Solving for Innovation and Ownership in Canada.

“The Made-In-Canada Dilemma. Does ‘Made-In-Canada’, actually ‘Stay-In-Canada’?

What’s Our Problem, Anyways?

• How do we stop innovation from being developed in Canada, with or without the help of Canadian funding, from then being scooped up by foreign entities?
• Canada’s Advanced Technology leadership efforts can end with companies taking what is offered, then leaving in a hurry.
• Put another way… are innovative Canadian companies leaving with their proprietary inventions?
• What happens when Canadian companies are ready for the global marketplace?
  

A Canadian IP Exodus. Is this happening?

Background: ‘A Mandate to Innovate: Strategy For a More Prosperous Canada’

May 5, 2025 By Laurent Carbonneau, CCI Director of Policy and Research

(https://www.canadianinnovators.org/content/a-mandate-to-innovate-strategy-for-a-more-prosperous-canada)

 

⚖️You Should Weigh In:

What do you think of the Six Recommendations by the Council of Canadian Innovators for the Canadian government?

1. Set Gov’t Procurement Targets 🎯 from Small-Med Enterprise (“SME” 🏤)

2. Implement ⏩ Forward Commitment Procurement 🪙 in Gov’t🍁

3. Promote 📢 an 🤖 Innovation Procurement Standard in Gov’t⚖️ ✔️

4. Prioritize Commercialization 🔝💰 in Gov’t Procurement Programs

5. Use Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) for Innovative Procurement 💲💫

6. Create a Federal Procurement Concierge 📝 🍁

One Question:

The Q: Would bundling a government spending initiative for funding Canadian startup IP into existing IRAP funding actually be eating away resources that companies rely upon for iterative development of new IP?

One Perspective: Unless there’s a monetary top-up coming, then this proposal is placing more, not less – decision making power in the hands of gov’t. An act with high potential to slow down innovation and add friction to fast moving entrepreneurs.

What can we say…. ?

• Hands off – let innovators do what innovators do best. Innovate.
• If it isn’t broken, don’t try fixing it. And the IRAP SRED isn’t broken. Is it?
• Stay in your lane. Functional collaboration and facilitation isn’t appropriation.
• Allocate funds intended for direct spending by government into its own pool.

Make-It-So…

1. that; gov’t gets a dedicated allocation to spend with requirements and measures, directly related to the commercialization of new businesses….

2. that; a separate pool intended for the public sector will help with formation of newly commercialized companies via the Gov’t Canada procurement streams.

3. that; communication about how this government led startup approach will avoid

• creation of heavily subsidized and overly dependent companies – those lacking product-market fit from inception,
• creating silo’d projects – which are not fully integrated with supply chains nor supported by commercialized value chain networks, or
• companies which are reliant on geographic proximity to the capital for consideration yet have valid case for development (i.e. energy storage technologies in western Canada)

Side note:

A ‘Made in Canada’ 🍁 sentiment is often not representative of western Canadian thought.

Canadain officials raised enough questions about procurement practices in regards to contract awards.

For example, the investigative report called for on Canada’s public sector procurement practices.

In this case specifically due to the ArriveCan app developer selection and subsequent contract awards involving the same vendor.

4. that; the private sector funds are kept apart. Do not remove, reduce, or over-complicate processes for private sector companies effectively using SRED funding.

5. that; reporting and proper management of funds is prioritized, ensuring clear and transparent evolutionary pathways from concept to contract award involving government spending on innovative startups.

One Perspective.

To recap, more gov’t control is rarely the best answer – regardless the problem.

Therefore, it should not be the defacto response – to default to gov’t, especially when other issues plauge the process.

In fact, it could be said that taking this track towards greater government involvement does nothing to resolve the problem of departing Canadian IP from Canada – and may in fact, serve only to increase these lagging indicators in Canadian innovation when compared to our global counterparts because of aquisitions and mergers.

That being said, let’s attempt to address the question, which is; how best to keep innovative “Made-In-Canada” solutions, developed here – either with, or without the advantage of Canadian funding and additional resources for startups, how to keep them from immediately being sold-to, or purchased-by foreign investors.

If we are failing to keep Canadian companies owned by Canadians, then what is the return on investment for Canadians?

In times where the global environment is increasingly hostile, where our southern neighbors are calling-home all automotive manufacturers and placing heavy penalties for businesses operating out of other countries, does this approach still make sense?

What’s Going On With the Solution?

Gov’t intervention at inception may enable more companies to develop and undergo the regulatory process of submitting Canadian IP – however it does not simplify, speed-up, or cheapen, the current process for innovative Canadian founders.

Gov’t support via controlling tax dollars into a government-controlled process for research and development funding only subsidizes selected Companies and is incentivizing founders to submit to a poorly designed process. Namely, that the protection of Canadian IP takes significantly longer to process and receive than other global alternatives.

The proposed solution – this financial pipeline for Canadian innovation to go forward with government’s blessing is similar to saying, “Let’s commercialize innovative Canadian IP in Canada, by throwing more money at the problem,” ending the discussion there and then.

No improved processing times, no guaranteed faster to market patent protection, and no global first-to-market advantage without already having a significant head-start.

Clearly, this will have the result of starting a few more companies, yet it will certainly have the undesired side-effect of committing more Canadian innovators to slower processing times, compared to the same company getting IP protection somewhere else, first.

Why Care?

Because velocity matters.

A lot, actually.

 

Let’s clarify…

Extra time in the process means that new companies are already planning on less competitive terms, it is less favorable to enter markets when demand signals have gone stale, or when it is too late to snag the first-mover advantage ….

Why not make Canada a destination rather than a temporary starting point for innovation?

…There’s no one stopping us if we do.

• Policy Reports available through the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) website.
• ‘Buying Ideas: Procuring Public Sector Innovation in Canada’ (https://www.canadianinnovators.org/content/buying-ideas-procuring-public-sector-innovation-in-canada)
• Mooseworks Articles:
• ‘A Mandate to Innovate: Strategy For a More Prosperous Canada’ May 5, 2025 By Laurent Carbonneau, CCI Director of Policy and Research (https://www.canadianinnovators.org/content/a-mandate-to-innovate-strategy-for-a-more-prosperous-canada)
• ‘Digging In: Canada’s Mining Innovation Opportunity’ May 26, 2025 By Claire Wilson & Laurent Carbonneau (https://www.canadianinnovators.org/content/digging-in-canadas-mining-innovation-opportunity)
• ResearchMoney Articles:
• ‘Research Money: “the short report may 14, 2025″‘ (https://researchmoneyinc.com/article/the-short-report-may-14-2025)