Breaking Innovation Paralysis

Natalie Yeadon, Founder and CEO, Augmentios

Canada builds world-class cures and companies, then consistently loses them. Breaking Innovation Paralysis investigates why, through candid conversations with the founders, scientists, and policymakers living this reality every day. Host Natalie Yeadon, a former clinician, pharmaceutical executive, and tech entrepreneur who built and exited a global Canadian company, traces the problem to three forces: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility. Each episode goes inside a different layer of the system, from university labs to government policy, to find out how to fix.

  1. 21h ago

    18 Months, $10 Million: Why Canada’s Innovation Playbook Is About to Expire.

    Dr. Zayna Khayat is one of Canada's best-known health futurists. She is Chief Program Officer at AMS Healthcare, a nonprofit working toward AI-ready, compassionate health systems, and adjunct faculty and executive in residence at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, where she has taught healthcare innovation since 2011. Until recently she was health futurist in residence with Deloitte Canada's healthcare and life sciences practice. Before that, she led the Health System Innovation Platform at MaRS Discovery District, served as innovation sherpa-in-chief at Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, and co-founded the Dutch Ministry of Health's Health Innovation School. She co-authored Future of Aging at SE Health, began her career with a PhD in biochemistry from U of T and SickKids, and was a principal in BCG's health practice. She has keynoted from South by Southwest to the Aspen Ideas Festival. In this conversation, Khayat and Natalie start with why she traded "innovation" for foresight. Her test is simple: unless something unlocks five times more value than the status quo, it isn't innovation. Since ChatGPT arrived in November 2022, she argues, the foresight planning window has collapsed from ten-plus years to about three. She makes the case for a new way of funding research (when everyone has the same grant writer, scoring can no longer separate the best ideas) and describes an era of AI-accelerated science in which drug discovery that once took 15 years and $3 billion may take 18 months and $10 million. New entrants like Google and OpenAI are moving in fast; she notes that OpenAI's foundation alone has a $25 billion life sciences fund, "like 12 CIHRs" from one company. The conversation turns to risk. Khayat argues that Canada's real barrier is mindset: we are wired to spot every risk but rarely calculate the opportunity cost of not acting, and until that changes, capital alone won't fix it. She urges founders to look beyond traditional venture capital to venture philanthropy, family offices, donor-advised funds, and the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in Canadian history, and to spend a third of their time telling their story. On sovereignty, she sees a hidden Canadian advantage. Hospital records sit largely on American EMR systems, but most other Canadian health data lives on Canadian-built platforms in primary care, home care, and long-term care. She closes with a reason for optimism: Canada's brand is at an all-time high, and startups are fielding inbound calls from partners who no longer want to do business with the US. It's a window few could have seen coming three years ago. This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility. If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it. 🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey. 🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact 📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter #BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #HealthFutures #LifeSciences #AIinHealthcare #DrugDiscovery #HealthData #EconomicSovereignty

  2. 5d ago

    Worker Bees or Owners? Breaking Canada's Branch-Plant Habit.

    Daniel Perry is Director of Federal Affairs at the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI), where he leads national advocacy on behalf of Canada's high-growth scale-up companies. Named to The Hill Times' Top 100 Lobbyists for 2026, he has testified this year before three House of Commons standing committees — Industry and Technology, Finance, and Citizenship and Immigration — each time making the same case: capital, customers, talent, and sectoral strategy aren't separate policy files, they're one connected problem. He holds a Master of Political Management from Carleton University and has written a bi-weekly political column for the Niagara-Hamilton Independent since 2021. The conversation turns to risk. Perry shares the story of a CCI member who couldn't crack Canadian capital, flew to San Francisco, and closed a deal with an investor over drinks at the airport bar — a deal they said would have taken six to eight months at home. He is candid about the branch-plant economy, where Canadians become the worker bees while the real value flows elsewhere, and why every foreign investment should face one question: where does the IP live? When CCI loses members, he says, it's usually because a US acquirer or investor pulls the leadership team south. On healthcare, Perry calls it a national security asset. He points to CCI's Care at Scale report, which estimates that better, more portable health data could save up to $2.4 billion a year, and warns that Canadian health data stored on foreign servers can be reached by foreign governments — making Canadian-built "maple stack" infrastructure a sovereignty issue. He closes with CCI's budget priorities: a Canadian QSBS, a startup visa, a Buy Canada policy that supports genuinely Canadian companies rather than those Canadian in name only, and a reminder, borrowed from Red Green, that we're all in this together — but duct tape won't fix it this time. This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility. If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it. 🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey. 🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact 📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter #BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #LifeSciences #InnovationPolicy #Procurement #HealthData #EconomicSovereignty

  3. Oct 6

    Built Here, Owned Elsewhere: The Assetization of Canadian Innovation.

    Dr. Kean Birch holds the Ontario Research Chair in Science Policy at York University, where he has spent more than a decade studying the political economy of science, technology, and innovation. He is co-editor, with Fabian Muniesa, of Assetization: Turning Things into Assets in Technoscientific Capitalism (MIT Press), currently holds the Otto Mønsted Visiting Professorship at Copenhagen Business School, and co-edits the journal Science as Culture. His core concept, assetization, describes how things are turned into assets that someone can own, control, and extract future revenue from — a lens that reframes Canada's innovation problem as a question of ownership, not invention. In this conversation, Dr. Birch and Natalie start at the bench, where researchers and innovators run on opposite logics: researchers pursue what isn't yet known, while innovators know where they want to go but not how to get there. People who can do both are rare, which is why ecosystems have to deliberately bring them together. He argues that early founders need accessible money to take risks, not venture capital, which only a tiny fraction of companies ever touch. He traces Canada's sell-the-resource instinct into its financial system, where public markets reward banks and miners, and explains why acquisition beats IPO for investors: acquirers pay a knowledge premium that general public-market investors won't. The conversation turns to his sharpest diagnosis: finance has replaced innovation as the endpoint. Instead of using finance to fund innovation, the system now uses innovation to generate financial returns, and founders absorb that logic from day one, building toward an exit rather than a product, market, or company. He describes the "moments of valuation" every founder faces, from the first angel conversation to borrowing, acquisition, or IPO, each demanding a different story. On tokenization, he sees real potential to open startup investment beyond accredited investors, but only with a solid legal and regulatory foundation underneath. On health data, Birch is blunt: an individual's data is worth pennies, but pooled, curated, and de-identified, it becomes enormously valuable. His proposal is a data wealth fund, held collectively like a natural resource fund in a public entity at arm's length from the government, with the power to improve data quality and set terms for access. He closes on what governments must do to govern assetization rather than react to it: avoid investment commitments that lock future citizens into today's decisions, and stop concentrated capital from dictating the direction of innovation itself. This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility. If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it. 🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey. 🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact 📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter #BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #LifeSciences #Biotech #InnovationPolicy #HealthData #EconomicSovereignty

  4. Sep 29

    The Scale-Up Gap: Why Canada's Best Companies Sell Before They Scale.

    Dr. Jeffrey Crelinsten is the publisher of Research Money — Canada's leading source of intelligence on science, technology, and innovation funding — and founder of The Impact Group, an innovation-policy consultancy he started nearly 40 years ago. Research Money's readership is more than half government, plus university research leadership and the broader innovation ecosystem, and he runs its annual Ottawa conference, now heading into its 26th year. Most recently, with the Council of Canadian Innovators, he co-authored The Scale-Up Gap: From Value Creation to Value Retention, a study built on interviews with 31 founders of 30 Canadian companies that had reached real traction — customers, growth — and then sold to foreign buyers, asking them directly why. In this conversation, Dr. Crelinsten and Natalie start where the report starts: not with failure, but with founders who'd already succeeded, then hit a wall. They needed big capital fast and executive talent who'd scaled a company before, and Canada had neither in supply. Banks won't lend against intangible IP the way they lend against real estate, and Canadian VCs, founders told him bluntly, "don't lead rounds — they follow," waiting for a foreign lead investor and ceding control to whoever showed up first. His touchstone is Doug Barber's Genome Corporation, a Hamilton microchip maker that picked a niche too small for the giants — hearing-aid chips — and took 70% of the world market, proof a Canadian company can lead a global category if it's built to. The conversation turns to government procurement, worst of all in health: a medical device founder faces a different buyer, KPIs, and integration capacity in every hospital, and a different Ministry of Health in every province, so most give up and sell into the UK or US instead, where there's a single buyer. He traces the same failure into the university system: Canada leads the OECD in higher-education R&D spending but lags near the bottom in business R&D, because academic merit runs on peer-reviewed publications, and professors who help commercialize a student's idea are, in his account, penalized rather than rewarded — a sharp contrast to the US, where professors are paid only nine months a year and routinely take on industry contracts to cover the rest. On where the money is, Crelinsten is blunt: Canada is awash in capital sitting in pension funds, family offices, and RSPs, mostly parked in real estate. He points to OMERS Ventures under John Ruffalo — and the board fight it took to redirect even 3% of assets into venture — and adMare BioInnovations as proof the returns are there once someone commits. He also names the politics underneath every tax debate: politicians hear "help entrepreneurs build anchor companies" as "help people get rich," which capsized the capital-gains tax fight and keeps a siloed bureaucracy from acting on what its own frontline staff already know. He closes with a moonshot: federal, provincial, and municipal leaders publicly committing, Kennedy-style, to build five Canadian anchor companies in one sector — health and life sciences, since fixing that also fixes the healthcare system. This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility. If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it. 🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey. 🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact 📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #LifeSciences #Biotech #Pharma #InnovationPolicy #EconomicSovereignty

  5. Sep 22

    No Anchor Companies: Why Canada Can't Build a Biotech Cluster.

    Dr. Kostas Trakas is a pharma builder and former Johnson & Johnson executive, and co-founder of Exsilios Pharma — a Canadian specialty pharmaceutical company that sources FDA, EMA, and MHRA-approved late-stage assets and secures Canadian commercialization rights across rare disease, oncology, immunology, CNS, and cardiometabolic indications. He holds a PhD and a Master's in pharmacology from the University of Toronto, and spent over a decade at J&J in global marketing and market access leadership, including building companion diagnostic policy platforms and public-private partnership models across EMEA and LatAm. Before Exsilios, he led Exactis Innovation, taking Canada's largest oncology real-world evidence network from a grant-funded model toward commercial self-sufficiency. He writes and speaks publicly on where Canada's Life Sciences Task Force has fallen short, and is currently pivoting Exsilios toward developing early-stage Canadian IP into a genuine anchor company. In this conversation, Dr. Trakas and Natalie trace the entire pipeline from the ground up. It starts with the argument that Canada's most underused strategic asset isn't a new discovery at all — it's the tokenized, longitudinally-linked health data sitting inside a single-payer system, an asset the fragmented, privately-insured US system structurally can't replicate, and one Canada still won't let researchers actually access. From there it moves into funding: Dr. Trakas's own experience inheriting ten years of grant-funded operations and being told to make them commercially self-sufficient, his blunt dismissal of Canada's incubator and accelerator model as "checkbox" theatre, and the pension fund paradox where the Maple Eight are structurally barred by their own fiduciary rules from investing in the small domestic companies that need them most — a policy Canada wrote into its own regulations roughly twenty years ago and has never revisited. The conversation turns next to why Canadian founders default to selling rather than building — Dr. Trakas's own theory that Canadians settle for being what he calls the "second banana," happy to sell at the first good offer rather than aspiring to build the next Shopify — and what it would actually take to produce Canada's first true anchor companies and the biotech clusters that follow them. From there they dismantle the reimbursement gauntlet directly: Dr. Trakas's case for collapsing the PMPRB, CDA-AMC, and pCPA into a single agency instead of three sequential closed-door negotiations that can take a product two years to reach a single provincial formulary, set against the reality that Canadians access only about 18% of globally available medicines versus an OECD average of 28%. The episode closes on the geopolitical stakes: China's decade-long playbook of steel, then EVs, now life sciences, and why Dr. Trakas believes Canada can run the same playbook rather than keep funding runway for other countries to take off. This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility. If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it. 🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey. 🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact 📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter #BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #LifeSciences #Biotech #Pharma #InnovationPolicy #EconomicSovereignty

  6. Sep 17

    Canada's Pilot Purgatory: Why Our Best Diagnostics Never Leave the Lab.

    Dr. Anu Rebbapragada has spent over two decades translating diagnostic innovation into clinically trusted, commercially viable services — as a clinical microbiologist and high-complexity lab director, a national leader across Canadian diagnostic lab networks, a MedTech executive at a Fortune 500 global diagnostics company, and a strategic advisor to entrepreneurial ventures. She holds a PhD in microbiology and molecular genetics, has published over 40 peer-reviewed papers, sits on Canada's first national AI-in-clinical-decision-support standards committee (CAN/DGSI 138), and completed Harvard Medical School's executive program on AI implementation in healthcare. In this conversation, Anu walks through what she calls "pilot purgatory" — the graveyard where excellent Canadian diagnostic research dies before it ever reaches routine practice. She unpacks why the problem isn't the science: it's a fragmented, thirteen-jurisdiction reimbursement patchwork where the identical test on the identical platform pays out differently province to province, a regulatory pathway with no equivalent to the U.S. lab-developed-test route, and what she terms "institutional inertia" — staff so stretched sustaining outdated, paper-based workflows that they have neither the bandwidth nor the incentive to adopt something new. She traces one case in detail: a McMaster-spun-out molecular test for endometriosis, clinically promising, structurally boxed in by the very system meant to bring it to patients. The conversation turns to what Anu calls a kind of collective amnesia: Canada proved during COVID that rapid, responsible diagnostic innovation at scale is possible — home collection, point-of-care testing, virtual portals, all stood up fast and safely — only to revert to sluggish, pre-pandemic defaults once the pressure lifted. She and Natalie dig into the binary nature of Canadian healthcare (public system or private workaround, with little in between), the "postal code lottery" of provincial fragmentation, and why she believes the missing ingredient isn't more pilots or more publications but public awareness and grassroots advocacy — health consumers demanding better tests exist, rather than assuming the status quo is the ceiling. This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility. If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it. 🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.  🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact  📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter #BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #Diagnostics #HealthTech #InnovationPolicy #HealthcareReform

  7. Sep 15

    Are We a Farm Team? Canada's Innovation Identity Crisis.

    Dr. Andrew Maxwell has spent three decades studying how people inside institutions actually make innovation decisions, from his early years at ABB through a PhD examining investor judgment to his current role as a professor of technology and entrepreneurship at York University's Lassonde School of Engineering. He's the founder of the BEST program, author of the Innovation Doctor series on Substack, and runs Avatar Innovations, working across academic health centres, federal research funders, and the incubator ecosystem meant to carry ideas from lab to market. In this conversation, Andrew walks through why culture sits underneath everything else in his five-driver framework — culture, capability, incentives, institutions, and technology — and why so many of Canada's innovation failures get mislabelled as technical problems when they're actually cultural ones: assumptions nobody wants to challenge, and a default tendency to keep doing what we did yesterday. He calls this his "laws of innovation inertia," a direct parallel to Newton's laws — bodies at rest stay at rest unless something forces them to move. We get into why research funders like NSERC and CIHR were never mandated to produce productivity or adoption outcomes in the first place, only publications and advancing knowledge, and why that mismatch quietly shapes what gets built and what gets shelved. Andrew built TechConnect at York specifically to close that gap, training researchers to ask what a user actually needs rather than just optimizing a technical spec. He also makes the case that the skillset required to discover something and the skillset required to persuade someone to adopt it are fundamentally different, and that most incubators aren't structured to bridge that particular chasm. The conversation turns to funding itself: Andrew's contrarian take that venture capital's milestone-based, real-options structure is actually more disciplined than government research funding, which hands out money with far less accountability. He introduces the idea of a "farm team," regions and companies that quietly accept talent will outgrow them and leave, and Natalie pushes back with the question underneath it all: is Canada a farm team, or does it not know what it is yet. Andrew is candid that he doesn't have a clean answer, and that may be part of the problem. This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility. If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it. 🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey. 🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact 📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter #BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #YorkUniversity #InnovationPolicy #TechTransfer

  8. Sep 10

    There's No Wrong Door: Inside Canada's Innovation Ecosystem

    David Carter has spent 13 years as CEO of Innovation Factory, Hamilton's regional innovation centre, helping founders in tech, digital health, and advanced manufacturing bring their ideas to market. Before that, he built and scaled his own software company and worked as a CTO, experience that still shapes how he thinks about product growth and what it actually takes to scale. He's also a co-founder of the Synapse Life Science Consortium, linking Hamilton's life sciences ecosystem across McMaster, Hamilton Health Sciences, and St. Joseph's Healthcare, and sits on boards spanning digital health and national innovation networks.In this conversation, David walks through the tangle of institutions a Canadian founder has to navigate between lab bench and fundable company, and why that tangle matters less than people assume. There's real overlap between industry liaison offices like McMaster's Milo, campus-led accelerators like the Forge, and regional innovation centres like his own, but David makes the case that it's survivable: "there's no wrong door," and founders get routed to the right resource no matter where they walk in first.We get into how research gets stuck, not because Canadian researchers lack fundable ideas, but because many simply don't know what to do with them or where to take them, leaving genuinely brilliant work shelved once a PhD wraps and the researcher moves on. David explains the handoff chain from university tech-transfer offices to campus incubators to regional innovation centres, and why nobody at any stage is trying to "hog the glory" from the startups themselves.David also raises a question Canada still can't answer: once public money goes into a company, does anyone track what happened to it? He makes the case for real accountability tied to non-dilutive funding, not to punish failure, but to actually learn from it, and admits candidly that even he doesn't know whether early government support was the thing that got a company like Shopify through a bad day, or just something everyone piles credit onto after the fact. He's optimistic all the same: a new generation of founders who grew up with the internet, paired with the disruptive force of AI, feels to him like another point of inflection, the kind he last saw in the mid-90s.This is Breaking Innovation Paralysis: research for a book on why Canada keeps losing the cures, capital, and companies it builds. Not a promotional platform, an honest look at the structural gaps: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility.If this shifted how you think about Canada's innovation gap, share it with someone who needs to hear it.🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe for more honest conversations with the people building, gatekeeping, and navigating Canada's innovation journey.🔗 Questions, feedback, or want to connect? https://augmentios.com/contact📩 Subscribe to my LinkedIn Newsletter: ⁠https://bit.ly/BIPLinkedInNewsletter#BreakingInnovationParalysis #CanadianInnovation #InnovationEcosystem #Hamilton #McMasterUniversity #StartupCanada #TechTransfer

About

Canada builds world-class cures and companies, then consistently loses them. Breaking Innovation Paralysis investigates why, through candid conversations with the founders, scientists, and policymakers living this reality every day. Host Natalie Yeadon, a former clinician, pharmaceutical executive, and tech entrepreneur who built and exited a global Canadian company, traces the problem to three forces: inertia, risk aversion, and diffusion of responsibility. Each episode goes inside a different layer of the system, from university labs to government policy, to find out how to fix.