Science and Research Committee on March 21st, 2023

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Would you use royalties in the same way with intellectual property then? Is that how you're viewing that when you talk about royalties?

[Dr. Baljit Singh]

Yes, I'm talking about royalties as a benefit of the intellectual property. That's one of the benefits when we create a protection on a piece of knowledge.

Sometimes when we are working with producers to solve a problem on the farm, we may just generate the knowledge, give it openly and not create a patent on it, so that it's available to the Canadian farmers without any worry about the use of that piece of knowledge.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I guess I'm wondering.... There's good support for universities as far as innovation and invention, but not much on economic development. How do we hang on to that intellectual property?

Ms. Hayashi, I don't know if you have anything to add to that.

[Kathryn Hayashi]

I think there's almost a feeling that, once you patent something, it's ready to go. There's so much more to making something commercially successful than simply filing a patent. I think that's exactly what you're talking about.

We really need to find those resources to put people on projects to accelerate them. Most researchers don't have the skills or expertise to immediately start a successful company. How do we connect them with the right people to add to the team to advance that technology?

That's the space that TRIUMF Innovations is in. It's providing business development support and providing the people who are going to figure out what companies are in this space, call them or receive calls from companies that are interested in working with trials, and then work to translate that.

I think this is what Dr. Singh was talking about with culture change. The academic culture and what academic researchers focus on are quite different.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Maxime Blanchette-Joncas]

Sorry to interrupt, Ms. Hayashi, but Mr. Mazier is out of time.

Go ahead, Ms. Bradford. You have five minutes.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. Please excuse my laryngitis voice today. I'm sorry. I know it's very annoying.

Ms. Hayashi, you made reference to the Creative Destruction Lab. It seems a bit of an oxymoron. I haven't had a chance to see this, so could you just elaborate on what goes on there and what kinds of things you're creatively destructing?

[Kathryn Hayashi]

It's a really remarkable program that started off in Vancouver and then sort of went viral. Now there's a Creative Destruction Lab Rockies, there's one in the Maritimes and there are subsections for health sciences, space and quantum. The idea obviously has a lot of interesting momentum behind it, but basically it gathers together mentor investors. This is a really key thing.

When we sent our start-up company into the Creative Destruction Lab, they said they didn't really want to go into another accelerator where somebody would tell them how to write their business plan one more time. I said, no, the difference is that the people involved in this are investors, and after every round, the investors at the table are asked if any of them is still interested in working with this company or how many people are still interested in potentially investing in this company. If nobody puts up their hand, the company is exited. It really forces people to look at really tangible things, not theoretical things. It's not “Does somebody want to invest in this company?” It's “Do I want to invest in the company? Does my colleague want to invest in the company?”

We've seen a lot of investment come and a lot of the companies really being incented to make the milestone or do the work to get to the next meeting, because they know that investment dollars are literally at the table when they're speaking to the investors. I think it's a really interesting model, and I would encourage you to take a look. I'm sure we could get you invited to the UBC one if you would like, but there are other ones across the country.

It's a really interesting and successful piece. We've made excellent contacts that have helped us with not just one technology but now looking at new technologies, and the contacts we've made there are helping us with things like “You should talk to so-and-so” or, if this is a mining technology, “Let me introduce you to somebody.” It's really wonderful networking.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

It's more like a pitch program. We have some hubs and things like that here in Ontario. It sounds as though it's kind of like pitching and trying to connect with investors and partners.

[Kathryn Hayashi]

It is a pitch program. I think the subtle difference is that the investors are there to invest in those technologies. The idea is that, by the end of the program, some of them will have invested in the technologies that have been successfully advanced through the program.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay. That's great.

The next question is for Dr. Singh.

National security and patents transferred to foreign countries have been raised previously. Under the Investment Canada Act, investments from foreign investors are subject to ICA review, including those in sensitive sectors, which receive enhanced scrutiny. Our government has introduced Bill C-34, which updates the national security review process of the ICA by including a new requirement for pre-implementation filing that would seek to prevent the transfer of IP and other sensitive information before a review is completed. This would prevent the company from closing a transaction before the review is completed and, therefore, stop any transfer of sensitive IP and other sensitive information.

Can you comment on the importance of this sort of review?

[Dr. Baljit Singh]

We continue to work with the federal government on any directions on the security of our research, the knowledge we create and the knowledge we organize with any particular entity. Guidance and advice from the federal government are always sought. I would say this is a very new landscape for the universities. We are learning how to do better and also how to comply with all of the new requirements that are coming through. There are quite a few conversations on that.

What we need to figure out, within that space, is how not to lose time, ability and speed when we have something very sensitive that we need to mobilize somewhere. I think we are in the early stage of this particular new environment of national security and the security of our research enterprise. We are looking after three or four medical research facilities at the University of Saskatchewan—from vaccines to a synchrotron to a nuclear cyclotron, and we continue to work together with the federal government. Again I will submit that speed is the key. We need to find a way not to slow things down any further from where we are.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you so much for that feedback.

Those are all of the questions—and voice—that I have.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Maxime Blanchette-Joncas]

Thank you, Ms. Bradford.

That concludes the question and answer portion.

I want to thank the witnesses who joined us for the second half of today's meeting.

Ms. Hayashi and Professor Singh, thank you for being here and sharing your insights. You can leave the meeting now.

[Dr. Baljit Singh]

Thank you so very much for this privilege.

[Kathryn Hayashi]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Maxime Blanchette-Joncas]

Honourable members, we have to deal with something before we end today.

Last week, the clerk sent out a draft budget for our study on support for the commercialization of IP.

Does anyone have any questions about it?

Can I have a mover so we can adopt the budget?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I move that the budget be adopted as is.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Maxime Blanchette-Joncas]

Before I let you go, honourable members, I want to tell you that we received Mr. Champagne's written response to a question he was asked when he appeared before the committee on February 2. It was sent out to the committee members during today's meeting.

Do I have the committee's consent to post the minister's response on the committee's website?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I didn't see the minister's response.

I think we should look at it first and discuss it at the next meeting.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Maxime Blanchette-Joncas]

That's fine. The committee's desire is my command. We can certainly discuss it next time.

We meet next on Thursday, March 23. The notice of meeting will be published very soon.

The meeting is adjourned.