Science and Research Committee on Nov. 19th, 2025

[Morgan Lehtinen]

Thank you for the question. It's a very important one.

As you mentioned, we have difficulty translating those inventions to innovation. I'll speak specifically from the chemical and clean-technology sector, which I represent. Bringing those to market is extremely expensive. You need multiple and diverse expertise, from the scientists to the engineers to the industry adopters, and the wraparound business expertise. Additionally to that, there's this valley of death because of the complexities that go in.

I think what we need to do to ensure that we can translate those to economic benefit—I mentioned this in my recommendations—is create a national framework to be able to speak the same language so that we can validate and de-risk the technologies earlier. The private sector adopters are feeling more comfortable. They're able to get the dollars into those technologies and move them along.

That's also coupled with critical infrastructure. The facilities—the laboratory, the piloting scale and the demonstration space you need—differ along the entire commercialization pathway. For example, our facility has over 200,000 square feet. We have physical infrastructure to bring those technologies to market with piloting and demonstration bays and being able to work with other organizations across the country.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you for giving us more details, Ms. Lehtinen, but I think I have the answers to my questions.

Canada says it wants to be the world leader in innovation. However, what is in the latest budget? Cuts are being made to research through a 2% reduction in the budget of the three granting agencies. Scholarships have not been increased or indexed to support young researchers and current research.

Personally, I have a hard time understanding that. I have a plant at home. If I don't water it, do you think it's going to be able to grow?

[Morgan Lehtinen]

We need to have continued investment into bringing those technologies through. That's where connection funding to strengthen the service providers and ecosystem partners who are there would further facilitate and move these through.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Lehtinen, I see a total contradiction between the government's measures and the messages it conveys. On the one hand, we're told that we want to be the best, and on the other hand, we're not providing the support we need to be the best.

We also note something else. Rather than helping people here who have a lot of potential, we are helping very talented people elsewhere. According to the latest budget, the government wants to invest $1.7 billion to attract foreign talent. However, the people here who do research, such as yourself, work in terrible conditions. Canada is not at the same international level as other countries in terms of the calibre of its laboratories and research centres.

Having discussed this subject with the researchers, I fear that all this is just a communication effect. We believe that universities, including high-prestige ones, will roll out the red carpet to welcome foreign researchers, who will come here for a few years and then leave. They might take a little safari photo from our labs and a few selfies, then post them on social media. Universities will get good press. Afterward, the government will hold press conferences about how Canada welcomes the best researchers in the world. Everyone will be patting themselves on the back.

Don't you think the message the government is sending breaks the chain that makes it possible to go from research to market, as you do so well, strengthen research and develop the entire ecosystem?

[Morgan Lehtinen]

To your point, we need to ensure we're developing and putting the energy, investment and policies into building and having the existing research centres, universities, professors, innovators and the ecosystem there to take them to the next phase. To your comments on needing to strengthen the ecosystem, we do that by ensuring we have efficiencies in connecting with each other and then having these strategic funding programs—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but the time is up. If there is anything you would like to add by responding in writing, that would be great.

With that, this panel comes to an end.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing and for your patience in dealing with some administrative matters. I really want to apologize for that.

With that, the meeting is suspended for a quick turnover to the second panel.

I'm suspending the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and all the members.

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. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses for the second panel. I'm sorry for the delay.

I would like to welcome Dr. Gerry Wright, professor, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, by video conference; Dr. Kyle Briggs, entrepreneur in residence, Faculty of Science, University of Ottawa; Kevin Dahl, the director for ElevateIP Alberta; and finally, from Réseau des CCTT, Aurélie Licois, director of research and innovation, and Nancy Déziel, chairman of the board of directors.

Welcome to all the witnesses. You will each have five minutes for your opening remarks.

After that, because of the time, we will have one round of questioning. Members will each have six minutes. The different parties can let me know who will be participating in the round.

With that, we will go to our first witness.

Dr. Wright from McMaster University, please go ahead.

[Dr. Gerry Wright, Professor, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much and good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members. It's nice to see you again and to be here as a Canadian academic working in the life sciences.

I am a professor of biochemistry and biomedical sciences at McMaster, where I've led a research team focused on antibiotic resistance and antibiotic discovery since 1993. I have advised industry, government and not-for-profits on antibiotic innovation for over 25 years. In 2016 I also co-founded a spin-out company called Symbal Therapeutics, which advanced an antibiotic discovery we made in my lab for further drug development.

If you look back at innovations in biotechnology over the past few decades, it shows that most originate from university research. Successful global biotech, agricultural and pharmaceutical industries exist because of basic research conducted in academic labs. It's not surprising that the regions that are particularly known for biotech commercialization, such as Boston or California, are located near thriving research-focused universities.

Unlike other areas of technology, advances in the life sciences often require extensive and very specialized infrastructure that is usually well beyond the reach of a single entrepreneur or small start-up. This is why you don't see biotech starting in someone's garage. They need access to equipment that is often very costly and otherwise inaccessible. As a result, universities provide unique spaces to nurture new discoveries that are suitable for commercialization. We're really fortunate in Canada that the Canada Foundation for Innovation provides the resources to acquire and support the infrastructure that drives discoveries and innovations, such as the one that we made in my lab, which allowed us to spin out Symbal Therapeutics.

However, transferring research from universities to start-ups or through licensing deals can be quite difficult. Canada in particular struggles in this area, especially in the life sciences and biotechnology sectors. Canada does not have a program that offers non-dilutive seed funding to support the creation of biotech start-ups stemming from university discoveries. While programs like the NRC's IRAP are very helpful, they are not well suited for early-stage start-ups that lack initial capital, such as those arising from universities.

The SBIR, the small business innovation research program in the United States, provides successful examples of competitive seed grants for small start-ups, helping them generate enough data to attract private investment. A similar program in Canada would not be very costly and would significantly boost the emergence of new biotech start-ups. I note that several of the Ph.D. and post-doctoral fellows I have trained in my lab at McMaster are now working in the U.S. for companies funded through the SBIR. I would love to see them join Canadian start-ups.

Similarly, high-risk private capital is limited in Canada. Some of the reasons for this are, as I'm sure you know, cultural. There's just more tolerance for risk in biotech in the United States and Europe, for example. But some of this scarcity comes from a growing expectation from these investors that projects be significantly de-risked before investment. This needs additional funding.

My experience with Symbal Therapeutics is worth considering. With funding from the CIHR, we discovered a molecule produced by a fungus that we collected in Kejimkujik National Park in Nova Scotia that blocks antibiotic resistance. The report on this discovery was published in the prestigious journal Nature. We even made the cover. We were unable to secure funding in Canada to continue its development. We did manage to access services through the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, in the United States, which provided in-kind pharmacological studies at no cost. This sufficiently reduced the risks of the project, enabling us to secure funding for a start-up. However, this was through partners in Boston, not Canada.

We are again trying to develop some discoveries made in my lab, but we're facing exactly the same challenges we did several years ago when we started this.

Finally, another gap in the process is a shortage of business talent with biotech start-up experience in Canada. This is one of the reasons we turned to Boston partners for Symbal.

To support a thriving Canadian biotech start-up ecosystem, I encourage the committee to consider the following. First, increase the funding for life sciences research by raising the budgets of the CIHR and NSERC. Second, create a made-in-Canada SBIR-like program to offer competitive, non-dilutive funding for biotech start-ups. Three, foster an environment that encourages and rewards more private risk capital and cultivates related entrepreneurial talent.

With such investments, Madam Chair, there is a genuine opportunity to expand this sector and ensure that discoveries that are made in Canada can actually stay in Canada and be developed by Canadians.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Dr. Briggs, entrepreneur in residence in the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Dr. Kyle Briggs, Entrepreneur in Residence, Faculty of Science, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair, vice-chairs and committee members, for the invitation to speak to you on commercializing innovation emerging from publicly funded research at Canadian universities.

To briefly introduce myself, I'm a physicist and the entrepreneur in residence at the University of Ottawa. I was the CEO of Northern Nanopore Instruments, a nanotechnology start-up built from my Ph.D. research that we sold in the fall of 2023. I'm now the author of the CanInnovate blog on innovation policy and, alongside TJ Misra and David Durand, the co-author of the simple agreement for innovation licensing framework, or SAIL, and the co-founder of the SAIL initiative, through which we aim to streamline how new technologies get from lab to market.

The value of research follows a power law distribution, in that a small minority of new technologies eventually create most of the economic value, but it's impossible to reliably predict which ones will succeed or be valuable when the research is transferred to the private sector. Because of this impossibility, it's more important to make sure we don't miss the valuable minority than it is to make sure that every attempt is successful. It follows, then, that the most effective strategy for commercializing research successfully is to invest relatively small amounts of capital early in almost everything. Mostly, Canada doesn't do this.

Attempts to commercialize research have failure rates above 90%, but the successes create more than enough value to offset the cost of those failures. Countries that invest well have three things in common: The public sector funds innovative start-ups before they have revenues, usually favours new start-ups over existing companies as vehicles of innovation arising from research and is willing to let previously funded projects fail when necessary. This approach to funding serves to de-risk innovative companies to the point that they can attract private sector investment and ensures that valuable technologies don't slip through the cracks.

Ironically, systemic risk tolerance in the Canadian public sector mostly prevents it from funding pre-revenue companies in this way. Because of the long timelines involved, Canadian VCs can't address this gap. We have to reframe how we evaluate and manage risk. We have to understand that most investments will fail and that this is acceptable as long as the combined return over time is positive. While it may be true that our public sector has become too risk-averse, I argue that investing in almost everything is in fact less risky, or is at least more likely to produce a positive outcome.

Another element common to effective commercialization elsewhere is harmonized innovation policy. The United States has the Bayh-Dole Act, for example, which guides how universities transfer technologies to the private sector. In Canada, we lack even an attempt at national coordination. Senator Colin Deacon's office recently found 134 different innovation funding programs at the federal level alone, and the tri-council agencies provide no top-down guidance on how universities should manage research IP. As a result, every institution has a different IP policy, licensing negotiations with most research institutions are slow, no two licences are alike and there's no standard for data collection on licensing or on outcomes.

To address these challenges, my colleagues and I developed SAIL. SAIL is a licence framework designed to support harmonized and streamlined Canadian tech transfer from research institutions to start-ups. After consulting with a national community of innovation stakeholders, we based the design of SAIL on six axioms of tech transfer specific to Canada's unique challenges. It asks universities to play the role of first investor in research commercialization and rewards them with a predefined amount of convertible debt in exchange. With legal advice, the framework can easily be amended to support a variety of start-ups more efficiently and effectively than by building a new licence each time.

We're also working to adapt a risk-tolerant funding mechanism that has been highly successful in the U.K., where it created an estimated seven dollars of economic value for every dollar of input. The model uses venture philanthropy delivered through a public-private partnership, combining public funds with private donations and university contributions to create a charitable investment fund that reinvests all returns to ensure that it's self-sustaining. Variations on this model have been implemented at a handful of Canadian research institutions, most notably the UCeed fund in Calgary, and we propose to implement it at the national level.

Policies to promote and grow private sector investment and research can only be effective if we increase the pool of investable, innovative companies. To do that, we have to first build a better bridge from lab to market. I recommend, first, that Canada embrace strategic risk-taking by deploying public funding toward pre-revenue start-ups, thus commercializing Canadian research by trialling venture philanthropy delivered as a public-private partnership with a national scope. Second, I recommend that Canada nationally harmonize a Canada-first approach to management of the IP arising from publicly funded research.

Thank you, distinguished members of the committee, for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Briggs.

Now we will proceed to Mr. Dahl for five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Kevin Dahl, Director, ElevateIP Alberta]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here before the committee.

My name is Kevin Dahl. I'm the director for ElevateIP Alberta, an ISED-funded program working to increase the quality and quantity of the intellectual property that powers Alberta's start-up ecosystem. Our program resides within Innovate Calgary, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the University of Calgary.

ElevateIP doesn't operate just in Alberta: It's a national program delivered in partnership with recipients across Canada, including New Ventures BC, North Forge, Communitech, MAIN and Springboard Atlantic.

Together we have created programs and partnerships that empower start-up companies to take control of their intellectual property, which has resulted in over 800 IP strategies being developed and over 1,600 new IP applications being filed by Canadian companies to date. We were pleased to see a commitment to renew ElevateIP in the 2025 federal budget.

Canada has no shortage of world-class ideas. What we lack is the ability to consistently turn those ideas into Canadian-owned intellectual property and ultimately into prosperity for Canadians.

For too long, we've measured innovation by how much we spend on research and development, but innovation is not defined by inputs; it's measured by outputs, meaning the patents we secure, the data we safeguard and the companies we build here at home. If we want stronger private sector investment in R and D, we need to shift from treating R and D as a cost to treating it as an investment class—so how do we shift these mindsets?

Canadian firms invest in research every day, yet all too often the resulting IP ends up owned and commercialized outside our borders. We need incentives that reward IP creation, protection and commercialization in Canada. Programs like SR and ED should continue to support research, but we also need to strengthen IP literacy, IP valuation and IP strategy support for businesses of all sizes.

We've seen how impactful this can be through the ElevateIP program, which has helped start-ups and scale-ups understand and secure their IP early. When start-ups know how to protect their ideas globally, they build stronger companies with broader freedom to operate and more private capital follows.

We also need to put more emphasis on bridging academia and industry. Canada's universities are global leaders in research, but too much knowledge remains stuck at the discovery stage. We must continue to strengthen the bridge between academic research and industrial commercialization. That includes modern partnership-ready industry engagement programs, more co-funded research models and clearer pathways that help researchers turn discoveries into investable ventures.

Across Canada, partnerships through ElevateIP have shown that when IP frameworks are clear and transparent, collaboration increases and companies invest more confidently in R and D because they know how that value can be shared.

Finally, we need to build a capital market that values intangibles. Today, the most valuable assets in the global economy are not factories or heavy machinery: They are intangibles like patents, software, data and know-how. The reality today is that over 90% of the market value of the S&P 500 stems from intangible assets, yet too many Canadian financial systems still treat these assets as invisible. If we want more private investment, we need capital markets that can see and value these intangible assets as driving modern growth. That means IP-based valuation models, IP-backed lending tools and expanding early-stage investment funds like UCalgary's UCeed program, which the committee heard about earlier this week, to help anchor those high-value IP portfolios in Canada.

We know this works. In Alberta and Canada more broadly, when companies strengthen their IP position in global markets, investors take notice. R and D increases not because government subsidizes risk but because intellectual property becomes a bankable asset.

In closing, if we want more private investment in Canadian innovation, we must build an ecosystem that rewards ownership, collaboration and recognition of intellectual value. We have the talent and we have the research strength. Now we must ensure that the value of that work stays here in Canadian companies and on Canadian balance sheets, creating Canadian jobs. That's how we move from being consumers of other nations' innovations to becoming exporters of our own. That's how we turn research into resilience and ideas into prosperity.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dahl.

We will now proceed to Madame Déziel.

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

[Nancy Déziel, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Réseau des CCTT]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for giving the network of college centres for the transfer of technology, or CCTTs, the opportunity to present its point of view and contribute to the work of this committee.

My name is Nancy Déziel, and I am the chairman of the board of directors of the CCTT network. With me is Aurélie Licois, director of research and innovation.

The CCTT network represents 59 specialized centres across Quebec. Together, these centres cover over 100 areas of expertise, such as advanced manufacturing, wood processing, mining, renewable energy, agri-food, health, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, clean tech, telecommunications, defence, aeronautics and aerospace.

The CCTTs act as a driver of innovation focused on the needs of businesses and public organizations. They have a regional presence and a variety of sectoral specializations. They also play a role in risk minimization, which makes applied research, innovation and the adoption of new technologies and processes accessible to businesses and target sectors. CCTTs are key players in the applied research and innovation ecosystem throughout Quebec and Canada.

CCTTs stimulate private sector engagement in research by providing access to cutting-edge research infrastructure and equipment, offering technical training and customized support, and adopting a pragmatic approach to keeping intellectual property in Canada.

The impact of our model is clear, and our numbers speak for themselves. Here is what the CCTTs consisted of in 2023-24. There were 2,300 professional, scientific and technical experts working for businesses; 13,750 projects carried out each year in partnership with 6,000 businesses, mainly SMEs; 18,000 students involved in its activities; 935 interns; $192 million in sales, $68 million of which comes from the private sector and organizations in the targeted sectors; 325 businesses created; 240 patents, invention disclosures and licences; 648 processes created or improved; and 1,048 new products developed, an increase of 42% over the past three years.

Canada is facing major political and socio-economic challenges and is trying to use scientific and technological advances to stimulate the economy and identify solutions to the issues we are dealing with. Continued support for applied research and innovation capacity in our companies is essential.

Following the announcement of the last budget, in terms of massive investments and defence capabilities, CCTTs are positioned as key players for applied dual-use research, meaning technologies developed in a defence context that can be adapted and transferred to public use. Cybersecurity, telecommunications, energy and processing are all areas that can have a tangible impact on Canadian businesses and encourage private investment.

Despite the significant contribution of colleges and CCTTs to innovation, led by the businesses and SMEs at the heart of our economy, they receive less than 4% of federal research funding from the three granting councils.

Furthermore, while budget 2025 recognizes the fundamental importance of research and innovation to the economy, it contains no additional investment in the main vehicle for funding college and CCTT applied research, which is the college and community innovation program of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC.

Without additional funding for the program, meaning a return to 2023 funding, and without explicit and intentional measures to mobilize applied research and technology transfer led by colleges and CCTTs, we anticipate losses in innovation and support capacity. That will jeopardize the ability of businesses and SMEs to innovate, increase their productivity and diversify their markets.

To avoid undermining the unique ability of CCTTs to contribute to the success of our businesses and our economy, we propose three recommendations.

First, the government needs to permanently increase investment levels in the college and community innovation program by adding $108 million, which was done previously. As part of these investments, the government should address the existing funding inequities between CCTTs and technology access centres in Quebec and technology access centres in the rest of Canada.

Second, the government needs to work with the granting councils to ensure full eligibility of CCTTs to federal innovation-focused research and innovation programs at intermediate levels of maturity to the point of commercialization.

Third, the government needs to mobilize and increase funding for applied research infrastructure as a driver of innovation, focused on industry needs and commercialization needs, and strategic industrial strategies, including in the defence, energy, digital and critical materials sectors.

Canada has immense potential. To fully realize it, we need to strengthen the link that transforms knowledge into growth through applied research and technology transfer.

We are prepared to work in partnership with universities, businesses and governments.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed with our rounds of questioning for six minutes each.

We will start with MP DeRidder. Please go ahead.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to split my time this evening with my colleagues.

My question is for Dr. Wright.

Waterloo region is home to some of the best biomedical engineering minds on the planet. We invent in the region, but too often we watch someone else commercialize, manufacture and capture the jobs and the wealth.

From your experience, what are the biggest systematic barriers—like high taxes, inflationary pressures or slow approvals—that are pushing biotech commercialization and our talent to the U.S. instead of keeping it here in Canada?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

Thank you for that question. I'm a proud alumnus of the University of Waterloo, so I understand it.

That is a big problem. I think a lot of it is, frankly, due to a lack of risk capital in the country here.

Also, as I stated in my proposal, in the case of biotechnology, where other areas have flourished is where there has been access to non-dilutive risk capital that you can get access to before the private sector will be ready to invest. That gap is, I think, one of the biggest challenges we're facing here in Canada, and we have to find a way to get through it.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you so much.

I'm going to cede my time.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

My questions will be for Mr. Briggs.

As you know, the Liberals passed their costly credit card budget just this week. I'm going to read directly from page 281:

While U.S. business investment has grown steadily, Canada's has remained close to its 2015 levels.

It's also no coincidence that the Liberal government was first elected in 2015.

I'm going to continue quoting:

Canada's growth has been held back by weak productivity associated with low investment in business capital—particularly in machinery, equipment, and intangible assets like intellectual property.

Do you think that's the result of failed government policy in the last 10 years?

[Dr. Kyle Briggs]

I'm going to echo my colleague in saying that one of the key issues holding back Canadian innovation and investment in innovation is this valley of death, this difficulty in accessing risk capital to get technologies to a point where the private sector can invest.

There are numerous examples to draw on. We heard about the SBIR earlier. There are successful examples in France. The U.K. was one I mentioned earlier. The role of the public sector and the impact of public sector funding is highest when it is invested early in the pre-revenue stages of getting things to the point where business can invest.

In terms of business investment in innovation, there are also knock-on effects on the competition side: There is nothing that motivates incumbent firms to innovate quite like many hungry start-ups starting to take their market share when they are enabled to get to that point.

I really do think that the core of the issue is what my colleague said earlier, which is a lack of risk-tolerant funding for that first stage of innovation to get across the valley of death, as it is called, and enable the creation of firms that both motivate investment from incumbents and enable innovation to get out of the lab.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses who have come forward to the committee today.

My question is for Mr. Dahl, but before I ask the question, I'll give a brief overview.

In our meeting of November 3, Jim Balsillie, founder and chair of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, was quoted as saying:

When I last appeared before this committee in March 2023, I focused on Canada's failure to adopt a framework to own, control and commercialize IP from this publicly funded R and D, and I recommended building institutions and capacity for the knowledge-based and data-driven economy. Since then, there hasn't been a single new policy or institution created to meet the need for strategic reorientation.

Mr. Dahl, in your view, what are the most significant risks Canada faces if we continue without establishing the institutions for the knowledge-based and data-driven economy he recommended?

[Kevin Dahl]

I'm familiar with some of Mr. Balsillie's comments, as we've worked in partnership with some of the organizations that he chairs and has created.

As I highlighted in my speech earlier, the opportunity is now. Other countries are looking at ways to value intangible assets to create the institutions that you mentioned.

Also, as I mentioned in my speech, we did see a commitment to re-up the ElevateIP program, along with the Innovation Asset Collective and the NRC's IRAP assist program, so I think that we are looking to establish some of those institutions and some of those solutions to respond to the challenge that we have today, but the work is not done. We need to continue.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

Is that my time, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have 20 seconds.