the Métis.
I just had the privilege of coming back from the Royal Society of Canada's G7 One Health research summit at Lake Louise last week. At the meeting it became very clear that we need to focus on perhaps two things to protect the lives of Canadians from infectious diseases. The first is to identify and address the drivers of emerging infectious diseases—and this includes lots of factors, including climate change, land use change and deforestation—and the second is to develop countermeasures and policies to protect human lives and the lives of our livestock from emerging microbial threats.
If I may draw your attention to some statistics, greater than 70% of emerging infections have an animal origin, and we've only sampled and identified a fraction of microbes, including viruses, that exist in our wildlife. We know even less about their potential to infect livestock species and humans. Even for pathogens that we do know exist and that can infect, vaccines and therapeutics remain unavailable.
Some of these pathogens, unfortunately, have civilization-devastating potential. If we look at Nipah virus, we see it has a 40% to 70% mortality, so 40% to 70% of people who are infected are likely to die. MERS coronavirus, a very close relative of SARS-CoV-2 that we've all heard about—and it's a living reality for all of us—can kill 35% of the individuals it infects. You could always have the novel flu. Just as a reminder the 1918 flu pandemic, the Spanish flu killed about 2.5% to 5% of the global population at the time.
Multiple studies by my colleagues have now shown that anthropogenic factors, meaning activities that Homo sapiens, or humans, like doing, cause habitat loss and climate change, which directly lead to animal migration and nutritional deficiencies in animals, which then directly impact the pathogen spillover from these animals.
Emerging infectious diseases pose a multi-faceted, complex problem which, in my opinion, will require—and perhaps some of my colleagues would agree—a multipronged, state-of-the-art interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach with nationwide and international collaborations.
I hope that perhaps now we have more appreciation of how quickly novel pathogens can emerge and impact humans, including fellow Canadians. Countermeasures remain unavailable, largely due to lack of funding to research pathogens that are not a problem yet. Prioritizing pathogens of importance and of threat will require AI modelling, so this is not just a health problem; we can also include quantum and modelling to identify microbial risks for tomorrow.
While we need to build intelligence through modelling on emerging pathogens, we also need to test and archive vaccine and drug candidates that can be rapidly deployed in the event a pathogen emerges. For example, if we look at COVID-19, even with the fastest timeline in the history of vaccine development, we see that over 6.5 million lives were lost globally—and these are only reported numbers globally—including over 47,000 fellow Canadians.
What I'm trying to pitch as an international moonshot program is the concept called One Health. It's a concept that recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal and environment health, and it's not a far-born idea. Sir William Osler, who was a Canadian physician and is perhaps considered by many as the father of veterinary pathology in North America, had deep connections and interests in the linkages between human and veterinary medicine. He went on to become one of the founding fathers of John Hopkins, so One Health was sort of born in Canada, and we are strategically positioned to lead this globally.
Researchers in Canada have initiated globally competitive One Health research programs, including my laboratory that investigates zoonotic pathogens, but these programs remain scarcely funded. It's hard, because we have to split up programs to fit the mandates of existing funding organizations.
I believe that we really have a unique opportunity in Canada to establish an internationally reputable One-Health-themed interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary moonshot program that includes surveillance, intelligence gathering, risk assessment to rank priority pathogens, therapeutics and vaccine development, and outbreak detection mitigation policies. We truly have an opportunity to lead the way in developing a holistic research program to prevent the next pandemic and the next emerging infection.
I will stop at that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am joined by the Stem Cell Network's scientific director, Dr. Michael Rudnicki, who is globally known for his work in muscle stem cells and regeneration.
When people are asked to describe what technologies are needed to achieve a moonshot, they tend to reply with artificial intelligence, quantum computing and big data. It's not often that they'll consider the sophisticated technology that resides within the human body. I'm speaking directly about stem cells, the building blocks of each of us.
Stem cells were first definitely discovered by two Canadians, James Till and Ernest McCulloch. Stem cell research is Canada's science, and we have been leading the way delivering game-changing discoveries and therapies that come from this human technology for the past 60 years. Stem cells can divide indefinitely and can make any cell in the body. They are one of nature's ultimate innovations.
It is the human body that presents us with the opportunity to achieve the greatest moonshot of all, the eradication of disease, of illness and of injury. This idea may sound implausible to many, but moonshots, by definition, are meant to be ambitious, audacious and grand.
Stem cells are driving the field of regenerative medicine. To quote from the Council of Canadian Academies , “The appeal of regenerative medicine lies in its curative approach”. It's about repairing, regenerating and restoring function to cells, tissues and organs. It's already delivering advances for heart disease, Parkinson's, muscular dystrophy, type 1 diabetes and even COVID-19.
Let me share a little story with you. Tyler Rabey was an ambitious, athletic young man from Quebec. He had not yet celebrated his 25th birthday when he was first diagnosed with an aggressive form of leukemia, a cancer that defied all standard treatments. Within a year, he was confined to a hospital bed facing a terminal diagnosis . His doctors worked to have him enrolled in a stem cell clinical trial funded by the Stem Cell Network and run by Dr. Sandra Cohen .
Tyler received a stem cell transplant. To generate enough stem cells, they were expanded using a novel technology and a proprietary molecule called UM171, and they were optimized using a bioculture system. The treatment worked and, following months of careful recuperation, Tyler was able to return home, where he met his godson, kissed his girlfriend and returned to his studies.
This innovative therapy is now being further tested across North America via a Canadian biotech called ExCellThera .
Regenerative medicine technology will also have critically important economic benefits as we move forward. Prior to the pandemic, the burden of chronic disease cost Canada $190 billion annually, with the direct cost accounting for 58% of annual health care spending. The costs have undoubtedly escalated. It's a trajectory that must be addressed.
The good news is that investment is strong. Private investors are pouring billions into Canadian life science companies. In fact, in 2019 and 2020, the sector raised $2 billion in venture capital and $5 billion in public equity.
As we all know, investment and commercial success is predicated on world-class science. That's where networks like ours come in. Canada's Stem Cell Network is composed of leading researchers and trainees who are laser-focused on stem cell and regenerative medicine research. We partner with charities, industry and governments to ensure that the science we support is driving next-generation therapies.
Stem cell research takes time. The research started today will result in the personalized medicines of tomorrow. We can envision a future where specific medicines for you will be made in the hospital where you're being cared for. Additionally, right now specialized bioinks are being innovated and will be used for bioprinting of tissues that can be used to patch wounds and restore organ function.
In time, we'll realize a future where treatments fit the patient, rather than the patient having to fit the treatment—
:
Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, I am so honoured to have this opportunity to be in front of you.
When the question came on what Canada's international moonshot could be, I thought of many possibilities, but the one that struck close to my heart, based on what Canada can offer the world, was this world, which is well fed and food secure and where people who have enough food to give their children can send their kids to school. This is a world that Canada always envisions to be a peaceful world all around us.
My idea for the moonshot is a food-secure world that is peaceful. The reason that Canada is potentially the only country in the world that can deliver this moonshot is based on three fundamental ingredients of any moonshot, if we are going to be thinking about that.
It has to be inspirational. Canadians have been inspired by a vision for a world that's peaceful. They know that there cannot be peace without food security everywhere in the world. Canadians have made supreme sacrifices, whenever called upon, for the sake of peace and prosperity in this world. Therefore, Canadians can be inspired when it comes to feeding more than eight billion people today around the globe.
The second component of a moonshot is the credibility. Where does this credibility come from so that Canadians can think about delivering this outstanding international moonshot?
First, we need large pieces of land that we can use in a sustainable way to grow food, whether it is of the plant origin or the animal origin. The second ingredient to grow the food is the water. Canada is endowed with an abundant supply of fresh water, with which we are taking extreme precautions, based on the science, to make it sustainable over a long period of time.
To fuel the production of plant-based food, we need fertilizers. Canada has an abundance of fertilizers such as potash. Yes, there is a need for us to transition away from the heavy use of fertilizers, and that's what Canadian innovation in the fields of soil science and precision agriculture is leading us to. I believe that with the right kinds of investments, Canadian plant science people can deliver the types of varieties that can grow on smaller amounts of precisely applied fertilizers, and we can develop crops that can withstand climate change and global warming.
The last piece is that Canadians have invested significantly in their cluster of academic institutions from coast to coast, which have delivered innovation in all aspects of agriculture. That is the innovation that has made Canada's agri-food production sector the envy of the world. Not only have we created prosperity and new jobs in that sector, but we have also exported the food, which is affordable, nutritious and sustainably produced, and which actually carries the Canadian brand and makes us all very proud. Last is the investment in areas such as Protein Industries, where superclusters have brought academic and private sectors together.
The third ingredient of an international moonshot is imagination. That's where we need to come together as Canadians to be imaginative, to be collaborative and to bring ourselves together. This is the moonshot that we can deliver to create a food-secure world with our efforts in this country.
We need to pay attention to the sustainable development goals of the United Nations. We need to pay attention to the climate change that is occurring around us. We need to understand that large parts of this world are not in a position to produce enough food for their own populations.
This, Madam Chair and honourable committee members, is my idea for an international moonshot that Canada can deliver.
Thank you so very much.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good evening. Thank you all for being here.
[English]
Thanks, everyone.
I will ask my question in French.
[Translation]
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?
:
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.
:
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.
:
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.
Again, thank you to all the witnesses here.
I'll continue with Mr. Banerjee, especially because I see proudly displayed behind you a book on bats by my friend Brock Fenton and others.
You talked briefly about monitoring. I'm a bird biologist and once actually had funding from a health agency to monitor birds for West Nile virus for one season. It helped us immensely in our work. We were just trying to calculate bird population trends, but as soon as we discovered there was very little West Nile virus in the bird population, they seemed to lose interest.
These moonshot programs are, by their nature, very collaborative big projects that involve different scientists from different aspects. I'm just wondering how you would see something like your project, One Health, organized. Is it international? Is it Canadian? How do you see the organization and the funding of it flowing?
:
Thank you for the question. It's an excellent question.
This is something we do have an application in for, under the New Frontiers program, the transformation stream, which is about $24 million. It's a big enough program, but it's also extremely competitive, and the program funds only about six grants.
My take on One Health comes from an infectious disease perspective, because that's my bias, but we are also cognizant of the idea that infectious diseases also depend on climate change, animal health, human health and the health of the environment in general. This program, if I were to propose it, would certainly be an international program. We can't do world-class science in silos, but Canada does have an opportunity to lead it. We have all the ingredients in Canada to lead an international moonshot program, starting from surveillance, with what I would perhaps call intelligence gathering and risk assessment—we have colleagues who are exceptional at modelling and identifying which pathogens are likely to be the next epidemic or pandemic—therapeutics and vaccine development.
With Canada's infrastructure investment through BRIFs and CBRFs, we have capacity in Canada to develop vaccines and therapeutics and to test them. Finally, there are colleagues who are very good at developing policies who could come up with outbreak mitigation policies.
An international One Health program led by Canada but would have global impact is what I would see as a moonshot program.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much to all of our witnesses tonight. It's been a very educational and fascinating evening so far.
I had the benefit of attending the Sprott Centre at Ottawa General last week. It's their centre where they focus on regenerative medicine. I'm so happy that you were both able to join us in person tonight.
Ms. Murray, your opening remarks were very inspiring and compelling for all of us.
I wanted to point out that while I was there, it felt like the United Nations. It seemed like just about all of the students were international and had come from somewhere else. I think it's because of the excellent work that you're doing there and your reputation, Dr. Rudnicki, that they want to be here and they want to stay. I certainly hear about the struggles and frustrations with the immigration and visa process to make that happen.
We all know that it takes time to bring these therapies and technologies to market. Can you tell us what the Stem Cell Network plans to do over the coming decade to ensure that the research will be translated and benefit patients?
:
That's a great question.
Access, affordability and cost structures are major conversations for this country to have, and for policy-makers such as you to be informed on and thinking about. Cell and gene therapies will be revolutionary for our health care system. The way that we think about them, where the costs will come up front rather than over a lifetime, is different from how our health care system thinks about these drugs and therapies at this point. We need to reconceptualize that.
We need to understand the values that Canadians have around cell and gene therapies and how to adopt them. We need to think about the tools that decision-makers need to be able to make decisions around what will be adopted by our health care system. This will take a number of years and all sorts of different voices at the table, from industry to academia and regulators.
The Stem Cell Network in our next strategic plan is proposing to do exactly that and bring those parties together so that by the time we get to 2030, we have the path forward in place. We'll know how to think about access and affordability.
The science is going to come. It's up to governments and the rest of us to think about how we make that sure these technologies are adopted and not lost to others.
:
Dear colleagues, I'm going to call us back to order.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the 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 mike, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.
For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
All comments should be addressed through the chair.
I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. We're delighted to have, from General Fusion, Amee Barber, director, government relations and business development, and, from the University Health Network, Dr. Kevin Smith, the president and chief executive officer.
We're grateful to both of you for joining us and we're eager to hear from you. You will each have five minutes to present. At four and a half minutes, I will hold up this green card, and it lets you know that you have 30 seconds to finish.
With that, we will now go to the testimony.
Dr. Smith, we will begin with you. The floor is yours.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be back with your committee.
My name is Kevin Smith and, as the chair said, I work at the University Health Network. I have the good fortune of working with literally thousands of researchers and research staff. I'm here this evening to enthusiastically support moonshot opportunities.
We have great infrastructure in Canada, thanks to investment. We have great science in Canada and remarkably talented scientists. The question before us is, how do we harness that talent and potential to solve the world's most pressing problems and provide answers to Canadians and policy-makers?
I'd like to recommend to the committee the moonshot program work done by the Brookfield Institute. I will quickly identify five policy recommendations the institute made for successful moonshots.
First, define a clear, grand challenge anchored in unaddressed real-world needs.
Second, facilitate policy innovation by giving delivery agencies lean, agile and independent governance structures.
Third, create a portfolio of moonshot projects that are truly cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral and inclusive, and that embrace a range of different risk levels.
Fourth, support the full innovation continuum and value chain, from invention and basic science right through to manufacturing and commercialization.
Last, but certainly not least, focus on clear, central metrics that matter to the success of the grand challenge; in this case, show value to Canadians.
In 2019, we saw an important moonshot innovations publication called “Wishful Thinking or Business-as-Usual?” that truly helped us understand how moonshots are about imagining a desired world we may never eventuate.
I'll take us back to President Kennedy, who in 1961 mentioned we would get a man to the moon—or a person to the moon, in today's language—before the end of the decade. Eight years later, that was achieved. Few of us believe the microcomputer revolution that came out of that literal moonshot would have occurred, but it truly and fundamentally changed our economy, quality of life, scientific integrity and every facet of human society. Think of a world without microcomputing, if that moonshot had not been undertaken. Investment in discovery research fuelled an explosion in microcomputing and other important endeavours.
I hope the same will be true should the Government of Canada pursue a moonshot. Advances like these have created unprecedented opportunities to address society's most important challenges. Realizing these opportunities, of course, requires selection, development and targeted investments in breakthrough technologies focused on delivering rapid and transformative change.
At UHN, we envision a national strategy—one set, in large part, by your group—as the path forward to meaningfully advancing areas in this work. A national strategy would provide the necessary structure to select, enable and deliver on key areas of focus where Canada can and should lead. This is already happening in many other areas around the world, and it is also badly needed for Canada.
I would recommend a number of areas that immediately come to mind for me and my colleagues at University Health Network.
The one we talk about most frequently is a sustainable, universally accessible health care system—the one before us each and every day—that is adequately staffed as a moonshot that truly focuses on what is likely to be our next pandemic: antimicrobial resistance.
We talk about an opportunity to partner with our United States colleagues, with whom we do so much work together in science, to truly conquer cancer in our lifetime.
Last, but certainly not least, we talk about a moonshot that deals with brain disease and the scourge of dementia affecting so many Canadians.
If I could, I'd also encourage, in that moonshot thinking, understanding the basic science theme of inflammation, which spans almost every major chronic disease, and I'd also encourage reinforcing how moonshots rooted in basic science bear the most fruit of all.
In my mind, there is opportunity in looking at a structure that once existed in Canada in the early days of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which I had the privilege of chairing for a period of time. It shows us a structure that can be extremely helpful to us. This would be separate and discrete from the importance of the tri-councils and CFI, which can and should continue to focus on funding investigator-driven, appropriate research questions.
I saw the green book go up, Madam Chair, so I will wrap up.
We at UHN are enthusiastic about the opportunities to champion moonshots that will affect all Canadians and indeed all citizens of the world, enabling the best of Canada to collectively focus and to bring the greatest challenges of our generation to resolution.
Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for having me this evening. It's an honour to be able to discuss a visionary moonshot program with an all-party committee. I appreciate your time so late in the evening.
The problem that General Fusion seeks to solve is environmental. Our technology will produce electricity with zero emissions. By 2050 there will be a 265% increase in global electricity demand. In that same year, 33 countries, including Canada, have pledged to reach net zero in electricity production.
Although progress has been made introducing decarbonization strategies, the International Energy Agency reports that 50% of the reductions will likely come from technologies that have yet to be commercialized. This makes sense. We haven't had a new clean energy source introduced to the grid in a very long time.
A Canadian moonshot program should focus on bringing forward new energy sources, such as fusion. Fusion is the energy that powers the stars, when two hydrogen atoms fuse and release a neutron and helium. To harness that energy, we need to replicate the conditions of the sun on earth to achieve net energy.
There are primarily four reasons that fusion energy is hailed as the holy grail of energy.
One is that fusion fuel is abundant and energy-dense. Fuel is extracted from seawater. One kilogram of fuel is equivalent to 10,000 tonnes of coal.
Fusion is also carbon-free. There are no harmful atmospheric emissions from the fusion process.
Fusion can provide utility-scale energy on demand as well, making it an excellent complement to renewables and to battery storage.
Finally, fusion energy is also low risk. Fusion is the opposite of fission in many ways. It has a risk profile that is akin to medical isotopes and is both well understood and well regulated. It does not use special nuclear material; it does not have long-lived radioactive waste; and it does not have risk for criticality accidents.
Because of these benefits, our company, General Fusion, has been pursuing fusion energy since 2002. Since then we've secured over $300 million U.S. We currently employ over 200 people in Vancouver and have over 150 patents.
I'm not a technical expert, but I'll tell you how our technology works. We inject magnetized hydrogen plasma into a steel vessel that is coated with liquid lithium metal via centrifugal force. From there, high-powered pistons compress the liquid metal around the plasma into a perfect sphere, creating high temperatures and pressure. At that point, fusion occurs.
Our real game-changer and our competitive advantage compared with many of the other players is our proprietary liquid metal liner. This allows the machine to be protected from spinoff neutrons. At the same time, those neutrons interact with the liquid metal wall and produce tritium, which in essence is producing our own fuel supply. Third, the hot liquid metal then runs through a heat exchanger and produces electricity. Lastly, our use of mechanical compression with this liquid metal wall avoids the need for expensive magnets and high-powered lasers to sustain the fusion process. This results in a cost of electricity that is equivalent to coal.
Over the past 20 years, we have proven the core components of our system. We're now at the stage to assemble these together into our fusion demonstration program. In partnership with the UKAEA, we will build a prototype plant that will be 70% the scale of a commercial plant and located next to the record-breaking Joint European Torus at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy.
At the same time that we build this plant, our brain trust in Canada will remain busy building out the commercial maturation program. Our objective is to put energy on the grid by 2030. Within the past two years, a significant number of factors have converged that will make us very—
:
In the past couple of years, a significant number of factors have converged, which makes us confident that we can achieve net energy by 2030 and on the grid—and the fusion industry in whole.
First, significant private investment in the fusion industry has increased by 163% in the past two years, and 40 companies are now competing in the race. National governments are also following suit with their public investment. The U.S. government spends the most, with $600 million U.S. to $700 million U.S. per year, and the Inflation Reduction Act is to authorize $280 million U.S. as well for fusion energy. Similarly, the U.K. has invested 400 million pounds.
The Canadian government's investment lags far behind. The existing grant programs have been critical to our success so far, but they are not sufficient to sustain the type of growth for the commercial scale that we are at and this stage in our development. For this reason, we've put a request before the Canadian government for $250 million over five years in exchange for warrants from which the government can make a direct return on its investment, proportionate in many ways to the private investment, and a commitment for us to maintain our headquarters in Canada.
A Canadian moonshot program that directly invests in General Fusion would leverage private sector investment, position the Canadian government as an equity partner—
:
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?
:
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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
Here I go with my motion, then, Madam Chair. I'll be super quick.
The motion I am putting on notice, which the honourable members already know about, reads as follows:
That the deadline for the submission of briefs in relation to the study of research and scientific publication in French be extended to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 22, 2022.
The members of the committee know that I have raised this issue before. In a nutshell, we are waiting for the , François-Philippe Champagne, to appear. I've already invited him. In addition, the parties had reached an agreement on October 31.
The minister is expected to appear before the committee soon. The last I heard, he should be here on December 12, and I very much hope that's the case.
Many witnesses have told me that they want to wait until after the minister's appearance to submit their briefs. As per the agreement, we were going to extend the deadline for the submission of briefs by 10 days, to take into account the minister's appearance.
That's the purpose of my motion.
:
Absolutely, Mr. Cannings.
When you think back to the chamber in which some of you are sitting, you may remember that it was Monsieur Lalonde, I believe, in the early 1970s, who really introduced the health of the population to Canadians. That really means not only an illness care system for when people are sick, but recognizing that education, housing, food security, eradication of poverty, and good drinking water are incredibly important components of health. Of course, for illness care it means strong delivery mechanisms.
We know currently that one of the greatest challenges facing our health care system is adequate health human resources. That challenge is not unique to Canada; it is around the world. When we think about the economics of health care, we realize it is one of the most expensive social programs, yet of course one of the most important, although I am a tiny bit biased.
That said, if we really want to look at the effectiveness of the system, often we need to look at the incentives that we've put within it.
I could think of a moonshot looking at the sustainability of a health care system, but would it include economists thinking about how we can better fund the system and better align our incentives to the outcomes that we're hoping for? Would it include thinking about data scientists and artificial intelligence experts who can help Canadians make better individual decisions? Would it include thinking about digital health that allows people with chronic diseases like congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to be able to be managed at home using downloadable, wearable devices, which are actually made right here in Canada by remarkable companies that are actually often more attractive on the international market than on our own Canadian market?
Last, but certainly not least, who are the extenders of physicians and nurses and therapists who we know could and should be brought to the health care system to make that health human resource issue get much better? We could easily think about a science-social, science-economics model of care by which we would bring together truly the most interdisciplinary team we could imagine to address both population health and the health care system of those who are ill and require treatment.
:
I think identification of what exactly the goal looks like and feels like, and the timeframe to get there....
I think the most successful moonshot goals first identify what the problem is and what percentage or proportion of Canadians would agree that of all of our social pressures and of all of the most challenging issues for Canadians, it ranks in their top one, two or three.
We'll then be looking at the kinds of resources that Canada already enjoys. In the case of research, the resources are a very strong research community and the opportunity to leverage investment and a strong commercial presence, be that in either of the topics that I or my colleague presenter this evening have talked about, of health care or energy.
Last, but certainly not least, it's productive analytics that allow us to show Canadians that we're making progress on the world stage. I think few Canadians are interested in saying, “I'd like to have the best cancer system or the best energy system in Canada.” They want the best cancer system or energy system in the world. How can we demonstrate that Canadians will enjoy that with these investments?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.
Colleagues, first of all, thank you for a great discussion tonight.
We have an order of business we have to get through tonight. The clerk has kindly distributed the latest version of our proposed travel budget for the trip that is currently planned for February 19 to 25, 2023. This is based on the information received from our committee and the sites that will be hosting us.
As you know, today's meeting is the last chance to adopt a budget for our planned trip before the deadline for submitting it to the SBLI committee.
Are there any questions, or can we entertain a motion to adopt this budget?