The committee was studying how to promote and grow private sector investment in research and development in Canada. Witnesses appearing were Michelle McGinn, Associate Vice-President, Research, Brock University; Nathalie De Marcellis-Warin, Chief Executive Officer, CIRANO; Gabriel Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer, Universities Canada; Michael H. May, Chief Executive Officer, OmniaBio Inc.; Steven Murphy, President and Vice-Chancellor, Ontario Tech University; and Kaylie Tiessen, Chief Economist, The Canadian SHIELD Institute for Public Policy.
Michelle McGinn emphasized the importance of thinking broadly and regionally, arguing that comprehensive research institutions like Brock University are critical drivers for engaging private sector investment, particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises. She urged continued investment in industry-university partnerships through programs like Mitacs and NSERC, and highlighted the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute as a successful collaborative model where industry associations identify research priorities and coordinate financing.
Nathalie De Marcellis-Warin noted that Canada's private investment in R&D as a share of GDP is well below the OECD average, and that small and medium-sized enterprises account for only 30% of private R&D spending. She recommended Canada structure a nationwide applied research network inspired by European research and technology organizations, and invest in partnership-based research talent and knowledge transfer, citing the German Fraunhofer model as an example where every euro invested generates over three euros in economic benefits.
Gabriel Miller stated that Canada's commercialization pipeline remains underdeveloped, with too many innovations sold abroad. He recommended expanding support for commercialization at universities, strengthening tech transfer and accelerator infrastructure, engaging universities in national sectoral projects, and partnering with universities to advance artificial intelligence. He noted that the recent budget's vision for the economy recognizes the vital role universities would play, but agreed that it does not replace the need for sustained basic research funding.
Michael H. May described the success of the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine, which leveraged $30 million in government funding into $400 million and created 22 companies that raised $1.5 billion. He recommended continuing grants linking industry and academia, leveraging the SR&ED program, extending tax refund benefits to foreign-invested companies doing clinical trials or manufacturing in Canada, and creating emerging venture funds and post-doctoral positions in technological entrepreneurship.
Steven Murphy argued that Canada may have been focusing on the wrong end of the commercialization continuum and that many universities are nimble and react to national priorities. He recommended investing in commercialization officers who bridge the gap between academia and industry, and noted that reducing bureaucracy in government programs like R&D tax incentives would help small and medium-sized enterprises. He highlighted partnerships with NATO, the nuclear energy sector, and an ethics-by-design approach to AI as successful models.
Kaylie Tiessen stated that foreign-owned firms outspend Canadian-owned firms on R&D across nearly every major industry, and that Canada dismantled much of its strategic policy architecture in the 1990s. She recommended structuring public research funding so that Canada retains IP or equity stakes, encouraging institutional investors to allocate more capital to domestic innovation funds, targeting late-stage capital to maintain Canadian ownership, and rebuilding analytical capacity with a modern economic council. She also proposed a sovereign innovation asset bank to ensure value from R&D is captured in Canada.
The first hour of the meeting was consumed by procedural debate and a motion from Taleeb Noormohamed to replace the word "disaggregated" with "aggregated and anonymized" in a previously adopted motion, citing a $4 million cost. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas argued the original motion was about accountability and transparency, and proposed an alternative motion to establish a secure protocol for transferring disaggregated data to accredited researchers, inspired by the Five Safes model. The committee adjourned debate on Noormohamed's motion and proceeded to hear witnesses.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.