While most Canadians are unaware, two quiet parliamentary studies could dramatically reshape how we access life-saving medicines. Flying under the radar in the current parliamentary session are two seemingly mundane studies by Parliamentary Standing Committees, yet their implications for medical innovation, pandemic preparedness, and access to medicines are profound. These studies deserve far more attention than they’re getting, especially because they risk perpetuating a troubling trend: the Canadian government prioritizing public investment in research and development (R&D) and biomanufacturing to boost private enterprise rather than directly improving public health. But here’s where it gets controversial: Is Canada inadvertently prioritizing corporate profits over the health of its citizens?
The first study, underway at the Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR), is deceptively titled “Private Sector Investment in Research and Development in Canada.” A closer look reveals its true focus: finding ways to “advance the commercialization of innovation emerging from research at Canadian universities to build a stronger innovative economy in Canada.” In simpler terms, it’s about transferring publicly funded research into private hands. This isn’t surprising, given Canada’s growing emphasis on R&D as an economic driver. Yet, it’s deeply concerning. Publicly funded research at universities has often been handed over to private companies, which then control who accesses the resulting medicines—and at what cost. This isn’t just about economics; it’s about life and death.
The second study, soon to begin at the Standing Committee on Health (HESA), focuses on “Canada’s Pharmaceutical Sovereignty.” This issue was thrust into the spotlight during COVID-19, when Canada faced shortages of existing drugs and struggled to access new vaccines. The pandemic exposed Canada’s limited domestic production capacity and its dangerous dependence on foreign trade and supply chains. It wasn’t until September 2025 that the first doses of a domestically produced COVID-19 vaccine were available. While the pandemic spurred much-needed public investment in biomanufacturing, much of this funding went to subsidize private companies, including multinational corporations. Is handing control to private actors—many based abroad—really the best way to achieve pharmaceutical sovereignty?
The pandemic highlighted a critical truth: public and private interests don’t always align, especially when it comes to health. Measures that transfer public funds or publicly funded R&D to the private sector must be carefully designed to ensure public benefits come first. Unfortunately, Canada has largely failed to do this, often to its own detriment.
Take the University of British Columbia, for example. During the COVID-19 crisis, UBC researchers developed groundbreaking innovations, including the monoclonal antibody treatment bamlanivimab and the lipid nanoparticle technology used in mRNA vaccines. Both originated from publicly funded research at a public university. Yet, after being spun off into private companies, these innovations received further public funding—only for the ultimate benefits to accrue primarily to private interests. AbCellera, for instance, became Canada’s most valuable biotech company, while Canada paid tens of millions for the very drug it helped create. And this is the part most people miss: Without access conditions tied to funding, Canada not only struggled to access its own innovations but ended up funding the World Health Organization’s mRNA Tech Transfer Hub in South Africa to reverse-engineer technology Canadians had already paid for.
Relying on private industry to bring products to market often disadvantages treatments with high public health impact but low commercial value. The WHO’s list of Essential Medicines includes drugs for deadly diseases like tuberculosis, yet many of these aren’t sold in Canada because they’re deemed unprofitable. Patients who need these medicines face serious access challenges, raising questions about Canada’s ability to exercise true pharmaceutical sovereignty.
Even when Canadian researchers develop life-saving treatments, dependence on profit-driven companies can stall progress. The first effective vaccine against the most common form of Ebola originated at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg. Yet, the vaccine’s journey to market was a saga of missed opportunities and profiteering, illustrating why Canada shouldn’t rely solely on industry.
This lesson is urgent. Recent outbreaks of diseases like Lassa Fever, Marburg virus, and the Sudan form of Ebola virus have promising vaccine candidates originating from Canada’s NML. Yet, funding to advance these innovations has come from foreign governments, not Canada. Why is Canada outsourcing its own breakthroughs?
The Canadian government has a chance to shift its strategy—from subsidizing a lucrative industry to filling the gaps commercial interests ignore. It must proactively identify these gaps and prioritize health needs over industry desires. Simply having biomanufacturing capacity on Canadian soil isn’t enough. Take the Biologics Manufacturing Centre (BMC) in Montreal, which has been idle since 2022 despite receiving $17 million annually. The government’s approach of operating it as a contract manufacturer for private companies has failed. Instead, with a comparatively small investment, Canada could meet both domestic and global needs for critical products like monoclonal antibody treatments.
Canada can—and should—abandon its failing strategy of appeasing private interests in the hope it will ensure affordable access to medicines. Let’s hope these Committees conclude that pharmaceutical sovereignty must prioritize patients over profits. But what do you think? Is Canada’s approach to R&D and biomanufacturing on the right track, or is it time for a radical shift? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is a conversation we can’t afford to ignore.
