À risque

As the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, its final affliction remains collective amnesia. This report emphasizes lessons learned through Canada’s response to the global crisis, as well as the importance of not letting crucial partnerships forged during the pandemic atrophy.

Responding to COVID-19 necessitated rapid collaboration across governments, the life sciences sector, academic institutions and researchers. The result of these partnerships was the swift development and distribution of vaccines and the establishment of essential supply chains for vaccines, therapeutics and other essential life sciences products.

Despite challenges of supply chain disruptions and border closures, Canada’s pandemic response was largely successful, with fewer deaths per million population than most G7 countries. Yet, the death toll and case numbers Canada did record underscore the need for continued vigilance and preparedness for the next health emergency. For the future, this means establishing long-term partnerships and maintaining secure supply chains. It also means focusing on increased investment in infrastructure for domestic biomanufacturing of essential health-care products.

Some of that has started. Federal and provincial governments have made significant investments since 2021, including $1.2 billion in support of biomanufacturing projects. Yet the momentum for further structural investments is waning as time passes and amnesia grows.

This report argues the focus must now be on achieving three specific milestones:

• First, unlike other G7 nations, Canada lacks a dedicated health security and emergency coordinating agency. The federal government needs to create a Canada Health Security Agency (CHSA) as an independent national agency to oversee health security and pandemic preparedness. It would co-ordinate data collection and distribution, promote Canadian science and biomanufacturing, co-ordinate actions, communicate with allies, compile threat assessments, and publish annual preparedness reports.
• Second, it is vital to develop and manage supply chains, shifting the procurement approach from “just in time” to “just in case.” The objective is proactive procurement and stockpiling of essential health supplies while minimizing artificial demand and shortages. Strengthening partnerships and negotiating open border agreements can support the free flow of essential life sciences products during health security emergencies. Also, promoting an agile regulatory environment will encourage innovation and ensure timely approval of essential products. This approach may also include regional integration and securing international trade relationships to safeguard supply chains.
• Third is the need to strengthen Canada’s life sciences sector so that it may better respond to health emergencies and contribute to economic growth. That involves identifying and developing niches where Canada can build and maintain a comparative advantage in the global life sciences market. There is also a need to enhance public and private sector investment at all stages in biomanufacturing — from research and startups to building Canadian anchor companies — to ensure a sustainable and resilient domestic life sciences sector.

Establishing the CHSA, building robust supply chains and strengthening the life sciences sector will not only improve Canada’s preparedness, but it will also drive economic growth and innovation across the country. Achieving these goals requires a committed “Team Canada” approach, leveraging expertise and resources from all sectors. By reaching these milestones, Canada can enhance its health security, be better prepared for future health security threats, and drive national economic growth and innovation.

If the most common final act to a pandemic is “profound amnesia,” as University of Michigan professor Dr. Howard Markel once famously proclaimed, then we are well and truly in the forgetting phase.

In 2020, the desperate need for a co-ordinated response to the pandemic brought governments, the life sciences sector, researchers and academic institutions together to work miracles on the fly. Canada demonstrated extraordinary agility in drafting and modifying regulation, building distribution networks and negotiating international contracts to obtain supplies of equipment, vaccines and pharmaceuticals from foreign suppliers.

In the end, only Japan had fewer deaths per million population than Canada among G7 countries, although by June 2024 there had been almost 59,500 deaths across Canada, each one a tragedy for a grieving family.

But the beginning days of the pandemic are almost five years ago now. As the pandemic fades further into the background, the more time we have had to learn our lessons and ensure better preparedness in the future is also more time we have lost.

Some work is underway, but the momentum has stalled.

The federal government has spent $1.2 billion since 2021 supporting biomanufacturing, vaccines and therapeutics projects, including $126 million for a Biologics Manufacturing Centre in Montreal that can produce approximately two million doses per month.

Recently, as part of Canada’s Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy (BLSS),^[1] the federal government pledged $140 million to a research alliance of more than 50 partners, led by the University of British Columbia, that will support multidisciplinary projects that collectively aim to create an end-to-end drug development pipeline. As well, the pharmaceutical company Sanofi opened a new vaccine manufacturing facility in Toronto to produce vaccines for whooping cough, tetanus and diphtheria for both Canada and export. A second Sanofi plant dedicated to flu vaccines will open in 2027.

These projects are among 19 that the federal government is supporting at five research hubs across the country.^[2]1 Work also focuses on: countering vaccine, biomanufacturing and immunity therapy skepticism; building pathogen antibody treatments; using AI and cryo-electron microscopy; and building an mRNA and cell therapeutics manufacturing centre. 

Meanwhile, provinces and territories have taken up varying degrees of commitment to the life sciences for pandemic response and economic development. For its part, Ontario hopes to grow its life sciences sector to 85,000 jobs, with double the current annual venture capital investment to $725 million annually, by 2030.^[3]

That’s where the good news ends. We are the only G7 country without a national health security and emergency co-ordinating agency. Canada’s emergency supply system remains rooted in archaic “just in time” deliveries, rather than proactive procurement. And we still do not have an asset map of life sciences goods: Were bird flu to blossom into the existential threat many fear, would we be any better positioned than the dark hours of March 2020? What life-saving products are we producing in Canada? What are their supply chains? How quickly can they be deployed? Where are our production facilities? What are their capacities?

We simply don’t know.

Policymakers need to conduct an urgent, comprehensive analysis of where Canadian life sciences companies can succeed, identifying Canada’s priority life sciences strategic tradables, related supply chains and asset maps. They need to create a Canada Health Security Agency (CHSA), with a mandate to map Canada’s assets, advance science and co-ordinate efforts across jurisdictions. Proactive planning and deterrence in tandem with response to common health threats and health emergency response should be the core mission of the agency. Doing this would allow Canada to become a more resilient and competitive player in the global life sciences market, while also ensuring the country is better prepared for its next health security emergency.

This report, which builds on the Public Policy Forum’s The Next One,^[4] is necessary in part because the crucial lessons of the last pandemic are being forgotten. In the absence of an institutionalized, regular convening platform for dialogue between industry and the private sector, relationships brokered during the pandemic are withering; we’re losing our muscle memory. It is vitally important that we resuscitate and grow the government-industry-academic relationships that strengthen the capacity for Canada to respond to future health emergencies.

If there was ever a moment to employ a “Team Canada” approach, this is it.

What follows is a step-by-step approach to getting it done.

Canada is the only G7 nation that does not have a national health security and emergency coordinating agency. The Americans have the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which provides an integrated and systematic approach to vaccine development, immunotherapies and other tools for public health emergencies.^[5] BARDA has its own directorate and an annual budget of up to US$1.6 billion. BARDA has also leveraged up to $2 billion on Project NextGen to streamline development of innovative vaccines and therapeutics and promote development of advanced medical countermeasures.^[6] As a direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Union established the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) to strengthen its ability to detect, prevent and respond to cross-border health emergencies.^[7] HERA was created to standardize and institutionalize ad hoc emergency response measures and promote intelligence gathering, as well as build capacity for enhanced pandemic preparedness.^[8] The agency is governed by a board of directors and has a budget of 6 billion euros over six years (2021-2027)^[9].

The CHSA would oversee domestic procurement of medical countermeasures through coordinated action with a view to pandemic preparedness and response. It would act in partnership with government, industry, labor and academic institutions to bolster Canada’s life sciences capacity — goals that are aligned with those of its U.S. counterpart, BARDA.^[10]

At an international level, the CHSA would lead in international collaboration on emergency response with counterpart entities in allied countries. The agency is critical to establishing trade protections in regional and international trade agreements and negotiations, while promoting regional life sciences sector integration. The CHSA is quite simply the right equipment for Canada should it wish to play in the global life sciences and emergency response space.

As PPF noted in response to the 2024 federal budget, Canada’s CHSA “must bring together knowledge and data on health threats and risks, commercial manufacturing capacity, domestic and international supply chains, life sciences research and innovation, and health-care systems capacity. Having an institutional focal point is critical to remaining informed on capacity, as well as co-ordinating growth across the life sciences ecosystem and masterminding emergency response.”^[11]

Appointed by the federal government, the CHSA would function as an independent, agile, well-funded and networked entity and be located within one of Canada’s life sciences clusters. Its staff should possess expertise in science, emergency preparedness, research and development, and commercialization of research discoveries. It should also constantly monitor the competitiveness of Canada’s life sciences sector and work with industry, governments, and academic institutions to advance that status. A key objective must be to help governments understand where the risks and opportunities exist in responding to everyday health security threats, including climate change-induced emergencies, as well as the next health security emergency.

A newly established CHSA would:

1. Collect and share data and information:

• Create a comprehensive and up-to-date database sourced with data from the private sector, associations and governments to monitor what is produced in Canada and scale new and existing priority areas in Canada’s life sciences industry;
• Create an asset map of Canada’s life sciences strategic tradables and their inputs (in the case of talent, catalogue university personnel and facility capacity for research, trials and emergency response; and in the case of products, their supply chains) to enable a national understanding of essential life sciences talent and products available across the country;
• Develop and enable regulation, legislation, policy and technology to mandate and facilitate the sharing of data and proprietary information about critical life sciences products (i.e., diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, medical devices and equipment); and
• Use collected data to promote health security as well as preparing for and responding to health security threats.

1. Promote Canadian science: Build links with and among researchers and the scientific community, life sciences ventures, academic institutions, researchers, and industry. Encourage partnerships and the growth of domestic manufacturing by promoting innovation and helping speed discoveries into scalable products.
2. Co-ordinate action: A Team Canada-style approach becomes possible via the CHSA, where the activities of federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal health care/public health officials can be coordinated, building, and connecting life sciences hubs, academic centers, businesses and incubators to respond to future health emergencies.
3. Communicate with allies: Build and maintain regular communications and relationships with similar national and regional health security organizations worldwide, focusing on the co-ordination of products, services, and supply chains for mutual benefit.
4. Compile an ongoing threat/risk assessment: Co-ordinate with academia, the private sector, federal, provincial and territorial officials, as well as the Public Health Agency of Canada, to create a nationwide database for life sciences and health preparedness monitoring and preparation for oncoming health threats.
5. Publish an annual report card on emergency response preparedness: Assess nationwide sector capacity and supply chain stability to respond to a health emergency.

The “just in time” approach to procurement taken by Canadian health-care facilities has left them vulnerable to supply chain disruptions that can endanger inventory. During a health security emergency, meeting the increased consumer demand for essential life sciences products, such as masks, gloves and hand sanitizer, can be threatened by border closures and transportation disruptions. During the pandemic, facing emergency conditions and increased consumer demand, shortages emerged in critical medical product supplies – especially with 80 per cent of the drug-making processes taking place outside Canada.^[12] We needed to know want we had, what needed to be replaced, where we could get more when we needed it, and where to acquire the products we didn’t have. For health care facilities, the “just in case” method of procuring products should ensure sufficient inventory stockpiles. These stockpiles should meet a heightened demand and enable staff to respond to the emergency and continue to treat patients with priority illnesses.

Proactive policy approaches to life science product procurement and the guaranteeing of open transportation and stable supply chains are essential to emergency response. While Canada efficiently and effectively distributed vaccines and other medical supplies during the pandemic, agile regulation and the promotion of innovative procurement mechanisms remain key to building sustainable and reliable supply chains.

Regional integration is necessary, as not everything needed to respond to a health emergency will be made in Canada. For Canada’s life sciences sector to survive and thrive, working in concert with the United States — which is also anxious to increase the security of its own supply chains — is essential. In the wake of COVID-19, industrialized nations have learned the risks of isolation and have embraced the need to work with allies to advance mutual health security.

To be a worthwhile contributor to the life sciences supply chain requires that Canada adopt a strategic tradables mindset.

What niche gap in the global life sciences market can Canada fill? What demand does the Canadian domestic market have that the government can prioritize in its trade relationships? What demands do our largest market allies have that we can meet through developing and scaling products? Canada’s emphasis must be on the promotion and advancement of areas where it has the potential life sciences workforce skills, products, and capacity to meet domestic as well as international demand.

To do so, we propose that Canada:

1. Make “just in case” the procurement priority: Legislate and regulate comprehensive and proactive procurement, stockpiling, and replenishing of essential emergency supplies at all health-care facilities in Canada.
2. Focus on building partnerships: COVID-19 has spurred allies, such as the U.S., E.U. and Japan, to invest heavily in their own life sciences sectors. They are now looking for like-minded players. Canada should use the international connections and relationships developed by the CHSA to prioritize supply chain relationships with those countries.
3. Develop protocols and contingencies for diplomatic and economic leverage: The CHSA should play a key co-ordinating role to ensure federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as the private sector, work together to secure essential life sciences inputs in the event of a border closure or severed international trade agreements.
4. Leverage procurement and supply chain protections in international trade relationships: Life sciences can be approached as an essential component of national security in every aspect of Canada’s future trade diplomacy. Life sciences trade and supply chains can be elevated as a priority for Canada in negotiating international agreements and brokering new alliances.
5. Secure commitments with the U.S. to maintain open borders for trade in essential products, including during an international health emergency. As Canada’s closest geographic trade partner and ally, with interconnected manufacturing and production supply chains, it is critical to Canada’s health security to maintain an open and secure cross-border flow of goods with the U.S.

The best preparation for the next health security emergency is a strong, sustainable life sciences sector in Canada.

Canada is already internationally recognized as home to high-quality life sciences research and development, with an outsized number of research publications (3.8 per cent of global research publications)^[13] and a ranking among the top 10 research countries worldwide despite holding only 0.48 per cent of the global population.^[14] Much of this ground has been gained in the wake of the pandemic.

Canadian life sciences innovation hubs have been growing for decades in the British Columbia lower mainland, Greater Toronto Area, Montreal and Edmonton, all built around academic institutions and business incubators. These hubs generate new life science startups in the pharmaceutical, biotech, MedTech and therapeutics sectors, but more can be done to promote the growth of sustainable, scalable Canadian companies and attract foreign investment to Canada.

As an example of what Canada is missing, in May 2024, Eli Lilly and Company announced a $5-billion investment in Indiana to expand production of a key element of its diabetes and weight-loss drugs.^[15] Despite the advantage of free trade with the U.S., Eli Lilly did not consider expanding any of its biomanufacturing capacity into Canada. That leads to a question: Beyond small-scale investments from venture capital in Canadian life sciences startups, how can Canada become competitive for multinational investment as well?

Canada needs to integrate improved access to financing, mentorship of small companies and developing domestic talent in science, research, innovation, entrepreneurship, capital acquisition and management. And that needs to be combined with attracting international talent to Canada to help build a strong, globally competitive life sciences sector.

When it comes to investment in the sector, Canada faces stiff competition. Comparative venture capital trends in the Canadian and American life sciences sectors for 2023 and 2024 reveal a stark difference in overall funding, although Canadian investment has experienced a recent upswing. Canada’s life sciences sector showed a strong quarter in Q1 2024 for private and venture capital investments, clearing $425 million across 30 transactions.^[16] While most of the funding was allocated to two large investments, the total amount still represents an increase of three times the amount invested in Q4 2023.^[17] Comparatively, the amount invested in the American life sciences sector for roughly the same period (Q3 2023) was $18 billion^[18] — over 36 times as much as the Canadian sector.

Canadian venture capital investors tend to target larger portfolio companies rather than smaller startups — they comprise 16 per cent of investments in the Canadian life sciences market^[19], while the remainder comes from foreign investors.

Canada’s small-to-medium life sciences companies have the capacity, talent and resources to become large companies, yet too often end up being bought out by large foreign companies. In 2021, the rate of foreign ownership was 14.9 per cent, with the U.S. holding the highest percentage of those.^[20] Sustainability must be supported through the incubator and exporter stages by training and mentorship that allows domestic talent to build satisfying careers growing their enterprises within Canada. Companies must also encourage international talent to see their advancement and futures within life sciences while staying in Canada through the promotion of research and development ideas, products and patents in Canada. The result would be a more interdependent relationship between Canada and its allies, further integrating Canada into global life sciences markets.

Canada needs to maintain its global competitiveness in R&D spending, having fallen out of the top 10 nations^[21] despite CAD$19 billion in spending in 2022^[22]. Equally important is the need to overcome struggles in taking scalable discoveries to commercialization. That needs to happen while ensuring Canadian companies do not become feeders for foreign entities to scale Canadian ideas and innovations elsewhere.

A recognition that investment in life sciences is an essential part of national security, and can contribute to overall national economic growth, is a start. One leads to the other. Unlike other sectors of the economy, there is a vital intersection between life sciences and the not-for-profit health-care sector that benefits all Canadians. A strong life sciences sector can buttress public health systems with readily available, locally made products and services that can fill needs in normal times, as well as in the event of a health emergency. Infrastructure remains a key element to this process — from innovation hubs providing lifestyle havens for life sciences CEOs and staff that can maintain talent over the long term, to wet and dry labs that can rapidly pivot from consumer products to health security essentials in an emergency.

Equally important is a coordinated pan-Canadian regulatory environment that speaks to common U.S. regulatory standards so that Canada can build cross-border supply chains and pursue procurement agreements. The current differences between FDA and Health Canada approval criteria and post-market surveillance mean that additional consideration must be given to the quality of approved drugs and to post-market surveillance and risk management for approvals in Canada.^[23] A start could be an explicit recognition, as occurs in the United States, of the need to regulate with a mind to encouraging innovation.

The goal should be to develop a strong, diversified life sciences sector that is deeply integrated with Canada’s trading partners. This objective can be attained if we:

1. Support and incentivize financing at all stages of company development in the life sciences sector with a stated goal of building Canadian anchor companies: This could be supplemented through the introduction of fiscal and tax incentives to support foreign anchor companies setting up and staying in Canada. Our life sciences incentives must be competitive when pitted against those of our trading partners. Actions could include:

• Incentivizing investors to shift their focus toward cultivation of new companies as an essential element of life sciences system growth while balancing fiduciary responsibility. This means increasing the amount invested locally by government and venture capital into small and medium-sized life sciences companies, possibly by providing interest-free contributions and tax credits (such as British Columbia’s small business venture capital tax credit^[24]). These credits can encourage investors to increase their risk tolerance for life sciences seed and startup funding;
• Enacting early-stage SME investment policies and incentives for the life sciences that promote an increase in the number and overall size of Canadian venture capital funds interested in investing in the life sciences (i.e., creating the right mix of seed funding and larger impact investments);
• Promoting a shift in investor focus, including:
  • Boosting investor confidence in startup research and development by increasing the number of successful life sciences startups from early to mid-stage funding;
  • Mobilizing additional sources of funding linked to life sciences growth, including Canadian pension funds, by promoting sector value; and
  • Increasing translational funding through financing incentives to build greater domestic production, commercialization and consumption capacity.

2. Strengthen Canada’s life sciences research base:

• Help incentivize and build stronger linkages between universities (and their researchers) and the private life sciences sector through infrastructure such as shared facilities, as well as opportunities for knowledge translation;
• Embed academic research and development projects and smaller companies within larger, better funded life sciences companies to ensure increased and more sustainable long-term funding and innovation; and
• Align regulatory policy with private sector and venture capital interests to garner larger and longer-term investments.

3. Focus on co-ordination and co-operation:

• Synchronize provincial and territorial life sciences strategies, such as Ontario’s biotech and pharma clusters^[25] or British Columbia’s life sciences and biomanufacturing strategy,^[26] with the federal government’s Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy (BLSS).^[27] This would serve to leverage regional strengths, encouraging nationwide system development and shared investment attraction. This should be considered particularly as the federal government brings forward a renewed BLSS 2.0; and
• Promote interprovincial collaboration initiatives and value chains between life sciences hubs through the private sector and federal, provincial and territorial engagement.

Canada’s health security and pandemic preparedness can be realized only through a robust national life sciences ecosystem — one that develops and maximizes Canada’s comparative advantages. Canada’s life sciences sector is already world class, with strengths in academic research and innovation, biomanufacturing, pharmaceuticals and therapeutics production. As a country, we must more powerfully promote these strengths, freeing Canadian life sciences companies from the grip of substandard investment and creating a vibrant sector that supports health and well-being of Canadians in times of calm and in times of crisis.

We know what needs to be done. We need a co-ordinating agency. We need an asset map. We need to change our procurement mindset. We need to build partnerships with allies, as well as among our own provinces and territories, academic institutions and the private sector. We need legislation to facilitate data sharing and proprietary information for the public good. We need to strengthen Canada’s life sciences sector by incentivizing Canadian anchor companies. We need to negotiate a U.S. commitment for uninterrupted trade in life sciences essential products in the event of an international health emergency. And we need to measure our own progress. Together, these actions would secure Canada’s status as a top customer in the global market — one that can deliver greater health security for all Canadians.

While work has begun on some of the above-mentioned recommendations, there is ample room for acceleration. Creeping amnesia has already cost us time we cannot afford to lose.

Canada’s allies stand ready to meet oncoming threats with systemic, integrated approaches to public health emergencies and attacks, infectious diseases and pandemics. We cannot say the same of ourselves.

This report was informed in part by the insights generated by the PPF Life Sciences Forum (LSF) Leadership Table, which is co-chaired by Mark Lievonen (Principal, JML Advisory Services), and Dr. Ilse Treurnicht (PPF Board Chair and Managing Partner at Twin River Capital). The LSF Leadership Table includes representatives from PPF’s strategic and supporting partners, listed below:

STRATEGIC PARTNERS

• Health Canada
• CIHI (Canadian Institute for Health Information)
• adMare BioInnovations
• Hoffmann-La Roche Limited
• Johnson & Johnson Inc.
• ISED (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada)
• Eli Lilly Canada Inc.

SUPPORTING PARTNERS

• Stem Cell Network
• Moderna, Inc.
• Life Sciences Ontario
• CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health)
• Life Sciences British Columbia
• Canadian Red Cross
• GSK (GlaxoSmithKline)
• Genome Canada
• BioCanRx

1. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (July 28, 2021). Canada’s Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy. Government of Canada. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/biomanufacturing/en/canadas-biomanufacturing-and-life-sciences-strategy ↑
2. Government of Canada funds new projects to further grow the domestic biomanufacturing and life sciences sector – Canada.ca ↑
3. Taking Life Sciences to the Next Level – Ontario’s Strategy – pp. 3, 10. ↑
4. Waddell, C. (Sept. 25, 2023). The Next One: Preparing Canada for Another Health Emergency. Public Policy Forum. https://ppforum.ca/publications/canadians-health-security/ ↑
5. Administration for Strategic Preparedness & Response. (n.d.). Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://aspr.hhs.gov/AboutASPR/ProgramOffices/BARDA/Pages/default.aspx ↑
6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (June 13, 2024). BARDA awards up to $500 million in Project NextGen funding for vaccine clinical trials. U.S. government. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/06/13/barda-awards-500-million-project-nextgen-funding-vaccine-clinical-trials.html ↑
7. Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. (n.d.). Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority Overview. European Commission. https://health.ec.europa.eu/health-emergency-preparedness-and-response-hera/overview_en ↑
8. Ibid. ↑
9. European Commission. “Introducing HERA, the European Health Emergency preparedness and Response Authority, the next step toward completing the European Health Union” resource.html (europa.eu), p. 12 ↑
10. Administration for Strategic Preparedness & Response. (n.d.). BARDA Strategic Plan 2022-2026. U.S. government.https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/media/n02izq1s/barda-strategic-plan-2022-2026_one-pager-v10_asprcomms_508.pdf ↑
11. Hogberg, S. (April 16, 2024). Budget 2024: A glaring omission in Canada’s health security defenses. Public Policy Forum. https://ppforum.ca/policy-speaking/budget-2024-a-glaring-omission-in-canadas-health-security-defenses/#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20mention%2C%20however,response%20to%20the%20next%20crisis ↑
12. Health Canada. (June 25, 2024). Notice of intent to amend the regulations to address health product shortages in Canada. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-amend-regulations-address-health-product-shortages/notice-intent.html ↑
13. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. (March 2022). Evaluation of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) Canada’s funding to the Centre for Drug Research and Development (CDRD). Government of Canada. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/audits-evaluations/en/evaluation/evaluation-innovation-science-and-economic-development-ised-canadas-funding-centre-drug-research-and ↑
14. Unknown author. (n.d.). Canada Population (Live). Worldometer. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/#google_vignette ↑
15. Muller, M., and Almeida, I. (May 24, 2024). Lilly Invests $5.3 Billion to Boost Weight-Loss Drug Supply. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-24/lilly-invests-over-5-billion-to-boost-weight-loss-drug-supply?embedded-checkout=true ↑
16. Kornacki, D., et al. (n.d.). Canadian Venture Capital Market Overview: Q1 2024, p. 15. Canadian Venture Capital & Private Equity Association. https://reports.cvca.ca/books/usuc/#p=1 ↑
17. Ibid. ↑
18. 2024 U.S. Life Sciences Outlook | CBRE ↑
19. Venture capital in the Canadian life science industry (canada.ca) ↑
20. Statistics Canada. (Oct. 23, 2023). Foreign control in the Canadian economy, 2021. Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231023/dq231023a-eng.htm ↑
21. R&D spending by the top 2,500 R&D spenders crossed the €1.3 trillion mark in 2022 (wipo.int) ↑
22. Canada: domestic expenditures on R&D, by funding sector 2022 | Statista ↑
23. Unknown author. (n.d.). A Comprehensive Comparison: FDA vs. Health Canada Regulations. Compliance Online. https://www.complianceonline.com/resources/fda-vs-health-canada-regulations.html#:~:text=Differences%20between%20FDA%20and%20Health%20Canada&text=While%20Health%20Canada%20is%20part,approval%20processes%2C%20and%20overall%20standards ↑
24. Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation. (May 2023). Life Sciences in British Columbia: Sector profile / May 2023. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/initiatives-plans-strategies/technology-industry/life-sciences-biomanufacturing/2023_lifesciences_in_bc-sectorprofile.pdf ↑
25. Unknown author. (Apr. 8, 2022). Taking life sciences to the next level – Ontario’s strategy. Province of Ontario. https://www.ontario.ca/page/taking-life-sciences-next-level-ontarios-strategy ↑
26. Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation. (April 2023). Stronger BC for everyone: Life Sciences and Biomanufacturing Strategy. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/initiatives-plans-strategies/technology-industry/life-sciences-biomanufacturing/bc_life_sciences_biomanufacturing_strategy_final_april_2023.pdf ↑
27. Unknown author. (Apr. 11, 2024). Overview of Canada’s Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy. Government of Canada. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/biomanufacturing/en/overview-canadas-biomanufacturing-and-life-sciences-strategy ↑