Science and Research Committee on Oct. 29th, 2025

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to pre-empt what I suspect you will hear from my colleagues across, which is that this is the result of Liberal government policies. We know companies have been moving south regardless of who has been in power. It happened during the Harper administration. It happened during the last government. It happens all the time.

The question we all need to think about is, what do we need to do to ensure that this ecosystem exists?

I'm one of those entrepreneurs who had to build companies outside Canada because the capital was elsewhere. A lot of us have come back, because we believe in what this country can be. How do we make sure that entrepreneurs who have done this and want to contribute and come back with the research to support innovators in this country are able to do that? How do we work with those innovators? How do we work with those entrepreneurs to expose them to the amazing research and innovation happening so they can also help unlock the mentorship and capital required?

I think we all understand the problem. The question is, what would your researchers tell us they want to see from the industry itself, not just among the VCs out there but also among their fellow aspiring entrepreneurs?

[Dugan O'Neil]

I think there are a number of different things we can do. One of them I mentioned in my recommendations at the opening.

One of the things we hear about from companies, whether they are the companies that have moved or the companies that are considering whether or not they can stay in Canada, is the lack of a Canadian market for what they do. Our colleagues in the United States work to create a market for innovative ideas through their government procurement policies and through the way they do business in the United States. That creates a large enough market for those companies to know that they can sell once they finalize the creation of their product.

Quite often, companies that come to us are looking for research support. They also may be looking for a path to get their first customer, and we can be an independent place that validates the quality of the work they've done and the value of that product.

That piece, creating a Canadian customer for these companies, is a key missing thing from the system in Canada. In fact, I've even seen it be, in a way, prohibited by the way our.... We have many trade deals around the world that say we have to treat all bids that come from all countries equally. We need to have something that favours Canadian SMEs in this process.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I think my time is up.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas.

Please go ahead. You will have six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are with us today.

My first question is for Mr. McDonald.

Quebec now has 59 college centres for technology transfer, commonly known as CCTTs, which are present in all regions, from Rimouski to Sherbrooke, Sept-Îles, Thetford and Montreal. These are key centres for regional innovation, technical training and partnerships with small and medium-sized businesses in particular, which are the heart of Quebec's economy.

In its 2025 pre-budget submission, Colleges and Institutes Canada wrote that new investments should address funding inequities between the CCTT network and technology access centres in the rest of the country.

Let me explain. Currently, the 59 college centres for technology transfer receive $100,000 in grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Technology access centres—more or less CCTTs' equivalents in the rest of Canada—receive $350,000. That's a difference of $250,000 per centre every year.

How long has that inequity existed?

[Michael McDonald]

That inequity has existed since the program was created in 2010 or 2011. The reason given was that Quebec was also responsible for research funding and support for these systems. The inequity must be corrected. It was partially addressed by the 2023 investments, but there are major risks if those investments are not maintained. If we lose these investments, we will return to a system that we have serious concerns about. That will do real damage in Quebec. That's one of our big concerns.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, QC]

Let's recap this using figures. The Prime Minister is an economist and does math, so we'll do math together.

If we multiply $250,000 by 59 centres over 15 years, we see that the federal government owes roughly $15 million to Quebec's college centres for technology transfer. I would like my colleagues and the government to understand the following: For 15 years, they have been laughing at us and not correcting the inequities, and that is unacceptable. At some point, we will have to take matters into our own hands and leave this federation, which has held us in contempt for the past 15 years, unless people start listening to reason.

Mr. McDonald, I hope you can understand my outrage. We have been laughed at for 15 years. What's really ridiculous is that college centres for technology transfer are the inspiration for technology access centres in the rest of Canada. The Canadian government drew inspiration from the Quebec model, and it is penalizing Quebec because the Quebec model existed before and then Canada created its own network. It's like saying that we are too good of a player for the system, so we are penalized.

Personally, I'm trying to understand the economic impact of this $15-million shortfall in funding over 15 years. I don't want to get into a numbers war, but I tried to do the math, and I think you understand the impact of that $250,000 shortfall per centre over 15 years. As a representative of Colleges and Institutes Canada, can you tell me how that limits commercialization, research results and the ability to make private investments over 15 years, among other things? What impact do you think that has on Quebec's economy?

[Michael McDonald]

The figures we presented clearly show that there is a relationship between the federal government's investments and research projects that lead to new products and local innovations. There are currently about 9,000 projects and 9,000 direct innovations in the system. We could come up with a formula to make an estimate, but it is true that we see an increase in innovation when there is more investment. The 2023 investments included a direct transfer to college centres for technology transfer to try to address this inequity, but there's still work to be done to get there. We have to find a solution to this problem.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, QC]

At the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, where these funds for college centres for technology transfer come from, to my knowledge, they pride themselves on promoting the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion. So the granting agency that promotes equity values creates inequity. Do you see the hypocrisy of the federal government, which has been penalizing Quebec for 15 years and boasts about being fair? That is the truth. That's what we're experiencing.

I hope that our colleagues and people in the government are listening to us. I am proud to stand up for the people I represent because they pay their taxes, and 50% of those taxes go to the federal government. We have been laughed at for 15 years, and it is time for it to stop.

I commend Colleges and Institutes Canada for speaking out on this issue to start raising awareness within government. I hope to see something in the next budget, even though it doesn't look very good right now. When the minister who is supposed to represent science removes the word “science” from her title, it means that the government does not place as much importance on research and science.

Madam Chair, that concludes my first speaking turn, but I hope that some people have understood the message.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now start our second round with MP Mahal.

MP Mahal, you will have five minutes for your round of questioning. Please go ahead.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both of the witnesses who spared time to come to this important committee hearing.

I will start with Mr. McDonald.

I want to ask a simple question about the funding. I listened to your testimony and your opening statement. You are in touch with the market on a more core level in the research you do, compared to universities and the research they do. How much funding do the colleges receive from the granting councils, and how does that compare with the universities, in your opinion, in simple math that common Canadians can understand?

[Michael McDonald]

As part of the research investment from the tri-agencies.... Again, research dollar expenditures in the country can be calculated in a few different ways, depending on the transfer. From the mainline transfers, colleges and institutes across the country receive less than 4% of the direct transfers. The college system receives about $180 million in support across a variety of different federal programs, again, representing a little bit under 4% of research expenditures. You can map that money out, then, to other investments that obviously represent the lion's share of that.

We would say, though, that the main thing that has become critical for this discussion is making sure that the question we're trying to resolve remains centred, which is that, at the end of the day, there is a benefit from the research that is being done for Canadians in communities. That includes being able to leverage the international research that's being done to ensure that small businesses can thrive and scale and that we can have an economy that creates strong job numbers and good livelihoods through that.

We think that's one of the reasons the college system, through really anchoring the research question with our partner, is a fundamentally important part of a research ecosystem question. It's one that it's time for, especially right now, when it's critical for Canadian firms to be able to pivot, adapt and change in a challenging economic environment.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Thank you for the answer.

My next question is again for you. It is in response to something Mr. O'Neil said. You clearly heard him say there is a lack of a Canadian market, and one of the reasons is government procurement when it comes to funding the research so that it stays within Canada and the researchers who are educated or graduate with the help of Canadian taxpayers' money can stay in Canada so that Canadians at large can benefit. He made a comparison with another jurisdiction that provides more procurement.

Are you satisfied with the level of procurement that the current Canadian government provides, and do you see any avenues for betterment in that?

[Michael McDonald]

I'd say that what we're probably seeing right now is that the nature of what will be precious investments across any kind of sector.... It will become critical that we leverage them to the highest degree.

The college and institute system has put together a special network across more than 60 of our members to respond to the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces in terms of innovation and also on the talent pipeline side. That ability to stack and combine areas of investment and impact will, we think, be necessary. A system that wants to respond to the major challenges Canada is facing and adapt to them can provide us with a mechanism by which to ensure that the system aligns with federal initiatives, and that it also aligns with the needs of the country in general.

To the question about being able to find opportunity to work with federal procurement, there are sectors that work quite well through the college system, such as through the NRC and IRAP. We've also worked actively with Mitacs, which has provided clear benefits through the college system and learned how to operate in the college system. There's plenty more opportunity for that, especially because this system operates differently than other research systems in the country.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Given that answer, are you satisfied with the level of procurement the Canadian government is currently providing, whether it's to college research or university research, so the market can stay in Canada?

[Michael McDonald]

The key piece here, for us, is the ability to support the small businesses and community businesses that receive the procurement. Again, the partner-led component is so essential in making sure Canadian firms can access those kinds of opportunities and can come to us if they need that support.

Again, the system wants to be able to find those partners. We're looking for opportunities for those who may receive federal contracts in defence or in a bunch of other ways. Our system's role is to support them through those kinds of processes and to make sure the investment gets leveraged in the best way possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. The time is up.

We will now go to MP Jaczek for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses today.

Dr. O'Neil, Simon Fraser University appears to have had quite a bit of success, from the way you described the continuum from basic research through to commercialization, IP, etc.

In your recommendations, you mentioned national innovation priorities. How do you see these priorities being developed across Canada? I think you made reference to the capstone structure that is being developed. Could you elaborate a bit on how you see that process, in terms of looking across the country and developing those innovation priorities?

[Dugan O'Neil]

It's important to recognize that Canada has real strengths in some research and innovation areas, and that we have to do a better job as a country in capitalizing on those strengths. Identifying areas in which we are strong can be measured in a bunch of different ways. Certainly, on the academic side, if we're producing talent in our university system in a particular area and know that this talent can feed and grow industry in that area.... This is one piece of analysis that should be done.

I would also look for Canadian anchor companies—companies that could grow if given the right conditions. This doesn't mean they already have 5,000 employees. It means they have the potential to grow.

Looking at the system and choosing some areas in which we have built strengths—and where, with the right conditions, those strengths can lead to economic benefit—is the way I would do it. Different parts of the country have different anchor companies, different strengths and different research, so I would do an analysis of that type.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Do you think it is a federal responsibility to establish those types of priorities?

[Dugan O'Neil]

I think so. The federal government would be working with provincial governments and others in order to do so. However, given that the federal government provides a significant fraction of research support funds for universities across the country, it has to take an important role in establishing those.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. McDonald, we've heard quite a bit about applied research, not only in the course of this study, but previously at this committee. I think we have all been—I can speak for myself—very impressed by some of the work that's being done, particularly at Niagara College, which was mentioned earlier.

To what extent do you see the collaboration...? We've heard about the funding situation, but to what extent could you work with the university sector to share some of that funding? I'm wondering if this is being done with any universities.

I'm familiar with York University having a very strong partnership with Seneca College, but I haven't heard whether there's collaboration on research and commercialization, etc.

[Michael McDonald]

That's a fantastic question. There are numerous different collaborations between Canada's university and college systems.

Marc Nantel, whom you had here last week, leads the SONAMI advanced manufacturing consortium in southern Ontario. It is a consortium of seven colleges and two universities, McMaster and Queen's, which are able to bring their expertise to that question.

This is part of the structure of how federal financing, through the capstone structure that will be brought forward, is able to tackle questions. If we decide that we're going to centre impactful research through certain programs, demonstrating who is best able to handle certain problems and challenges.... The university system in Canada brings great expertise to a variety of these challenges, but when it's leveraged with a college system that brings its own unique expertise, we can deliver on missions, whether they be on AI, defence procurement or other areas of challenge.

Homebuilding is a great example. There are opportunities in the nature of the fundamental research that is ongoing, making sure that it's transitioning in a variety of organic ways to market, to industry and into the hands of entrepreneurs and SMEs that are doing that work right now. That continuum is an active one, and we think that as federal programming comes forward, especially in the years to come and how we see the capstone rolling out, anchoring the core notion we want to achieve with that research—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I apologize for interrupting.

The time is up for MP Jaczek. Maybe you can finish this in the next round.

We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. McDonald, I want to come back to what I mentioned a little earlier. Since 2010, Quebec has been deprived of approximately $200 million in federal funding for its college centres for technology transfer, simply because it is subject to different rules from the rest of the country, not to mention the impact on our economy and our regions.

In your opinion, by underfunding what Quebec is doing best, isn't Ottawa reminding us daily that it would be preferable for Quebec to fully take back its collective development levers?