Science and Research Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2026

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I respect that.

I'm going to switch gears a bit right now. I think funding research is a very important step for innovation. We spend over $10 billion annually in research, but we see limited commercialization from that here in Canada. That being said, we're losing about $75 billion annually in revenue, because we're not commercializing in Canada.

Do you believe there should be a stronger strategic commercialization structure within the ecosystem to ensure taxpayer dollars are helping bolster Canada's economy instead of foreign multinationals?

[Frédéric Bouchard]

The issue of commercialization came up indirectly in our recommendations for the new agency to have mission-oriented programs. The mission-oriented programs may be, if you will, business-facing without necessarily being commercialization-facing. For instance, in the national defence industrial strategy, it may be about making sure we have the HQP to support new businesses to do defence procurement in Canada, but it may not be traditional commercialization, because it's government procurement meeting defence commitments.

I think the commercialization issue is very important, but I wouldn't restrict it to that. One benefit of a capstone agency or similar instruments is to allow for better support for mission-oriented research in support of an industrial strategy. It could also be for social or environmental issues or for other types of missions that are a priority for Canadian citizens.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. The time is up.

We will now proceed to MP Deschênes-Thériault for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Maltais and Ms. Montreuil.

In your presentation, you referred to the Official Languages Act. Part VII explicitly mentions taking positive measures to “support the creation and dissemination of information in French that contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge in any discipline.” Today, we are focusing on the issue of governance in federal science policy.

In this context, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure that federal institutions meet these commitments under the Official Languages Act?

[Martin Maltais]

Thank you for the question.

With respect to positive measures, in the act and the regulations, as they are currently worded, it is very clear that there are a number of intended positive effects. I will very briefly repeat the elements that federal institutions must consider. In the regulations, it says:

…federal institutions must, at the following stages of a program, policy or initiative, consider whether positive measures could potentially be taken: design and development restructuring or substantial modification update or renewal abolition or end devolution, in part or in whole

The capstone organization that will be established is an example that corresponds to the first two stages, namely design and development, followed by substantial modification or restructuring. Therefore, there must be an element within the capstone organization ensuring that the funds allocated to French-language scientific research have a positive impact. The same kind of exercise should have been carried out for the $1.7 billion earmarked for recruiting international talent.

[Sophie Montreuil]

Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault, may I add further information?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Go ahead.

[Sophie Montreuil]

You asked what mechanisms were needed, but I would say that indicators should be considered first. There must be positive measures, that's a fact. Their effects will have to be measured, so indicators will be required. We need to determine the relevant indicators in relation to the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French. Next, we need to ensure that there is an entity or structure within the capstone organization that is responsible for accountability.

The first thing we need is clear indicators that we, as a society and as a community, will collectively monitor closely.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Since you're saying that the first question should be about indicators, can you tell us a little more? What do you mean by that?

[Sophie Montreuil]

I will leave the answer to our president, as he is the expert on the subject.

[Martin Maltais]

There is some thinking to be done on indicators, but we have already developed a few scenarios.

First, at least 25% of federal funding for scientific research must be allocated to French-language universities. Second, at least 25% of researchers recruited internationally must be French-speaking. That should also have been the case for those recruited under the latest $1.7 billion initiative. Finally, at least 25% of the scholarships awarded to graduate and doctoral students by federal agencies must be awarded to French-speaking students.

Francophones make up 23% of the Canadian population, but they account for a significantly lower percentage in the scientific community. Studies show that it falls between 21% and 14%. Over the past year, new research has shown that the situation has deteriorated considerably. If we want to remedy the situation, we must set a target that is higher than the proportion of francophones in the country. If we want to strengthen the Canadian economy, that is a requirement.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

In your remarks, you also mentioned that science policies, and thus the accountability mechanisms that accompany them, must not be limited to the granting phase and the support and creation of scientific knowledge, but should also focus on the dissemination of results.

Can you expand on that, and explain why that is important?

[Sophie Montreuil]

I would quickly say that what's implicit in what's being said is that the Canadian government has recognized the need to support the advancement of science in French.

In French-language science, there is both scientific production and scientific dissemination. The Canadian government must therefore ensure that it is possible to conduct research in French under the same conditions as those for anglophones, and that it is possible to publish research results in French under the same conditions. This means that the entire research cycle must be covered.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Ms. Montreuil.

I will now turn to you, Professor Triandafyllidou.

You mentioned that much of your research has received federal funding, particularly through the Canada first research excellence fund.

Based on your experience, can you tell us about federal science policy monitoring, analysis and accountability mechanisms?

Today's motion proposes adding a new entity. In your opinion, would this add to the administrative burden for researchers like you? Would it be better to focus on improving existing mechanisms? I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.

[Anna Triandafyllidou]

Thank you for the question.

I can speak from my personal experience at Toronto Metropolitan University.

The existing structure works very well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have another organization that could achieve economies of scale.

What I can tell you is that the Chair of Excellence and the Canada First funding are interdisciplinary and bilingual at their core.

Rather than trying to translate everything, our goal is to engage in publications, events, and knowledge dissemination in either English or French. We believe this is true bilingualism: having spheres of knowledge in both languages with the same vitality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. The time is up.

We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Bouchard, in the report from the committee you chaired, you noted that the federal research support system is fragmented and consists of separate entities that are sometimes disconnected, with similar but non-coordinated mandates.

In your opinion, does this fragmentation undermine the system's strategic coherence and make it more difficult to identify clear overall responsibility?

[Frédéric Bouchard]

Yes, absolutely.

It is more difficult. In fact, the councils do very good work and the boards do very good work, but they each do it for their own organization. Of course, there is some concerted effort, because everyone is in Ottawa and we work together for the common good, but there is no comprehensive strategy to guide their actions.

For example, if you look at talent development, it's partly done by all the councils, but the Canada Foundation for Innovation is also involved in it, to some extent. There's also Mitacs, as well as parapublic groups that support different missions, but there's no overarching strategy to guide their actions.

The capstone organization wanted to remedy that, but there was also the idea of creating the Science and Innovation Council and launching a national strategy for science, research and innovation, in order to set common goals that might be, for example, the goals mentioned by my fellow witnesses. A national strategy could identify cross-cutting goals and ensure that the various organizations, whether unified or not, can achieve those goals.

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

You talk about a lack of strategy. As a result, there is currently no authority responsible for an integrated and strategic overview of federal research support.

[Frédéric Bouchard]

Some people are interested in the ecosystem in general. For example, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research fall under the Department of Health, while the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada fall under Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, which is the Department of Industry.

Of course, they talk to each other, but these are two departments that, to some extent, oversee the largest investments in research and innovation, not to mention organizations like the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which is relatively close to the federal portfolio. Then you have CIFAR, Mitacs, Genome Canada and Brain Canada. So there are all these organizations that are essential to the ecosystem and that, at the moment, are not coordinated by a comprehensive strategy.

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

In your 2023 report, you also recommended the creation of an independent advisory body to assess the system overall and publicly report on it. That's a lot of what you said about the capstone organization.

In concrete terms, should this organization play a role in strategic analysis, performance evaluation or cross-coordination, or even all three, in the context of accountability for scientific policies and federal scientific institutions?

[Frédéric Bouchard]

Absolutely.

I understand the purpose of the audit. It's important for elected officials to be able to ensure that the public interest is well served. So I understand that.

What an audit unit can't consider is the forward-looking and dynamic aspect. It's not that we're against an audit team. However, the big gain, in our opinion, would be for it to be done within an agency. On the one hand, elected officials could call on them at any time to dynamically ask about the situation. On the other hand, we could evolve programming in a more agile way.

When there are legislative changes, whether to official acts or for other functions, how long does it take before they are reflected in the programming, criteria and indicators? We believe that doing so from an internal policy direction at the agency would allow for better responsiveness in order to evolve programming.

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

You mentioned the Naylor report, which dates back to 2017. Your report is from 2023. So the successive reforms announced are piling up. Your report proposes an overall independent assessment of the system, unless you mainly suggest internal and sectoral analyses.

Here's my question. There isn't necessarily an independent assessment, even of your own reforms. So how do we avoid periodic reproduction of the same findings?

[Frédéric Bouchard]

I'm an inherently optimistic person, so I tell myself that we're going to move forward and make progress.

I'm concerned about how slow we are on this. We have taken real action and made real progress. That's obvious. However, it must be understood that we are less of a privileged partner to other countries than we were 20 or 30 years ago. For example, a few years ago, we were France's fifth-largest international research partner. Now we're number eight. We were the fourth-largest partner of the United Kingdom. Now we're ninth.

So I wouldn't want the efforts being made to confirm the recommendations to delay the implementation of the recommendations, for which there has been a very broad consensus for at least ten years.

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

In the recommendations in your report, how do you see the possibility of incorporating a clearly identified authority responsible for the overall performance and consistency of the federal system in support of research?