Abstract:
Canada’s persistent innovation underperformance stems from fragmented governance, not just funding shortfalls. This panel proposes the creation of an independent Canadian Innovation Council to steer national innovation policy with long-term, evidence-based, and inclusive strategies. Drawing on global models, panelists will explore how Canada can institutionalize foresight, capability-building, and education alignment to support productivity, resilience, and inclusive prosperity. The session will focus on actionable governance reforms, outcome-driven evaluation, and stakeholder engagement to address systemic gaps. Designed to spark lasting policy change, this discussion aims to launch a pan-Canadian coalition committed to transforming innovation governance for enduring societal benefit.

Summary of Conversations

The discussion addresses the urgent need to reform the national innovation ecosystem to reverse declining productivity and better translate research into economic prosperity. Participants argue that while strong foundational assets like talent and institutions exist, the system suffers from a broken process characterized by poor university-industry connectivity and misaligned incentives. A key theme is the necessity of shifting focus from input-based metrics, such as publication counts and patent filings, to long-term socio-economic outcomes like venture survival and domestic retention. The conversation highlights the “valley of never having lived,” where potential innovations fail to leave the lab due to insufficient early-stage support and a lack of entrepreneurial training for researchers. Furthermore, speakers emphasize adapting to global disruptions like artificial intelligence by fostering a more agile, collaborative system that harmonizes efforts across government, academia, and the private sector to achieve shared national goals.

Take Away Messages/Current Status of Challenges

• Declining Productivity and Competitiveness: The nation’s productivity is falling behind peer regions like the US and Europe with a worsening trend, indicating a failure to effectively convert research and investment into economic value.
• Weak University-Industry Collaboration: Collaboration rates between higher education institutions and the private sector are significantly lower than in competitor OECD nations, driven by structural and cultural barriers that inhibit effective partnerships.
• Misaligned and Input-Focused Metrics: The current evaluation system relies heavily on measuring inputs (grants, spending) and academic outputs (publications) rather than assessing actual socio-economic impacts or the long-term viability of startups created.
• Broken Innovation Pipeline: The process of commercialization is described as “leaky” and blocked; much fundamental research never advances beyond the laboratory (“valley of never having lived”) due to a lack of translational support mechanisms.
• Siloed Ecosystem: The innovation landscape operates in disconnected silos—government, academia, and industry—lacking a unified national strategy or coordination, which contrasts sharply with the harmonized industrial policies seen in other countries.
• Vulnerability to Disruption: Rapid technological shifts, particularly in AI, and unstable geopolitics create a volatile environment, yet the current system is static and ill-equipped to pivot quickly in response to these external threats and opportunities.
• Short-Termism in Planning: Political cycles and institutional five-year plans conflict with the need for long-term strategies (10 to 30 years) required to govern science effectively and see returns on research investments.
• Cultural Resistance to Impact: There is resistance within academic institutions to changing success metrics for tenure and promotion, which currently do not sufficiently reward collaboration, commercialization, or social impact activities.

Recommendations/Next Steps

• Adopt Holistic Outcome Metrics: Shift measurement frameworks to track long-term success indicators, such as the ten-year survival rate of startups, the retention of intellectual property within the country, and specific socio-economic benefits rather than just volume of patents.
• Implement Funding “Filters”: Design government programs with built-in requirements that demand specific outcomes, such as mandating that companies maintain operational sites domestically or requiring industry co-creation to access grants.
• Target Early-Stage Gaps: Direct purposeful, small-scale investments specifically to the front end of the research pipeline to fix “leaks” and support the initial translation of fundamental research before it reaches the later-stage risk capital gap.
• Foster Cross-Sector Alignment: Utilize “Capstone organizations” or similar instruments to align diverse system players (universities, industry, NGOs) toward achieving defined, shared outcomes rather than funding isolated projects.
• Embed Entrepreneurial Training in Labs: Integrate commercialization education directly into graduate research training by prompting students to ask “who needs this?” and “what problem are we solving?” early in their scientific inquiry.
• Leverage AI and Clean Tech: Actively exploit national strengths in artificial intelligence and clean energy to disrupt existing business models and create new, efficient ventures that can compete globally.
• Harmonize National Policy: Move toward a coordinated national approach to innovation policy that aligns incentives across provinces and institutions, potentially learning from foreign frameworks like the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act regarding IP transfer.
• Encourage Agility and Experimentation: Move away from rigid long-term planning cycles in favor of shorter, experimental timeframes that allow for rapid testing, failure, and adaptation of policies to better match the speed of technological change.