Science and Research Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Good afternoon. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 29 of the Standing Committee on Science and Research. The committee is meeting to study governance and accountability of federal science policy and institutions.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses as well as the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for this panel.

We have Wyatt Tessari L'Allié, founder and executive director of AI Governance and Safety Canada. We are also have Dr. Stéphanie Michaud, president and chief executive officer of BioCanRx; and Robert Annan, president and chief executive officer of Genome Canada.

The witnesses will have five minutes for their opening remarks, and then we will go into our round of questioning with the members of Parliament.

Mr. Tessari L'Allié, we will start with you. Please go ahead.

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié, Founder and Executive Director, AI Governance and Safety Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for the honour of inviting me.

AI Governance and Safety Canada is a non-profit and non-partisan organization. It's a community of people across the country.

Our starting point is the following question: What can we do in Canada and from Canada to ensure that AI is safe and beneficial for everyone?

Since 2022, we've been providing the federal government with public policy recommendations, including through our briefs about the former Bill C‑27 on artificial intelligence and data, and our numerous appearances before parliamentary committees.

Two years ago, in the context of the AI and data act, I testified before the industry committee that, while early forms of AI like facial recognition and chatbots require some regulation, there were much more powerful forms of AI on the horizon that Canada needed to get ready for. We made the case that certain AI capabilities pose an unacceptable risk, such as systems that could detect and evade monitoring, rewrite their own code, make unauthorized copies of themselves or refuse shutdown.

In the last few weeks, a major jump in AI capabilities has produced such systems. We have now entered the era of AI agents. Unlike chatbots that simply respond to a prompt, AI agents can take actions in the real world, working autonomously for hours. Think of them as overeager employees that you give a computer and a goal, like building a software program or launching a cold-calling campaign. They can come up with a plan, navigate the files and tools they need, send and receive phone calls, make purchases and troubleshoot any issues along the way.

Earlier this month, we found out that hackers manipulated the Claude Code agent to break into the Mexican government's systems and steal data on over 100 million people. The tool didn't just write code or perform odd tasks for the hackers; it planned and executed much of the sophisticated campaign itself.

Now we're starting to see loss-of-control incidents. These include agents stealing passwords, harassing developers and modifying themselves to evade shutdown in order to achieve the often mundane goals they have been given. A couple of weeks ago, we found out that Chinese tech giant Alibaba produced an agent that, unbeknownst to its engineers, created an elaborate hack to mine cryptocurrency for itself, despite being given a completely unrelated goal.

These loss-of-control incidents are concerning because they are the precursors to agents that could permanently evade human control and act adversarially in ways we cannot detect or stop. This is why hundreds of leading scientists, business leaders and policy-makers are calling AI an extinction risk.

What needs to be done? In October, we published our white paper titled “Preparing for the AI Crisis: A Plan for Canada”. In light of this latest jump in capabilities, we now focus on three recommendations.

First, we must pivot to meet the AI crisis. The risk of loss of control is a growing national security threat, as recognized by agencies like the U.K.'s MI5. Given its impact on a wide range of files, success will require coordination across cabinet, parties and jurisdictions.

Second, we must spearhead global talks. AI development is a global issue, and no country can manage it alone. At Davos, Prime Minister Carney showed that Canada can lead. Our strongest card is to convene talks, propose solutions and lay the groundwork for an AI treaty that the U.S. and China might sign when they realize they have no alternative.

Third, we must build Canada's resilience. Canada needs multiple lines of defence against weaponized and malfunctioning AI systems.

This includes monitoring. Currently, governments have little to no visibility into AI agent populations or activity, and the publicly reported instances are therefore likely just the tip of the iceberg. Ottawa needs to rapidly work with AI companies, data centres and Internet service providers to gain a clear picture of what is happening on Canada's digital infrastructure.

On prevention, per our AI and data act recommendations, systems with capabilities that pose an unacceptable risk must be banned in Canada. Parliament needs to act quickly to pass a law to this effect.

On defence capacity, if technologists can't stop an AI system, government needs to be ready to intervene. Canada needs defence strategies and containment and shutdown protocols to neutralize weaponized and malfunctioning AI agents.

On emergency preparedness, we need scenario planning and joint exercises to ensure readiness for potential large-scale attacks, corrupted communication lines and shutdowns of critical infrastructure.

The challenge we face is daunting. Most of the world is still unaware, and failure could lead to permanent loss of control, but this story isn't written yet. As Canadians, we have an opportunity right now to lead by example at home and on the world stage so that we may all share in the benefits of this transformational technology.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Dr. Michaud, president and chief executive officer for BioCanRx.

You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Stéphanie Michaud, President and Chief Executive Officer, BioCanRx]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear.

My name is Stéphanie Michaud. I'm the president and CEO of the Canadian immunotherapy network BioCanRx, a federally funded organization dedicated to accelerating the development of made-in-Canada cancer immunotherapies, including CAR-T therapies and other cell therapies, from the laboratory to patients.

We appear before this committee as direct participants in the federal science funding system, not as observers of it.

I want to begin simply. This study matters. It is timely and we thank you. The questions you are asking about governance, accountability and transparency of federal science funding are not procedural questions. They have direct consequences for patients, including those far from urban centres, and for Canada's ability to retain the economic value of its own publicly funded discoveries.

Since 2015, BioCanRx has invested $54.5 million in federal funds, leveraged $156 million in partner contributions, treated more than 400 patients, created eight spin-out companies and supported 15 made-in-Canada clinical trials. BioCanRx alone accounts for 47% of all Canadian-origin cancer immunotherapy clinical trials since our founding.

Yet, between 2002 and March 2026, only 3.4% of all cancer immunotherapy trials conducted in Canada were based on Canadian discoveries. Our progress is real, yet it reveals exactly how large the structural problem remains.

Here's the problem in concrete terms. Think of it like funding a contractor to build an architecturally sound house, but not funding the permits, the soil test or the safety inspections needed to break ground. The money for construction is ready, the builder is qualified, but the house cannot be built, because the preparatory work was never funded. That is exactly what happened with three of our projects in 2023 and 2024, when we no longer had funding.

CIHR funded these projects to conduct clinical trials, but did not fund the GMP, assay development and toxicology studies required to file the clinical trial application with Health Canada. This work is too applied for CIHR's mandate. It is too early and risky for private capital. The project sat idle for at least a year. There was no federal mechanism to apply to. This gap between CIHR fundable research and clinic-ready therapy is structural, not incidental. It is invisible to any single federal accountability framework, because no single framework has visibility across the full pipeline.

All three projects subsequently received BioCanRx funding specifically designed to meet Health Canada's requirements. One has since opened a clinical trial providing a novel CAR T-cell therapy for both pediatric and adult blood cancer patients, a therapy that had no path to the clinic before BioCanRx intervened.

In a moment when Canada must harness its scientific strengths for sovereignty and competitiveness, we cannot afford governance structures that leave funded science stranded on the bench.

This is not a uniquely BioCanRx observation. In December 2025, we commissioned the Institute on Governance to benchmark Canada against six international comparators. What was the finding? Canada's underperformance reflects a structural design gap, not a lack of policy effort. Our health and innovation portfolios are complementary, but operate without mandated synchronization. This is a risk governance deficit. The U.S., U.K. and Japan have each built dedicated national translational infrastructure to answer the question Canada currently cannot: Is our investment reaching patients?

The committee is examining whether an independent oversight function, modelled on the Auditor General, could strengthen federal science accountability. We support that direction with one essential condition. The mandate must cover real-world outcomes, patient access, clinical deployment, manufacturing capacity and health system efficiency, not only publication counts and grant compliance.

It must evaluate coherence across the full pipeline, not just individual programs in isolation. The report also recommends a cross-departmental translational health research concierge program to guide innovators across the structural gaps between federal portfolios, a coordination mechanism that does not yet exist in Canada.

The ask is not more money. It is governance that is fit for purpose, transparent, independently evaluated and oriented towards real-world outcomes. Canada invests in science. This committee has the opportunity to ensure that we govern it wisely.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Robert Annan, president and chief executive officer of Genome Canada.

You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Robert Annan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Genome Canada]

Madam Chair, vice-chairs, members of the committee and fellow witnesses, thank you for the invitation to appear today.

I'm Rob Annan, president and CEO of Genome Canada.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your study on the governance and accountability of federal science policy and institutions.

Let me start by saying that Canada's research and researchers are absolutely world class and something we should be proud of. However, given the scale and urgency of Canada's current challenges, world-class research alone isn't enough. We need to maximize the impact of that research. That is where I'll focus my remarks today.

Genome Canada is an independent, national and mission-driven research organization dedicated to advancing genomics research and adoption in Canada. We work to push the frontiers of biotech and life sciences, focusing on technology adoption and commercialization by Canadian companies, doctors, farmers and other users. We are built on a unique federated model, with six regional genome centres across Canada, and with funding from both federal and provincial governments, as well as industry, foundations and non-profits. We have a truly team Canada approach.

Since our founding in 2000, we have worked with hundreds of Canadian companies, helped spin out 135 new companies from our research projects and supported the creation of more than 500 patents, licences and inventions. Today, Canada is third in the world in the creation of genomics-related IP, and we continue to advance commercialization and adoption through the Canadian genomics strategy. We know what it takes to turn research into impact.

That's why we believe strongly that this study matters. Canada has world-class researchers, strong institutions and major areas of scientific strength, but system challenges mean we are not realizing our full potential. Our research initiatives are too often subscale, unsustained and fragmented. They do not sufficiently link to adoption and commercialization. That gap matters because it affects innovation, commercialization and our economic security.

From where we sit, the core issue is not simply whether the system needs more oversight. It is the larger governance question of how the pieces fit together and whether the system is organized and optimized to meet Canada's biggest needs.

I'll make four practical points to address these issues.

First, Canada needs to define a national science, technology and innovation strategy. Most advanced economies support economic growth with clear, explicit science and technology strategies that define long-term objectives and identify key national priorities. Without a clear strategy, institutions compete or work at cross-purposes. Strategic leadership gets everyone on the same page, allowing the system to self-organize, and gives institutions the clarity needed for execution, performance measurement and continuous improvement.

Second, Canada needs stronger capacity to do mission-driven research. The most important problems we face do not fit neatly inside one discipline, one institution or one funding stream. Addressing them requires clear objectives, cross-sector collaboration and sustained effort over time. Five years ago, we at Genome Canada adopted an explicitly mission-oriented, challenge-driven approach and have found that this orientation aligns partners, reduces fragmentation and connects research investments to tangible outcomes.

Third, Canada needs better coordination across the system. Today, no one has clear authority to align priorities and resolve trade-offs across granting councils, departments, third party organizations and others. Other countries have addressed this with central science offices, capstone bodies or mission-led coordination models. The structure can vary, but the function is essential. Someone must be responsible for making the system work as a system.

Finally, Canada needs stronger pathways from research to impact. World-class research on its own is not enough. Knowledge translation and mobilization need deliberate, sustained support. Genome Canada does this kind of work: ensuring that research shortens the diagnostic odyssey for kids with rare disease, improving nickel recovery from tailings with non-toxic approaches or improving breeding outcomes for crops and livestock in our food systems. There's a crucial and consistent gap between discovery and application. We need novel thinking and significant attention paid to fill that gap.

If I were to leave the committee with one central point, it would be this: Canada has extraordinary assets, and we shouldn't neglect them. Research excellence is the foundation for everything else. We're really good at this. What we lack is alignment, coordination and delivery at scale. This is the governance challenge we must face, and Genome Canada will be happy to support this work.

Thank you. I wish the committee the best of luck on this study.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you to all the witnesses for their opening remarks.

Now we will start with our round of questioning.

We will begin with MP Baldinelli for six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being with us this afternoon.

I'm going to begin with Dr. Michaud.

I enjoyed your presentation. With regard to BioCanRx, in your remarks, you said, “progress is real” and it leads to “real-world outcomes”. You said that we need to harness our scientific strengths for our overall sovereignty. Ultimately, the question that we need to ask is, with those dollars that we spend—I think it's over $10 billion in public research funding for scientific research—whether the investment is, in your case, reaching the patient.

I just read an article that was published in the Hill Times, which revealed that ISED had informed organizations such as yours that the strategic science fund would be cutting $20 million from the $800-million fund as part of the government's overall expenditure review decision.

It's interesting that we're doing a study on governance and accountability of federal science policy and institutions. As part of the strategic science fund, one of the means of accountability where the government is dealing with the not-for-profit sectors is they put in place accountability measures, performance targets and funding for projects. They ask whether the not-for-profits are getting results for those projects. To your point, Dr. Michaud, is that funding reaching the patient? For example, one of the means of accountability is the contribution agreements that are put in place by the government. Your funding will be cut in the last year of that contribution agreement.

My understanding is they're legally binding documents. How is it that the government can pull funding in your last year as part of that contribution agreement?

[Stéphanie Michaud]

All of the contribution agreements that are in place for strategic science fund recipients such as ourselves have a clause that stipulates that future funding is subject to parliamentary appropriation. This is the mechanism by which these contribution agreements will be renegotiated with the different recipients affected by these cuts.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Dr. Annan, your organization was impacted as well. What was the impact on your organization?

[Robert Annan]

We're still sorting out the full details. Some of the projects that we've already launched may need to scale back. Mostly it's about the opportunity cost of the projects that we won't be supporting in that last year of the agreement.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

That's a key term, the opportunity cost.

Dr. Michaud, you questioned whether the investment is reaching the patient. When those contribution agreements are signed, does your organization then go forward and present business plans for the government that transcend that period of time? Now the government is asking you to make last-minute changes to those agreements. You're well into your plans. How is that going to be impacting certain decisions? Certain projects may not be able to go forward. Is that correct?

[Stéphanie Michaud]

That is correct. We are working with different government stakeholders and look forward to meeting with them to further discuss the impact of these cuts. The reality is that we believe the work we're doing at BioCanRx is very much about bridging and filling a gap that exists in the ecosystem.

As I mentioned in my remarks, there is little to no funding for the kind of work that we do because it is required to meet the regulatory requirements of Health Canada so that we can get to a clinical trial. It's development work; it's very difficult funding to get.

Now, instead of focusing on what those later projects are going to be, we'll have to focus on attempting to find other partner dollars in order to bridge that gap. Again, we are very much focused on working with different government stakeholders to see a clear path through so that we can mitigate these cuts that are happening in the last year.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

To your point, the role the organization plays is filling an important gap that exists in the system. The research is being done. The federal government is committing the research through the CIHR, for example. They're doing the health research, but it's getting to the next stage, that clinical trial. Again, are we investing those critical dollars? Are they reaching the patient? Do you not think that cutting your funding will impact patient safety?

[Stéphanie Michaud]

With respect to patient safety, in the development work we carry out in order to meet the regulatory requirements, 99% of the different products we work on are brand new products. Establishing safety and demonstrating safety to Health Canada is absolutely key before a product will be administered to a patient.

I think this is why this study here is so key with respect to examining accountability and governance. It's really about understanding how a cut in a certain part of the ecosystem really has downstream ramifications. It really points to the need to take a holistic look at how we're supporting our research. The research we do would not be possible without the great research that's being carried out by CIHR-funded researchers. We benefit from that, but our investment is key to getting it to a clinical trial.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

To your point, which is valuable, this study is so important, along with having you appear here today, because it does show the differences between the tri-agencies, for example, in how they report on the outcomes for the dollars that are being spent; the means and the accountability measures that the government puts in for private groups such as yours; and the accountability measures, the performance measures and the project designs that need to be required. I think it's ultimately responsible that the government take a look at everything and come forward, to your point, with a plan that kind of covers all outcomes.

[Stéphanie Michaud]

I would agree with you. That is why we are very much looking forward to working with different government stakeholders to see a path through this situation at this time that we've been presented with.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now proceed to MP Noormohamed.

You have six minutes.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Annan, how long have you been with the organization?

[Robert Annan]

I've been with the organization for about six years.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Are you aware of the significant cuts your organization underwent in 2014?

[Robert Annan]

Yes. It was before my time, but yes.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Do you have any context on the cuts that you could share with this committee?

[Robert Annan]

No. As I said, I know that we went through them, but I don't really have the context to speak specifically about them.