Evidence of meeting #15 for Science and Research in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was companies.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Hannigan  Associate Professor, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Doyle  Executive Director, Tech-Access Canada
McCauley  President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Calgary
Linke  Chief Executive Officer, Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute
Outterson  Founding Executive Director, CARB-X

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you so much.

Welcome back, Ken. My question is for you again. It's good to see you here.

The government announced a productivity superdeduction to incentivize investment in this new budget. While this deduction accelerates writeoffs, it does nothing to address the structural issues behind Canada's productivity crisis: high taxes, regulatory delays, slow approvals, capital flight and a declining competitiveness compared to peer countries. A faster writeoff doesn't solve those fundamental barriers.

How do you think it could meaningfully change SMEs and help them commercialize, with just a writeoff program and without eliminating these barriers that are in place?

11:50 a.m.

Executive Director, Tech-Access Canada

Ken Doyle

Thank you for the question.

I know my colleagues at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are quite seized with the red tape and the regulatory piece.

What I noticed with the accelerated writeoff is that at Tech-Access Canada, our centres deal with a lot of companies that are prone to techno-lust. They may go to a trade show over in Europe and see this incredible piece of equipment and think, “Wow, we need that,” and they spend $600,000 or $700,000 on a robot welder. Then it arrives on a pallet and they have no idea what to do with it. They come to us and we explain, “Okay, you probably didn't need to get that one. You would have been fine with this much more scaled-down version, but now we can help you take this off-the-shelf, bleeding-edge equipment and integrate it into your workflow.” Effectively, they don't know what they don't know.

It'd be interesting to have a layer on there so companies could come to a technology access centre to get an objective assessment of what technologies they could adopt. They'd be spending their money wisely on the right equipment for the right situation for their needs, and then being able to write off that capex would be fantastic because those resources could potentially be devoted to other research and development or commercialization activities.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to help fund more applied research rather than to just create another writeoff?

11:55 a.m.

Executive Director, Tech-Access Canada

Ken Doyle

It's facilitating access to objective innovation intermediaries who will tell them, “This is the right use case for you. It'll be different from your neighbour down the street.” Other countries that have lightly borrowed the technology access centre model are using that as a way to put those centres as a stage gate in between companies and government supports funded by taxpayers to make sure they get objective advice on the right solution for their unique challenge. Maybe that's something we might want to look into.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you very much.

I'm going to ask the professor here a question as well.

We've heard from multiple witnesses—

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

The time is up.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Is it?

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

I'm sorry, but yes.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

We will end this panel with MP Noormohamed for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our guests.

I want to begin by taking a brief moment to clarify some things that have been said throughout this conversation by my friends across. It's nice to see them embracing the need for more funding for science and research. I think their base may have some challenges with that given the narrative about defunding universities, but here we are.

There are a few things I think are important in this budget that I'd love your opinion on, Professor Hannigan.

One is $1.7 billion for new researchers. There is $1 billion on a cash-on-cash basis for venture, and there is $750 million for early-stage companies. As a former entrepreneur, these were things I really wanted to see in this country, like access to early-stage capital. I had to raise my money outside the country, so it's nice that it's happening here or will hopefully happen here.

We've also heard this narrative about the tax rate in this country, but at 13% now, Canada will have the lowest effective corporate tax rate in the G7, much to, I hope, the delight of members opposite.

If we take initiatives like the streamlining of the SR and ED process, the productivity superdeduction and accelerated pathing for H-1B visas and the types of workers we actually need in tech and innovation here and bundle all that together, does that not now give Canada something it hasn't had in the past, which is the capacity to really build an ecosystem for many of the folks who are coming out of institutions like yours and are looking for early-stage capital and access to the vehicles and the means by which to grow, innovate and build here in this country?

11:55 a.m.

Associate Professor, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Timothy Hannigan

Those are all positives, but my core message here is that companies need functioning ecosystems that make R and D investments strategically sensible and not just tax advantages.

Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

Let's talk about that for a brief moment.

One of the big priorities in this budget is buying Canadian—incentivizing government and incentivizing Canadian corporations to buy Canadian. If that budget doesn't pass and that provision isn't there, surely that will be a gap. However, if that provision passes as part of this budget, would that not then address precisely what you're talking about—incentivizing Canada to buy Canadian, incentivizing Canadian governments to buy Canadian and incentivizing Canadian businesses to buy Canadian?

11:55 a.m.

Associate Professor, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Timothy Hannigan

The spirit of it does. Do the specifics? Maybe.

I think this is where we need to collectively appreciate that the history of Silicon Valley is in part because of DARPA, which was the Department of Defense.

Is Canada going to link its investments in our military with building an ecosystem? I don't know.

Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC

I think that's where you've seen Polaris and you've seen a lot of what's coming out now in terms of dual use and the ability to fund that to the tune of over $3 billion. Let's hope that this government is going to try to do what you're talking about and align in a way we all hope.

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

With that, this panel comes to an end. I really want to thank, on behalf of all the members, all three witnesses for their testimony today.

We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes, so that we can get the witnesses for the second panel on board.

The meeting is suspended.

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

I call the meeting to order.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can make a selection for the appropriate channel for interpretation of floor, English or French. This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For this panel, I would like to welcome our two witnesses, who are both joining us by video conference.

We are joined by Cam Linke, chief executive officer of Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute. We are also joined by Professor Kevin Outterson, founding executive director for CARB-X.

Both witnesses will have five minutes for their opening remarks. Then we will proceed to the rounds of questioning.

Mr. Linke, we will start with you. You have the floor, and you will have five minutes.

Cam Linke Chief Executive Officer, Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute

Thank you, Chair and honourable members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you all today.

My name is Cam Linke. I'm the CEO of AMII, the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute, one of Canada's three national centres of excellence in artificial intelligence.

Our mission encompasses fundamental research, applied innovation and the diffusion of technology, specifically artificial intelligence, across Canada, which I believe provides us with a unique vantage point on the committee's study.

To start, Canada should take a lot of pride in its scientific leadership in artificial intelligence. Researchers such as Richard Sutton, Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, our three Turing award laureates—one of whom did win a Nobel Prize—laid the foundations of modern artificial intelligence and positioned Canada as a global leader in AI research excellence. In fact, if you look, you'll see that nearly all of the core AI advances that are powering the global AI revolution today can be traced back to researchers at Canada's three AI institutes.

That said, investment in AI research and development by Canadian industry has been relatively weak. Today I'm going to focus on three challenges that we see in the Canadian economy and three things that we found helpful in overcoming them.

At AMII, we've now worked with hundreds of companies, from small start-ups and SMEs to large firms, and we consistently see three structural barriers across Canada that limit private sector engagement.

The first, just to be clear, is the structure of Canada's economy, and I think we need to be realistic about this.

In Canada, we have a small number of large firms, which often operate in protected markets, and a very large number of SMEs. These large, structurally protected firms often lack the competitive pressure to pursue ambitious R and D. Further, SMEs, which make up the vast majority of Canadian businesses, frequently want to innovate but lack the capital or expertise to do so, and since a relatively low number of graduate student researchers are working within Canadian companies, many of those companies lack the internal capacity to identify and execute meaningful projects.

The second barrier is around our funding architecture. Canada tends to be a funding ecosystem that is heavy on grants but light on risk capital. We offer a number of programs, but they're often dominated by small, fragmented grants that require significant administrative overhead to achieve impact. Grant funding in and of itself isn't a bad thing; it's great to be able to make targeted investments. That said, compared to risk capital, often in the form of venture capital, grant funding leads to smaller and less impactful applied research being done in Canadian companies.

A third barrier is the absence of foundational research infrastructure. Companies can't invest in R and D if the necessary infrastructure isn't in place. Access to compute, specialized facilities, secure environments and data pipelines that connect universities to industry are essential. Without these, firms face an impossible choice—build the infrastructure themselves, which is often cost-prohibitive, or take the research elsewhere. As an example, many AI advances that began here in Canada found their commercial impact outside of Canada, where the necessary computing resources were available.

At AMII, we've seen these three challenges first-hand and worked with our partners to tackle them. I'd like to highlight three ways that we've seen success.

The first is in early-stage support. At AMII, our advanced technology program collaborates with companies to identify research opportunities that drive business value. Then we work with them very closely to make sure that the research project succeeds. For SMEs in Canada, this early expertise helps de-risk the project without requiring significant upfront investment and enables them to source the talent necessary to progress in their projects. It should be noted that typically this company engagement is made without grant support, which I'm saying as a positive thing. This is where companies have seen the value in these engagements and have seen the groundwork to be able to invest.

Next, let's consider the availability of computing infrastructure.

A great deal has been said about the computing requirements needed for success in AI. Programs like the pan-Canadian AI compute environment, recent announcements of compute in the federal budget and partnerships with Canadian companies such as Denvr Dataworks have provided capacity for research industry collaborations to take place. These have led to larger collaborations that drive impact in domains such as health care and energy, where the scale of these projects wouldn't have been possible without the available infrastructure.

It should be noted also that outside the area of AI, we've seen investments like these drive clusters of impact. For example, many quantum and chip start-ups collaborate with researchers at the University of Alberta due to the government's investment in the university's nanotechnology fabrication facilities.

Finally, we have found that breaking down the so-called language barriers has been vital in creating opportunities for industry to invest in research. At AMII, we talk a lot about “bilingual researchers”, researchers who speak both the languages of a specific domain like energy, biology or health care, as well as artificial intelligence. As part of our recent hiring of new principal investigators to our group, we targeted researchers who would provide this dual expertise. Bringing in researchers who deeply understand the domains of application have broken down the barriers that at times can exist between academia and industry. We expect this to continue to drive increasing competitive advantage for Canadian companies in the coming years.

To summarize, targeted research investments, cross-domain researchers and providing early project hand-holding and talent can lower the barrier to entry for research investment by Canadian industry and increase research and development overall.

In order for Canada to lead both in AI and other fields in the coming years, we need Canadian industry as well as governments to invest—

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

Can you quickly wind up, please?

12:15 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute

Cam Linke

We look forward to working with everyone on growing that leadership.

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Professor Outterson.

Please go ahead. You will have five five minutes for your opening remarks.

Kevin Outterson Founding Executive Director, CARB-X

Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for having me.

I'm Kevin Outterson, a professor at Boston University and the founding executive director of CARB-X. We're the largest non-profit initiative in the world that supports and translates early-stage development of innovative products to treat, prevent and diagnose bacterial infections. We have been a recipient of funding from the Canadian government since 2023, and we are very grateful for this support.

Today, I am going to focus on Canada’s role in financing a complementary mix of push and pull incentives for new antibiotics that will help drive and grow private sector investment in research and development in Canada, in addition to addressing the public health need both in Canada and around the world for new antibiotics now.

As you may well be aware, given the concern about antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, the market for antibiotics is broken. This is a product that comes to the market, and we want to use it as little as possible in the first several years. That's great for public health, but it's a disaster for small companies. We need both push and pull incentives, grant-based things that happen before approval and also something that happens after approval and it reaches the market, to make these products available to everyone, especially to Canadians who, in my prior academic work, came in dead last amongst the G7 in terms of access to new antibiotics.

We want to also encourage more private sector activity in this area. We're non-profit, but we work with all of the private sector companies that do this research.

Two years ago, I served as an international member of the expert panel for the Council of Canadian Academies project that led to the report called “Overcoming Resistance”, building on prior work by CCA and the pan-Canadian action plan. This is a great report. The consensus is clear. It says that, without new incentives, the antibiotic pipeline is going to be perilously thin and that Canadians are going to lack access, worse than any other G7 country.

Second, the report said that, if you do both push and pull incentives, you are going to restore health to the pipeline. Canada can be a leader within the G7 on this issue, and you can protect the foundation of modern medicine. You wouldn't have a knee replacement or many cancer treatments; they would be less safe and more dangerous if you didn't have the safety net of antibiotics.

These incentives work in different ways against the same problem. They work together and are both essential. Canada has already been acting on this. The Public Health Agency of Canada invested in CARB-X two years ago. We're grateful for that.

CARB-X is currently supported by six G7 governments, including Canada, and three private foundations: Wellcome, Gates and Novo, as well as the European Commission, who will be announcing their support for us later in the year.

This important role was mentioned four times in the last G7 health ministers' communiqué and also in the G20. It was also mentioned at the UN General Assembly's high-level meeting on antimicrobial resistance last year. We've had 22 products make it to human clinical trials. Three have reached the market, which is remarkable, given how thin the pipeline is.

We're really grateful for the partnership with the Canadian government, which was historically represented by PHAC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, but is now transitioning to health emergency readiness Canada, HERC, which will continue at a level that is commensurate, we hope, with other G7 governments. Considering what other governments are giving us, the Canadian amount would be something like $6 million per year. The U.S. government is contributing $55 million, for example. Germany gives $15 million, and Italy contributes $12 million.

The push incentives, like what you did with CARB-X, lower the cost of R and D. Obviously we think they're useful, but we also need pull incentives. The “Overcoming Resistance” report has a very important pilot program on pull incentives, a revenue guarantee across Canada. This is very valuable, and it is important that we get that right, when the pilot comes out, for it to be effective in working with the market so that Canadians have access and research development is supported.

Canada’s science community is world class. A colleague of mine, Professor Gerry Wright from McMaster, is also testifying at this hearing at some point in the future. He is one of the leading researchers of the world. A recent important paper in Nature came out of a discovery in his lab. He told me—and said I could share with you—that out of the 87 trainees, post-docs, Ph.D. students and techs who have worked in his lab in the decades that he has been working at McMaster, today, only seven of them are still working in antimicrobial resistance.

There's a human capital problem, and there's a pipeline problem. They need to be solved by a combination of push and pull. I'm grateful for what Canada is doing to make that happen.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

Thank you.

We will start our round of questioning. The first round will be for six minutes each.

We will start with MP Ho for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first questions are for Mr. Linke.

You mentioned in your opening statement that private investment in Canada in research and artificial intelligence has been relatively weak. Do you think this is the result of a failure in government policy that's causing our companies to fall behind our peers?

The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid

Is he frozen? Can you stop the clock? We will check.

MP Ho, can you pass it on to Mr. Outterson, or would you like to ask...?