INST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE, DES SCIENCES ET DE LA TECHNOLOGIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

• 1040

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): Order, please.

I apologize, Dr. McLennan, I don't know where your name tag is. But I'll take the opportunity to introduce you. Dr. Barry McLennan and Mr. Charles Pitts are with the Coalition for Biomedical and Health Research. Dr. Hudson and Dr. Hackett, with the National Research Council, will remain with us.

I'll ask Dr. McLennan to begin. Please try to stay as close to the 10 minutes as possible.

I apologize, Dr. Hackett, your colleagues took your time last time.

Dr. Barry D. McLennan (Chair, Coalition for Biomedical and Health Research): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks very much for inviting us to join this round-table discussion. I won't take time to go through the background on CBHR. It's in the documents we have circulated to you. I appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation today.

We're living in very exciting times, Mr. Chairman. I just caught the tail-end of some of the comments from the earlier presenters, and I think you heard some of the same sentiments. I'll repeat those statements.

It's only 30 years ago that our researchers discovered recombinant DNA. Now recombinant DNA is simply a vehicle that has led to the development of the entire biotechnology industry. As you may have heard this morning, the first product of biotechnology in Canada that I would suggest benefited the population was the development of human insulin. Human insulin was the first product, if you like, of genetic engineering. That was in 1982.

Since that time, many biopharmaceutical treatments for AIDS and other diseases have been introduced, and many other projects are underway. We don't have time today to go through the details.

The world was startled a few years ago when Dolly made headlines around the world marking the first time a mammal had been cloned from an adult sow. The Human Genome Project identifying the sequence of the chemical basis in human DNA has now been completed.

I just came, Mr. Chairman, from the ACMC conference in Toronto, which is still going on. Yesterday we heard a talk that put in perspective very concisely what this means to human medicine. In the very near future, we'll be able to associate every disease with a gene or with a series of genes, because some diseases are associated with more than one gene. This means that in the very near future, we will completely change the way in which we diagnose and treat diseases, and indeed it should go a long way to preventing the development of disease. In other words, you'll be able to see the conditions genetically before they're clinically visible or clinically identifiable.

So, Mr. Chairman, we're experiencing a profound revolution in the field of health research—a revolution that will lead to a very different understanding of the molecular basis of human biology and disease.

Now, what does this mean for Canada?

The impact of the genetic revolution can be enormous right here in Canada. We have one of the most vibrant biotechnology sectors in the world. We're small, but we're good. We have support from the private sector, employing young Canadians. We have the development of spin-off companies, which have arisen—many of them—from research accomplishments in our universities and hospitals. They're currently developing therapies for AIDS, heart disease, cancer, infectious diseases, and blindness.

Even though this biotechnology is developing at an accelerating speed, that presents us with a challenge, because as a nation and as a population we have to ask ourselves—and indeed that's the title of our brief—are Canadians prepared to meet the challenge of this global biotechnology race? Can we keep up? Can we put the resources in place to play in this game?

I heard one of the previous speakers comment that we don't have a choice. We must. I would agree with that. We need to pay to play. We need to be at the table. On the international aspect—I heard that discussion a little bit—I completely agree that we can't rely on other countries to make the developments and then give them to us or even sell them to us. We have to be at the table ourselves.

• 1045

Biotechnology cuts across many sectors. It should be noted that human and animal health dominate biotechnology activities in Canada, constituting 46% of industrial activity, about 87% of the research and development investment, and is the fastest growing job creation sector in our economy.

We're a small country, but we rank second in terms of the number of companies that use biotechnology. On a per capita basis, we're second in the world. Nonetheless, and even though our government—and we very much want to acknowledge the support of government. The federal government, already, has laid out some programs that are very important—the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and more recently Genome Canada. These are fantastic programs federally and provide opportunities in all the provinces for Canadian researchers to respond to the initiative. I compliment and want to thank the government right now for these very important strategic decisions.

I don't think we have nearly enough investment from the private sector in Canada. I don't have the answers today, but I'm just putting it as a question for the committee. How can we encourage more investment from the private sector? I'm separating out here the pharmaceutical industry from the rest. The pharmaceutical industry is making significant investments in Canada.

There's good reason for that. We're a good place to do business. We have an excellent cadre of trained people, but that's also a challenge for us, because we need to ensure that we continue to have a cadre of scientists and technicians that can work on international level, world-class biotech projects.

So there are two points. I think we need to find ways to increase the investment by Canadians into the R and D in the biotech industry. We need to continue to make Canada an attractive place for pharmaceutical and other companies' investments. There are many examples of the benefits of doing this—and I won't take time to delete them, but I mention some on page 2 of our brief.

So, clearly, biotechnology can contribute to stemming the brain drain, creating employment, and ultimately improving the personal and economic health of Canadians. We need to realize that this is a very fast-moving game—a very fast-moving technology—and we have to really work fast and work hard to keep up and to take our rightful place in this biotechnology sector.

There are a number of issues that I would bring to the committee's attention that bear on this general sector. I've mentioned the support for health research and particularly the support for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—a very significant development by government that needs to be continued and ramp up to the target of 1% of health care spending to put us in competition with our competitors—the U.K., France, and so on. All of these programs that I've mentioned should help retain Canada's brightest and best. But we need to make sure they do. We need to bring Canadians back, and we need to prevent the loss of our talented students and researchers to other countries.

I think I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to the contributions of the other speakers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you very much.

We'll now proceed with Dr. Hudson.

[Translation]

Mr. Thomas J. Hudson (Individual Presentation): Good morning. I'll be making my presentation in both English and French.

[English]

Good morning. My name is Tom Hudson. I'm assistant director of the Centre for Genome Research at MIT and also the director of the Montreal Genome Centre. The Montreal Genome Centre is currently a multi-institutional organization, made up of institutions such as McGill, the University of Montreal, and the hospital-based research institutes. Our mission is to use genome information, technologies, and resources to understand, prevent, and treat human disease. We currently employ 43 faculty, technicians, and students, who range in expertise in biology, genetics, mathematics, computer science, and engineering.

[Translation]

I was invited to address the committee approximately three weeks ago. I'm not here on behalf of any organization in particular, but rather as an individual and as a researcher who returned to Canada five years ago. I would also like to mention that I am a member of and receive funding from several public and para-public organizations.

• 1050

I would like committee members to familiarize themselves with this document in order to understand the context in which some of my recommendations are being made.

[English]

I hold here a DNA chip. This small piece of plastic actually contains a silicon wafer. A different DNA molecule has been synthesized on every ten-by-ten micron. On the surface of a one-centimetre square, one million different DNA molecules have been synthesized. We use this to see which genes are turned on in a cell. We use it at the Montreal Genome Centre every day. We study cancer, comparing different types of cancer cells. We study what genes are or are not turned on by drugs. We study diseases such as asthma, heart disease, diabetes, epilepsy, and so on.

This sequence technology is only one of the fruits of the Human Genome Project. The technologies that have come out have been revolutionary. Typically labs study one gene at a time, and here we're studying every gene.

For the past ten years I've been part of the Human Genome Project, the largest biology project ever attempted. In my early years at MIT, I joined a team that was made up of biologists, computer scientists, and so on, but the project—to create a map and sequence of all human chromosomes—was daunting. Back in 1990, it seemed as complicated as putting a man on the moon.

As you know, the project was successful. The first report of this came out a few weeks ago. There was massive news coverage. We heard about medical breakthroughs and about the potential, patenting, ownership, and ethics.

I'd like to focus on three lessons we learned along the way as we did this project with MIT. First, modern science is multidisciplinary. It's because engineers, chemists, mathematicians, biologists, and computer scientists work together to address large problems that we can actually confront these separate problems. The merging of the disciplines is key to innovation.

Second, modern science is international. There are no barriers. Several of you will not be surprised to learn that the U.S., U.K., Germany, and Japan made big contributions to the genome project. But there were other contributions. Canada helped develop some of the technologies used. Venezuelan families contributed their DNA to make genetic maps. Brazilian teams sequenced genomes of micro-organisms, etc. A lot of other partners made this happen.

Third, modern communication, particularly the Internet, broke down the barriers of knowledge interchange. This has been incredibly important in many ways. First of all, communication between the groups allowed a merging of minds and rapid public dissemination of information. Thousands of research groups could thus use the information on a daily basis.

The fourth lesson is that public outreach is important. It should be a consideration all along, not just at the end of the project. Through the ten years of the project there was always talk about ethics, but awareness of the project came only in the last year.

As well, public education outreach must be balanced. Too often there are exaggerated statements about a suicide gene, for instance, or a happiness gene. These flashy statements often are highly oversimplified to the point of being untrue.

I do public forums—for instance, for the Montreal Breast Cancer Foundation, Association de L'Acidose Lactique du Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, and groups in Birmingham and different places. I know the public is eager for information that is balanced. They want to know both the benefits and the risks.

[Translation]

Canada did not play a major role in the Human Genome Project, despite its recognized expertise in molecular biology and human genetics. It is not my intention to give a long list of reasons for this situation, but I would, however, underscore that the opportunities for participating in the next stages of research are better than ever. I would mention at this time the contribution of the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

Briefly put, without the funding to start up the Montreal Genome Centre in 1999, I would have left Canada because we had reached a critical point where discoveries were being made elsewhere. The Canada Foundation for Innovation trusted us to develop large-scale projects in Canada.

I must also mention at this time the Canadian Genetic Diseases Network, the CGDN, a national centre of excellence established in 1990. The output of this network of 50 researchers has been extraordinary. Since 1998, the network has produced 772 publications, 60 per cent of which are part of a collaborative effort, applied for 104 patents, identified 16 genes associated with diseases in humans and initiated 9 companies which attracted in excess of $135 million in investments.

It is rather surprising that a relatively minor investment of between $3 and 4 million a year has generated so much growth.

• 1055

What are the secrets to this success?

The first secret is a networking model that is unparalleled in the world. Every time the Americans come here to evaluate the Canadian networks, they are struck by their sheer strength.

The second secret is the establishment of core facilities which provide access to technologies. For instance, network members have access to our technologies. However, when the core facility became operational, 30 Canadian groups who were not network members gained access to the chip.

The third secret is coordination. A major effort is made to coordinate the management of the intellectual property of the CGDN model.

[English]

The key word to describe the unique role of CDGN in terms of growth is “catalyst”.

With regard to Genome Canada, it was at this committee two years ago that I presented a brief as a scientist, not as president, as Marcel Godbout just did. I presented the reasons why we had to invest in genomics.

Since the program is so new, I can't talk about it. I just want to express my thanks to the Canadian government for investing in the program. I also want to say that if you want me to come back in two or three years to discuss the impact in terms of science, I'd be willing to do so.

I also want to thank the Government of Quebec, which announced $40 million for Génome Québec last week.

Just before I make my recommendations, I want to say something else. We often read stories about major scientific discoveries that happen by chance. That's mostly fantasy. Scientific discoveries and the transformation of those discoveries into products, treatments, or health care services happens because of focus, organization, and resources.

Therefore, one of the recommendations I have for the future is to encourage the building of multidisciplinary research teams to handle such big health problems as asthma, diabetes, and cancer. Parliament started CIHRs a few years ago. These were institutes based on different diseases, etc. I am part of the Genetics Institute, which proposes to conduct research on not only genetic mechanisms and the identification of genes but also the prevention and diagnosis of disease, the development of systems for health care services, and the analysis of social implications inherent to this new genetic medicine. So it really goes from basic research to health care delivery.

The Genetics Institute proposes to launch strategic initiatives to look at common human diseases. This will be done through a mechanism of requests for proposals to the Canadian research community. Already we face a significant barrier in that our annual budget is $2.5 million. That's enough money to launch only one disease initiative. We're underfunded by a factor of 20. I anticipate that other institutes face the same problem.

So the transformation of MRC to CIHR, with its broader mandate, is certainly the correct approach to create multidisciplinary teams linking biologists, scientists, health care providers, social scientists, etc. It's also a great training environment for students of this new science. But the Canadian government should find ways to invest in strategic initiative programs of the CIHR. I think it's the next priority.

The second recommendation is to develop efficient mechanisms for managing technology transfer. I propose that the Canadian government review the impact of the Canadian Genetic Diseases Network. I also propose—this is advertising here—that the Canadian government review its decision made 10 years ago to limit its support to NCE networks to periods of 14 years. I think this will have negative consequences for high-impact organizations such as CGDN.

[Translation]

My final recommendation calls for the creation and strengthening of mechanisms which provide balanced, public information about biotechnology and which ensure societal participation in the responsible use of the fruits of biotechnology.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share with you my views on this subject.

[English]

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you very much, Dr. Hudson.

I will go back to Dr. Hackett.

Dr. Peter A. Hackett (Vice-President, Research and Technology Development, National Research Council of Canada): Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman. If it's 11 o'clock it must be biotechnology and not nanotechnology.

I want to do a couple of things this morning, one to talk a little bit about Canada's success and the strategies it used to build its biotechnology industry, and one to spend a few moments on some examples of the benefits that have accrued to Canada and Canadians as a result of those investments. I would like to conclude with an innovation prescription for biotechnology in order to position Canada as a leader in the new bioeconomy and to ensure that we maintain support for our industry and indeed capture a strong industrial sector in biotechnology.

• 1100

Our biotech sector in Canada is a result of deliberate federal government intervention that began in 1983 with the national biotechnology strategy. This strategy provided significant public research and development, massive new infrastructure, and coordination of biotechnology activities across government. That's why Canada got to be number two in biotechnology worldwide.

We can now boast a young promising sector of 350 companies, with revenues of $2 billion and exports of about $720 million. Most of those companies are SMEs.

We're on the verge of yet another revolution. Biology is transforming to a science based upon information. That's what genomics is all about. We're seeing the convergence of biotechnology with information technology. We're seeing the convergence of biotechnologies with materials technologies, and we're going to see the impact of biotechnology across all sectors of the economy.

This new economy only comes from intensive research and development. R and D is the currency of the bioeconomy, and the bioeconomy is the future of biotechnology.

Again, our firms spend about $825 million in research every year in Canada. Other countries, though, have been moving ahead. So Canada is no longer second; it's most likely fourth at the moment, as a result of strong investments in Europe, particularly in Germany, the U.K., and also in Japan.

They recognize the role of government in fostering the growth of this sector. So we have to continue to invest. If we do continue to make those investments, we can realize this triple benefit: health benefits, benefits to the environment and exportable products, and the development of an industrial sector based upon biotechnology in Canada. But we must continue to invest.

I'll say very quickly that the National Research Council has a large program in biotechnology, about $100 million each year, so $0.5 billion over five years. Over that period, about $100 million would come in in the form of revenues from companies.

We play a linking role in drawing players from universities, from industry, and again, capital, all to a common theme: to create in the communities where we're present strong attractors for future economic investment, particularly direct foreign investment.

So we have been a part, along with the University of Montreal and McGill University, of the growth of the major biopharmaceutical sector in Montreal. Again, Canada can take great pride in having one of the two leading centres in North America in the Montreal-Quebec corridor.

Similarly in Saskatoon, our Plant Biotechnology Institute, Agriculture Canada, and the University of Saskatchewan have built a strong economic attractor. There are now over 100 companies located in Saskatoon building an economy based upon plant biotechnology.

We're taking the strategy to Atlantic Canada. Recently the federal government granted NRC $110 million over five years to bring this regional innovation technology clustering building strategy to communities in Atlantic Canada. In Halifax we're concentrating on genomics. We're building an industrial partnership facility for genomics. Also, in collaboration with the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Halifax, we are transferring magnetic resonance imaging technologies in order to build an international scale brain repair centre.

I've mentioned our institute in Halifax. It was the lead in developing the Canadian BioInformatics Resource, which is a piece of infrastructure for Canada operating on CA netII. It provides the backbone for the transfer of bioinformatics information across the Canadian community and links that community into the international centres.

• 1105

This whole construct actually sequenced the first whole organism that was sequenced in Canada, the three million base-paired genome of the archeobacterium sulpholobus solfataricus.

Let me come now to some benefits. Across town we have been working for 20 years in the development of vaccines based upon glycoproteins. These vaccines have just come to market and have just been used in the U.K. Vaccines against group C meningococcal disease have been used in a catch-up campaign in the United Kingdom: three million doses were used. This vaccine will come to market in North America.

Let me talk about the benefits for a moment. I could talk about the $3-million-a-year IP revenue stream that will come to NRC, but that's not the real benefit. I could talk about the fact that one million people have been vaccinated in the U.K. and they no longer need to fear childhood meningitis, deafness, and mental disease, but that's not the real benefit. I could talk about the 1,000 lives that will be saved worldwide by 2015 using this vaccine. That's not the real benefit.

Children are the last host of meningitis. So with a vaccine we will be able to remove this disease from the face of the earth, and that will be the real benefit of this biotechnology advance.

There are seven other childhood diseases that are being targeted by this same technology. They're in the pipeline. They will come to market.

I'd like to make an aside here. It's a peculiarly Canadian situation. Dr. Jennings received funds from the American National Institutes of Health in the mid-1990s; he's ineligible to receive funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We have to do something about this. Across town Wayne Conlan is going to receive $2 million over the next five years for his research. Again, he's ineligible for CIHR funding.

Let me move on to benefits in the environment. I think there is a very original model in which the City of Montreal, the Quebec government, the federal government, and the NRC are doing research in a consortium so that small companies can clean up brownfield sites in the city of Montreal and make them available for redevelopment, again using biotechnology detection and remediation approaches.

We have developed DNA chips to detect pathogens in water very cost effectively. Cryptosporidium parvum, etc., can now be detected with a $5 chip.

We've heard about Walkerton. Two days after Walkerton hit the news I had a brief on my desk from Dr. Malcolm Perry in our Institute for Biological Sciences. He said, “I have the answer; I've been working on this for 20 years.” We now have a vaccine against E. coli 0157:H7 being developed with the VIDO organization at the University of Saskatchewan.

Osteoporosis. We've started a small company based upon synthetic PTH hormone. Osteoporosis accounts for 2.5 million physician visits in the U.S., 400,000 hospital admissions, and 180,000 nursing home admissions. I'm sure some of you here have a mother or grandmother stricken with osteoporosis. This new technology not only repairs bone, it rebuilds bone. Of course, it will require many years of development and a large amount of investment to bring this technology to market, but we have started down that path.

To talk further about benefits, on the economic side there is the incubation of small companies at the Biotechnology Research Institute in Montreal. There are currently, I think, about 20 small companies incubating. They have 260 employees. Some of these companies were attracted from the U.S., some from Europe.

• 1110

Take the next slide, Bill, please, which is close to the last. You'll see here the list of the firms currently incubating at the Biotechnology Research Institute.

Let me just quote Lloyd Segal, the president of Caprion Pharmaceuticals:

BRI is a unique place for any start-up biotech company. They offer a small company the facilities that put you on the same footing as the largest pharmaceutical companies. They make available the infrastructure and the support that small companies couldn't dream of at a reasonable price.

So in conclusion, Canada has much to be proud of. We've come a long way. We have realized many benefits for the economy, but also for citizens and society. Despite all this promise, our biotechnology industry is still young and vulnerable. It has slipped from second to fourth place. VC funding, although significant in Canada, is not significant on the international level. Most new product development of Canadian biotech is done offshore. How often have we seen small Canadian companies grow and then move offshore or sell their IP to large multinationals? We have to do better than this. Again, if we are to move from fifteenth to fifth, Canada needs to develop another three or four Nortels. We have to take our small companies to world leading companies. Research and development is the basis of this.

We have worked with all the federal departments involved in biotechnology and the granting agencies to bring a united position, which has the government taking action on three fronts: strongly expanding support for research and development—this whole industry is driven by research and development; a recognition of regional strengths; and the support for emerging technology clusters, so again we can build strong attractors of direct foreign investment and we can get synergies going in these clusters.

The final point is that all of our actions must be coupled to the innovation needs of Canadian firms, so that we can develop these benefits in Canada and realize the public value that is the return on the use of federal research and development funds.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you.

Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, CA): Dr. Hackett, you mentioned that some researchers, if they receive funding from other sources, are then ineligible for CIHR funding. I wonder if you could expand on that briefly.

Dr. Peter Hackett: I'm not an expert on this, but I think it relates to the control Parliament must have over its civil servants, so that if Parliament gives money outside to the CIHR, the Financial Administration Act prohibits the return of that money to federal laboratories to support researchers. I think that's the technical reason. It dates back to a system set up by the British in the late 1800s, and probably is not an appropriate system for the year 2000 in Canada.

The result of it is that the federal R and D system is decoupled from the university system and the industry system, so there is no longer a direct competition. I think both sides of this divide don't realize their full potential. I'm not quite sure how one could rectify it, but it is sand in the works of the innovation system in Canada that at some time or another we should address.

Mr. James Rajotte: It's my understanding, for instance, that the diabetes research in Edmonton is funded through American sources, through Alberta government sources, and through—

• 1115

Dr. Peter Hackett: The problem I am referring to relates to the funding of federal government scientists by federal government granting agencies, like NSERC and like the CIHR.

Mr. James Rajotte: Okay.

I want to ask the three representatives here today in general about the genome and the whole biotechnology revolution, and the change in approach to health from a symptom-based diagnosis to a more proactive diagnosis. That's the standard position on what the exploration of the human genome will do, but how close or how far away are we from arriving at the level where we can diagnose what someone will get from their genetic makeup?

Mr. Thomas Hudson: I'm also a doctor, so I treat people with asthma, an immune disease, and I can tell you from a medical perspective it's very far away. That's why I was mentioning sometimes splashy news stories. When we find a gene that increases the risk twofold or threefold, it certainly doesn't mean someone's going to get the disease; it just means their risk is increased from 2% to 4%, etc. Actually, most of the predictors for the common diseases, for asthma, obesity, heart disease, diabetes, are genes with low prediction, so in fact they would not be very helpful in telling someone, you're going to get diabetes, but you're not going to get arthritis.

On the other hand, the knowledge of these genes is quite useful for discovering new ways of treating. For example, there's a gene called PPAR that increases your risk only twofold, and that pathway has now been identified as one of the big areas for developing new diabetes drugs. So the understanding of genes is there.

I don't want to put it negatively, because it's not always the case. For prevention, there are certain genes with which the knowledge that your risk has increased fivefold would be useful in the clinical setting. For example, a prostate cancer gene that increases your risk fivefold might mean that men in their forties, as opposed to fifties, should start getting screened for prostate cancer on an annual basis. The same thing for colon cancer, where there are five different genes, and in high-risk families the knowledge of these genes is important for the family members. These things are almost going to the clinic, and they will in the next years.

Finally, some of these genes may not predict whether you're going to have a disease or you're not going to have a disease, but once you do have a disease, they may say you'll respond better to this type of treatment or that type of treatment. We see it in leukemias right now, we see it in lymphomas, where the knowledge of the genetic makeup of the tumour actually correlates with the drug response or non-response. That type of information is going to the clinic.

Probably the most sensible statement is that it's a very complex issue, and on a one-by-one basis, gene per gene and disease per disease, there has to be evaluation by evidence-based studies as to when it should go in a clinic or not, and genetic testing should be viewed almost like drug testing or food testing. There has to be a weighting of the risks against the benefits, and when there is a benefit, it should go to the clinic; when there's not, they should just state that research was done.

Dr. Barry McLennan: Can I just add to that? I agree completely with Dr. Hudson in his assessment. I'd just like to emphasize the point that though we're not quite there yet and it's going to take a little more development, the fact that individuals respond differently to different treatments can now have a much more evidence-based rationale. In other words, knowing the particular gene makeup of an individual and the particular products, proteins, that are produced will allow you, for example, to use particular treatments that will respond and interact with those targets specifically for that individual. So it's going to fine-tune the process and make it much more effective.

You're quite right, the information in itself is only the beginning, and I agree with Dr. Hudson's point that it's going to take some time, but we now have the tools in place to look at these examples and to analyse each disease. So the future is very bright.

Mr. James Rajotte: Apparently the Minister of Health will be introducing very soon a regulatory regime, not only to regulate, but to procure further research in this area. I was wondering if you would comment on what sort of regulatory regime you would like to see. Many nations are suggesting a national advisory body or a tribunal that is somewhat separate from government itself. That way it could distinguish among certain types of research being done without using criminal law, which tends to be a much more blunt instrument.

• 1120

What do you see as the best regulatory environment for your types of research?

Dr. Barry McLennan: I can start.

We've already got a very good system in place in Canada for the ethical review of research projects involving human subjects.

Mr. James Rajotte: That's the...

Dr. Barry McLennan: The tri-council statement, yes. I want to amplify this a bit.

Essentially this is left to a committee of experts at each institution. The granting agencies have downloaded this responsibility to the research institutions where the work is taking place. This is probably the way it should be.

Now, these are never black and white issues. Most people would take an aspirin without thinking about any ill effects, but statistically, worldwide, a few people do get in trouble taking an aspirin. Are you going to ban aspirins? No. There's always the question of balance. The question ethical committees deal with all the time on a particular research protocol is “Does the general benefit to society far outweigh the risk to the individual?”

I would suggest to you that we have a mechanism in place. We should simply use it and not reinvent the wheel.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Thomas Hudson: Could I ask Dr. McLennan a question?

In addition to research, which is important—and the guidelines are there, the tri-council statements are there—we need to define a regulatory body to govern the transferring of research discoveries into medicine

I'm also a member of CBAC, which is actually doing consultation on this issue. But it's quite clear that an ethics committee can't decide how to certify a lab to do genetic testing. An ethics committee can't decide what's safe and what's not. Research studies are needed. There needs to be a group of experts who can actually look at the safety of a medication, or a test, and so on. We need to go for this to an arm's-length agency composed of experts from different fields—legal, medical, social, etc.

We need a better definition. We need to have a very comprehensive, transparent system of regulation, not only for primary research, but also for transferring the products of research into the health care system.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, permit me first of all to thank all of you for acknowledging this government's support in this new area we are all embarking on. The words were appropriately placed.

Mr. McLennan, you spoke of the difficulties your industry sometimes faces, in terms of the private/public, and the private sector's hesitance to come forward and support... and you compared this with other nations. I see this as well.

But would you please elaborate for us some of the reasons why they hesitate on these questions? Is it because of our approval, or compliance, or regulation process? Is it because this is a relatively new area and they want benchmarks, or standards, to compare with? Some of these smaller organizations aren't getting the support they should be, and as a result they get frustrated. We lose their technology and their brains when they move.

Dr. Hackett, you used the Walkerton example. I forget the name of the gentleman who came up and said, “I've got a solution”.

Would you please explain what happened? Was there an approval on the product right away? Was there a mechanism to fast-track it?

These are new frontiers we're all embarking on. Dr. Hudson talked about them; everyone did today. I'm not advocating that once we move into an area we should go forward right away. There are dangers. But I have sensed and heard that it is very cumbersome to get compliance within the system. I hear these are some of the obstacles holding us back.

Dr. Barry McLennan: Okay, let me try your first question.

There's no question—again, as all of us have said—we are in a global competition here. All of the elements needed to succeed are key. In other words, if our drug approval process lags behind the U.K., the U.S.A., and so on, it's an impediment to further business in Canada. It's true.

• 1125

The last data I looked at said the health protection branch was not even meeting its own mandate on the time taken for approval of new drug submissions. We need to work on this. In the earlier presentations to this committee, CBHR suggested we may need a separate agency. Maybe this is the way; it needs to be looked at. It's one piece in the competition process.

International companies are very anxious to do business in Canada, even though we're a small country, because we have a cadre of people who are very good. Our science is good, our clinicians are good, and that's respected around the world. We need to make sure we continue to train people. Dr. Hudson indicated that he is a “brain gain” example. God, I wish we had 5,000 more. This is tremendous. He stayed here. There are many, many other people who didn't stay, and we need to make sure we retain people like them. There's another piece in the competition process.

Your third question has escaped me for a minute.

Mr. Thomas Hudson: It was on Walkerton.

Dr. Barry McLennan: I'll let you answer this one.

Mr. John Cannis: Walkerton—there was a proposal immediately brought forward. Was it approved, or did we fast-track it?

Dr. Peter Hackett: Yes, we fast-tracked it, indeed.

I would say within a day I was on the phone to the Ontario government. As a result of this, we have an agreement with the venture capital company. We had the thing into VIDO, a veterinary organization that was able to do early testing of this. You vaccinate the cows using another bacterium; there's no need to inject. It passes through the herd very quickly and you don't get E. coli 0157 excreted in the feces. All of this was looked into.

The press conferences we held attracted the attention of a multinational in the process of developing an animal health division. We're now in negotiations with this large company.

This is moving very quickly. We haven't yet hit any regulatory hurdles, but of course one has to go in a very measured way when intervening in the natural orders of things. But I can assure you, this is being fast-tracked.

Mr. John Cannis: Of course you want to make sure everything is safe.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with this. I agree with you, Dr. McLennan, that maybe we should look at setting up a parallel system, not necessarily to fast-track, but from the comments I've heard, this is one of the reasons why, even with as much support as the government can provide, the private sector is hesitant. If we want to move from fifteenth to fifth, it takes regulatory bodies with updated procedures who work closely with the private sector to create a safe environment, not necessarily a fast-track environment, but a much more progressive one. Thank you.

Dr. Barry McLennan: Your comment about the investment of Canadians in the non-pharmaceutical private sector—not that the pharmaceutical community couldn't do more, but the question we're really asking, collectively, is why don't Canadians invest in R and D? I don't have the answer, but it may be something we need to think about, because it's part of the answer.

Government can't do it all. As someone said earlier, we're spending the taxpayers money; we know that, but why don't individuals invest, and why don't other companies from the private sector invest more in R and D? Is it because, as someone else said, our economy relative to the size of others is just too small? I don't think so. We could do more. It may be we need to give Canadians a shake and say “Invest in this country!”

We need to give more examples of our success stories. Look at the wonderful things happening last week with the flight to Antarctica to rescue the physician from the States. Look at Hadfield's accomplishments in space the other day. We do have fantastic accomplishments, but we don't stand up and scream about them. That might attract the investment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): We don't know how to celebrate sometimes.

Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Thank you. I'd like to stay on this subject, Mr. McLennan.

You answered your own question in part. You talked about the efforts of the private sectors and praised its success. How do you perceive the role of government? How is it involved in convincing the private sector, or individuals, to invest further in research activities? In the short term, what concrete action could be taken?

• 1130

[English]

Dr. Barry McLennan: I'm not an economist, but maybe make it more attractive to invest, with tax credits or incentives—I'm not sure.

From a research point of view, I am a biochemist, and I can tell you that the research community is absolutely ecstatic about the programs that have been put in place—the research chairs, the CFI, the CIHR, and so on. Excuse me for using acronyms, but I'm sure you all know them.

That is a good start. Then the provinces need to step up to the plate as well, because most of the researchers' salaries are paid by the provinces. They are employees in the institutions in the provinces, and so on. So there's a symbiosis needed there. But I'm sorry, I don't have a hard answer to your question about how we get more investment from the individual. Obviously we have to make it attractive. I think we have to define the opportunities, make sure Canadians know about this.

One example comes to mind. The Canadian Medical Discoveries Fund, which started very recently, headed up by Cal Stiller, has made fantastic accomplishments at collecting venture capital money for bringing research projects to market. That doesn't address the earlier part of the research process, but it is a very important end piece. I don't have recent numbers, but they've raised hundreds of millions of dollars of capital and developed in start-up a very large number of companies. That's tremendous activity. That's just one little sector. We need more of that kind of activity.

Dr. Peter Hackett: One of the things we should take a look at in a very serious way, and we're doing this within the development of the white paper on innovation, is how to grow our companies from SMEs to large-scale companies. This is beyond the range of venture funding. I think one of the things the government can do for companies of this size is develop some sort of R and D matching fund initiative so that the R and D needs of these companies as they grow can be met.

[Translation]

Mr. Thomas Hudson: As you can see on page 2 of my curriculum vitae, I am involved in many research contracts. Companies want to invest, but not because they want information about proteins x, y or z. They invest in a team concept. Research is becoming increasingly complex. Research teams participate in projects and together they reap the fruits of technology and new discoveries.

The world of science is changing and becoming more and more the domain of research teams. Strategic initiatives and big projects have been launched for diabetes and osteoporosis. I'm sure the same is happening in the communications field. If Canadian research teams are well funded and have a critical mass, companies will be interested in coming on board. Before they are interested in investing in research, companies are interested in critical mass and in large teams. They do not invest simply to see the results of research.. They invest to become long-term partners in research. The size of the team is an important consideration.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I understand. I have a question for you, Dr. Hudson. It is rather personal, but it applies to others who have experienced situations similar to yours.

Your resume is very impressive. You are a highly respected researcher. At some point, you had to make a conscious choice: either do research here in Canada or go elsewhere. You mentioned that you returned to Canada several years ago. I would imagine that you spent some time outside the country.

What were the key factors that played in this decision? Could you enlighten us about these factors, as I'm sure there were several? What about salary and the quality of the research teams to which you belonged? How important are these variables in terms of maintaining or attracting individuals to Canada?

Mr. Thomas Hudson: A researcher has a desire to be the best in his field, regardless of whether he is working at Brock or in Montreal. He is a highly competitive individual. He is not at all interested in being second in the race to discover a gene. He needs to be first. The ability to be competitive on the job is likely the key contributing factor in whether or not a researcher will chose to work in Canada or at a university elsewhere.

• 1135

Having said this, there are other variables to consider. I am a Quebecker. I'm from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. I did not return to the Saguenay because there were no opportunities there for me to conduct research in my particular field. In Montreal, I found a fertile, receptive environment.

I've also kept a pied-à-terre at MIT. I'm still the Assistant Director at MIT's Centre for Genome Research. It's the largest genome research facility in the world. Why have I chosen to commute for the past five years, spending Mondays and Tuesdays in Boston and the rest of the week in Montreal? Because Montreal wasn't yet ready to take on such large-scale projects as MIT. Therefore, I continued working with my teams in Boston and formed new teams in Montreal. Today, I have 43 employees and new funding from Genome Canada and I have decided to leave Boston and devote all of my efforts to my work here in Canada.

I've been fortunate to have the best of both worlds: the high technology sector in Boston and projects on diseases here in Montreal. Here, as a doctor, I am associated with a faculty of medicine. That is one area that interested me. I wanted to focus more on diseases than on technology.

Therefore, some contributing factors include the ability to be competitive, a fertile environment and the interests of the researcher. I have four children. I prefer to raise my children in Quebec rather than in the United States. It's as simple as that.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I have a secondary question for you. I'm not interested in knowing the exact amount, but are we competitive in terms of salary offerings? Some argue that researchers pay less tax in the US. Are we competitive and how critical a factor in this in terms of our ability to keep individuals here in Canada?

Mr. Thomas Hudson: As far as salaries go, we are not competitive. Salaries are low. Each year, I receive $55,000 as part of the clinician scientist award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This grant provides me with one source of income. However, for a doctor who completed his degree in 1985, this isn't a great deal of money. My income is therefore supplemented by other institutes and universities. The latter in fact have problems finding funds to supplement the salaries of researchers in order to ensure a competitive environment.

Once again, in the case of my fellow researchers, there is a major difference in salaries between the United States and Canada. Salary scales differ substantially and this is surely one big reason why many Canadians who have done post-doctoral studies and trained for three, four or five years in the United States have no desire to return to Canada. Salaries in Boston are in the $120,000 to $140,000 range. If we want them to return to Canada, we need to convince our own universities that a salary of $55,000 Cd doesn't cut it... We're dealing with two very different mentalities and environments in which the disparities are significant. Young researchers who are not yet established in the US have trouble even thinking about coming back to Canada and about accepting lower salary scales.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing on the same subject, basically you're talking about public sector salaries. Does the same situation hold true for the private sector?

Mr. Thomas Hudson: I hesitate to answer that question. Although I sit on the board of directors of several companies, I have no knowledge of salary scales. I've observed that many of the companies operating in Montreal have American researchers on board. I'm convinced they were offered competitive salaries - at least the company directors were - otherwise they would not have accepted these positions.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to touch on Dr. McLennan's comments on the funding of this.

I'm glad you mentioned the labour-sponsored venture capital funds—the medical discoveries one, and a slew of others—that demonstrate there is an interest on the part of Canadians to invest. The government has tinkered here and there with the rules of this, but generally speaking, they've generated handsome sums of money, and that could continue on that side.

But you essentially said there was a lack in the private corporations. I imagine you meant investments. Would you care to explore that? There are those who would argue that there may not be as much as we'd want to see, because they wait for the public, the government, to step forward first, and the government tends to. I don't have a problem with public investments in research, but would that be a factor? If it is, what would you advocate to change it?

• 1140

Dr. Barry McLennan: I think that's part of it. But to spin around that, one of the areas for investment in research has to do with the formation of spin-off companies in the universities and research institutes. We've been slow as a nation to do that. Universities are now beginning to put effort and money into that activity. So that's great; we need to do that. That's no more true in biotechnology than in any other sector.

So the university technology transfer offices are now focusing on that activity. They still have trouble finding resources to move the research ideas from the laboratory through that development stage, pre-market stage, pre-development stage. There's a shortage of funding for that.

I know there are some programs through Industry Canada, and so on, and some provincial programs that are helpful, but from the point of view of the individual researcher who wants to step back from the university and create a spin-off company, it's still a problem getting started.

So I don't have hard answers on that one for you, but I think if we looked at that activity and talked to investment people and small business development people, and so on, we might have some answers. So that's an area we could push on.

As to how we get the individuals to do more, I don't know. We seem to be part of the branch plant economy syndrome here, that the R and D of a lot of small companies in Canada is done elsewhere. Someone else mentioned that when we do develop a company here, it gets bought out or taken up by a multinational.

So I don't have the hard answers there. We have a start in this area, but we need to do more.

On the issue of salaries and retaining the people, which is partly related to your question, I would agree with my colleague here that it's not as simple as just the salary. We did a survey on this a few years ago, asking “Why do people leave Canada?” The actual salary was fourth or fifth on the list. It's important, but it's not necessarily the top one.

The thing that was important was, is the environment there positive for me to do the research that I've been trained to do? In other words, is there space? Is there equipment? Are there students? Are there post-docs? All these pieces come together. So it isn't just salary, but salary is one item.

I heard some data yesterday on the Canada Research Chairs Program, which is to create 2,000 chairs across Canada in five years. The first 400 chairs have now been named. That's tremendous. Unfortunately—it's not the government's fault—there has been a realignment of positions in Canada as the first response to that program.

I think you have to interpret that as protecting our own first. Hopefully, for the next 400 chairs, I think the emphasis across the nation from the committees that are looking at this is, okay, now that we've protected our own and we won't lose them to other countries, let's try to recruit 400 new people—which was the intent of the program, as I understood it, when the Prime Minister announced this.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is there a concern—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): I think Dr. Hackett had—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Will I still be able to get back to this?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Yes, you'll be able to get back.

Dr. Peter Hackett: Thank you, Mauril. I'll try to be very brief.

On your point, I think it's not just money. There's the question of talent, skilled management, and the ability to do clinical trials, things like that, on how you grow these small companies into large ones. Of course, our industrial infrastructure is such that we do not have the large companies present in Canada, unlike in Ottawa, where we spin off many of the talented people from the large companies and they're able to grow the small ones up pretty rapidly.

So it's a question of growing all this capacity. It's a question of staying the course on the investments we have made over the natural life cycle of biotechnology, which is not one, two, and three years, like information technology, but more like 15, 20, and 30 years. So we have to stay the course.

We have to invest in incubation facilities to provide these small companies the facilities and access to trained people that we need. We have to develop mentoring networks to help them with the development of a sufficient managerial capacity. Then I think we might be able to grow our way out of this problem and develop a large-scale industry here in Canada.

• 1145

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay. So for the purposes of our exercise, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we want to look at the venture capital funds. There are certainly the comments we've had on the scientific tax credit. Today we found out that somehow our researchers get disqualified from funding from other sources, that they get funding from certain sources. It would be useful to—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): I think it was that a government agency could not get funding.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine, but we're talking about individual researchers, which is something we may want to look at.

I have one final question. I know it's unfair to ask, because it will take a long time to answer. Are there any concerns among the people testifying here today that our research is being driven more and more by the profit motive, in that we may be forgetting the need to conduct pure research for the sake of knowledge?

Dr. Barry McLennan: It's a concern, but I don't think we can, for the moment, even consider not doing business with the private sector—quite the contrary. We have an awful lot of agreements at university level—and I speak for my own institution, the University of Saskatchewan, which has been mentioned a couple of times, Mauril, and I didn't even plant the questions. Thank you very much. We have to do business with the private sector. Provincial and national governments told us 20 years ago, look, you can't continue to finance your operation totally from the federal or provincial purse, you go and find other sources of revenue. So we've done that.

When you want to do business with a pharmaceutical company, for example, you develop a clinical trial or any other kind of research sponsored program, you look at their objectives, the rationale, you write an agreement, a protocol. So you need to look at that as an institution. If you don't think you can do business comfortably, then you don't sign it. For example, if the protocol would prevent you publishing your work, then you wouldn't sign it. This is not a problem, that is, the issue of publishing your work. Sometimes the company may say they need a six-month window to look at it before you publish it. Fine, that's not usually a problem.

So we can and must do business with the private sector, but we need to be vigilant. There have been cases, which you know well, where the train has fallen off the track. That has been as much, I think, the institution's fault, not exercising due diligence, as it has the company's. We need to be vigilant, but we have to do business.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Dr. Hackett, a short answer, please.

Dr. Peter Hackett: My own philosophy is that wealth is the foundation upon which we can build a healthy society. Wealth and increased knowledge are the two requirements for building a society that can use its resources in a sustainable way. Without wealth and without knowledge we would have, I think, an unhealthy society. So I have no difficulty with the close coupling of the research- and knowledge-generating activities with the private sector, which is finally the way one gets to deliver the benefits to the society.

I do have a question mark, and I need to cross-check from time to time that I'm keeping that question in mind. When I choose areas in which we might research, am I simply entering those areas because of potential and immediate wealth-generating activities, rather than thinking out to the long-term greater benefits that might be realized and at the same time generate wealth? For instance, should we be working on malaria because there are tremendous impacts in the third world on malaria and huge benefits, but no immediate economic benefits to Canada?

So I always have a question in my mind when thinking about the areas to explore. Are there people not represented at the table, because they are poorer, who really should be here? That, of course, is one of these difficult ethical issues we all try to keep in balance.

• 1150

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Mr. Hudson.

Mr. Thomas Hudson: I think if there were a hundred scientists my age in this room, 98% of them would say we're getting too close to the private sector. And the reason they would say that is that a lot of the science we do is still very early research, basic research, and it is far from having a target. We know a lot of big discoveries have come from people doing basic research, but it's very hard to get a partner. We've seen where the areas of growth have been for funding. They have been CFI, they've been Genome Canada. More and more we're asking for partners as one of the criteria for getting funds. Certainly we haven't seen much growth in the area of basic research grants. CIHR's average grant is still small, and that's where the bread and butter funding for most scientists across this country is. People are not seeing this grow, and it's unrealistic to think that we can go and find a partner for this type of research, which is very crucial to the R and D world.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the last comments very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Mr. Rajotte.

Mr. James Rajotte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. McLennan, you mentioned multinationals buying out Canadian firms. One of the firms in Edmonton is called Biomira, which develops cancer vaccines, and the head of Biomira raised that same concern as well. He said his concern is that in Canada we do a very good job of incubating ideas and developing them to a point, and then once they become profitable and they become a fairly large company, you get an American company coming in and purchasing the company as a whole. He mentioned a couple of the firms in Montreal in that danger, and he said with his own firm, if it comes in and they make an offer to the investors, it's very hard to turn it down if it's a 1000% return. So I'm wondering if you could identify some of the reasons you think this is happening and anything we can do to prevent it.

Dr. Barry McLennan: It's how to compete with the Americans—they buy our hockey teams too. So I don't have a simple answer for you. I think, though, as we've said this morning, we need to encourage the development of our small companies. The universities have been slow to do this. Certain provinces have made much more progress on this than others, and that's tremendous. I don't have a card answer for that one—it's a tough one. When a small company is doing well and being successful, and an offer is made to their shareholders, and the shareholders make the decision as to which way they go, it's all perfectly legal. I don't know how you make them stay in Canada or how you keep it here.

Mr. Charles Pitts (Executive Director, Coalition for Biomedical and Health Research): The only thing that comes to mind is, it's probably unavoidable and maybe there's a silver lining to the cloud, in that if at least we continue to generate successful companies and we are enriching the country here and reinvesting, one would hope, some of that in human capital here, we'll be continuing to grow. But it's a danger that threatens even our largest companies, and the hope is that investors will invest here and we'll just continue to generate.

Dr. Barry McLennan: Mr. Chairman, may I just respond to a couple of questions that were raised about CIHR? I was on the interim governing council that led to the development of CIHR, and I think I can offer a couple of comments that might help answer some questions here.

In one sense, CIHR, the present governing council and the institutes, are a victim of their own success. We've raised the expectations of Canadians, the scientists, the physicians, the researchers, the general public, with the development of CIHR, and so we should have—fantastic. One of the things that has happened, though, is that it's been so successful, they've had a tremendous increase in applications for funding. I think in the last competition there was a 50% increase in research grant proposals and a 100% increase in personnel support requests. That's a tremendous pressure on the system, and it reminds me to remind you to remind the government that we must stay the course with the funding to that agency. I don't have any doubt the government will do that, but I just remind you that the target is 1% of health care spending, $1 billion by the next two or three years. Indeed, it may well be that by the time we get there, we should be looking at $2 billion, not $1 billion. But let's go with the 1% target first. That's the crunch that CIHR is in right now. Because there was no federal budget this year, in 2001, there's no allocation of funding I'm aware of at the moment that normally would have happened by this time. So it does present a bit of a cashflow problem for the agency, for CIHR.

• 1155

There has been an increase in the size of grants—a substantial increase. There's been an increase in the number. But I'm not disagreeing with my colleague. The frustration for our researchers is that it hasn't happened to the extent that we expected it to by this time. I submit it's a cashflow problem.

I have another point, if I may, Mr. Chairman. There was a question about the difficulty with our federal laboratory scientists interacting with CIHR programs. I wonder if one mechanism—we can talk about this privately—is the adjunct professor appointment. I don't know whether you've explored that or not. That's what we do in Saskatoon to allow the federal research scientists at the Plant Biotechnology Institute to interact with the academic departments.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): Thank you very much.

Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): On that last point, I know when we did some announcements for the toxic substances research initiative, $40 million over three years, it was amazing to see the researchers in universities interacting with the researchers from government, and they were saying that this was one of the few programs that actually encourages them to work together. So they heralded the program just from that perspective alone.

You may have been in here earlier when I referenced the top 40 under 40, and it was great to see some young scientists and researchers from across the country being picked out and so acclaimed.

Interestingly, most of them, in fact to a researcher, when asked if money was important to them, said, insofar as I need to do my research projects and I want to advance them and I want to know the money's going to be there to continue doing these projects, and what have you. That was quite interesting in terms of what their goals were. So clearly, if you're making something like $55,000, that must be what motivates you too.

A voice: I don't make that.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I think it was left a little bit unclear as to what your various sources of income were. You don't have to tell us all the dollars, but it is interesting to see how you manage your time.

I was looking at your resumé, Dr. Hudson, and I don't know when you actually do any research given what all your paperwork responsibilities are just for these obligations alone. How do you manage your time? Is it because you're a young star that you're being asked to participate in so many things? You're a big fish in a small pond now. Is that creating some burdens on you that perhaps could affect your ability to continue to excel in research?

Mr. Thomas Hudson: I am also a practising physician and I make a bit of money there, and so on, but I won't get into my sources of funding.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Although in Quebec that's a bit of a challenge.

Mr. Thomas Hudson: So then we don't want to discuss the salary.

First of all, I know I had probably 28 papers in the last one and a half years, so I'm—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: That you've published.

Mr. Thomas Hudson: —published or in print. So my scientific record stands. I still do research, and I do it because I organize my centre in teams. I have my team leaders and I don't do the pipetting. I haven't done that for ten years, and not at MIT either. I'm a team builder.

I'm actually asked to be on all these committees. I don't do it—and I actually say no to a lot of things. I realized back in 1997, when genomics funding in this country was $1 million, after the death of CGAT, that unless groups of scientists got together and started being active in terms of promoting genome research, it wouldn't happen. That's why I got sidetracked into doing all these committees, which are still not more than, as a group, a half-day a week when I put all this together.

I'm not the only scientist in Canada who's had to do this, be on these different committees. They're not all overlapping. When Genome Canada was off the road, I got out to get Génome Québec. When that was off the road I got out.

I do spend a lot of time writing grants, though. One of the impediments back in 1997 for genomics in this country was the fragmentation. I had an overhead here I remember presenting.

It's gotten better, but we have to apply for salaries in one place, we have to apply for equipment in another place, and we have to apply for operating funds of a certain type in another place. All of a sudden, we're still talking of the same project. I still have the same goals that I had when I wanted to do genomics, but it's tremendously complicated. Plus, CFI is only giving you this much because you haven't yet secured the operating funds.

So we're in a catch-22 position all the time. I do feel I do acrobatics as a scientist to actually build something of a bigger nature.

• 1200

The reason these committees are actually there is to stimulate a new environment for doing large-scale products in Canada, something that didn't happen in biology, in a big way at least, before 1997. The reason I stay on these committees is I keep being asked, and slowly I'm going to get in and out of some of these things. But it is important for scientists to be involved, just as important as it is to be coaching our kids' soccer teams.

We have to be involved not just as spectators but in the execution of these programs. So it's a privilege for me to sit on these. But overall, as I said, these things don't last more than half a day a week when I put them all together.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: What's the paper burden in Canada versus in the United States when you were doing work at MIT?

Mr. Thomas Hudson: I was privileged, again. At MIT, we had a $50-million grant for five years for making the first map of the human genome. This paid the money to build a robot. I had an engineering team who built a robot. It paid the salaries, everything. So there was one grant that paid all the research. So for five years I didn't have to rewrite anything.

There was much less paperwork in the U.S., except we did have six-month scientific and administrative reviews because of the amount of the money. There was a lot of review of the process as it was going ahead.

In Canada, it's a lot of paper. Just my CV module, which I had to fill out for the CIHR, is an inch thick. It's the same thing for Genome Canada, NSERC, NSIS, and so on. Everybody has a different CV module. It's almost full-time work for my secretary to keep track of that.

We, as scientists, are asked to coalesce, to network together, to work together all the time. But most scientists would say the agencies are doing a pretty poor job in actually working together to make life easier for the scientist when it comes down to even simple things such as having one common form for CVs, and at other levels too.

In regard to the barriers that Peter Hackett was describing for CIHR funding for some NRC scientists, again, it's a barrier for the building of teams that would involve the expertise at BRI in Montreal and McGill University, because we have to apply for funds knowing full well that some of the researchers are going to get zero dollars at the end.

So we see a lot of barriers. Somehow we have to come up with... I don't want to say the mandate, the specific mandate, of each of these groups is not important. It is important that there is a CIHR to push a health agenda and NSERC to push the engineering agenda. But there needs to be still more work at the top to actually implement policies that favour a unified approach for scientists.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Certainly that's something, Mr. Chair, we could be recommending, because it's an administrative cost that each of the organizations, of course, is also incurring. It's clearly a bit of a waste of time for everybody. If you guys can, in your respective bodies, get that sorted out, that would be a huge saving to everybody.

Thank you very much for spending time with us.

Finally, on the last one, on venture capital and what have you, I think there actually needs to be a bit of a campaign to make sure that... it's a bit like buying war bonds in that time period.

I personally would like to see my fund doing a little better. That would be an incentive for me to invest more. But it isn't. I know it's a seven-year investment at least. But it is a bit of a challenge in getting some information on how they're doing, or ways to make them more profitable.

But certainly appealing to people's patriotic nature would, I think, also help invest additional dollars.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka): I would like to conclude the meeting because of the timing.

I want to thank the witnesses for all their time this morning in helping us to understand where we're going, maybe, in the future.

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 p.m.