Science and Research Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but the time is up for MP Ho.

We will end this panel with MP Rana for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Tessari L'Allié, you have talked about how governments have almost no visibility into what AI agents are doing on our digital infrastructure. On the publicly funded side, who is keeping track of what's being built in Canadian labs, how it's being tested and whether there are real safety protocols in place? Is there an accountability gap we should be worried about?

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

In the government, there is a new initiative to have a registry of AI systems, which I think is a good idea developed by TBS.

In the private sector of the broader world, it is the Wild West. There is no regulation. There is no oversight. Every province has a list of every motor vehicle in the province, what make it is and what safety testing it has had. For AI, there's none of that. This is really where it is.

Right now, we're seeing incidents like the AI agents stealing passwords or harassing developers, but this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of these incidents are not being reported because they're embarrassing for the companies, or they're embarrassing for the hackers or the developers who use them.

As a first step, the first thing you need to do is get a clear dashboard of how many agents there are. Are we looking at millions or billions of agents in our systems? What kinds of agents are being used?

Even for the ones that are public, MIT did a study that came out in February on the 30 top AI agents being used in industry up until December. The vast majority did not have any shutdown protocols or safety protocols, and there had never been any safety testing. These are the major companies like IBM and OpenAI, which have a business incentive do the right thing and have some safety in place.

Think of all the open-weight stuff that's happening with developers doing their own thing with no oversight. This is where we're waiting for an accident to happen here. As these systems get more and more capable, all the frontier companies are saying they want to make these systems more capable than humans. If you go to their websites, they're saying “We're building AGI,” or artificial general intelligence.

People talk about driving towards the cliff; I think we've driven off the cliff and we're waiting for impact, basically.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Many researchers push back strongly against anything that could interfere with academic freedom or investigator-driven research. You have flagged serious concerns about loss-of-control incidents and agents acting in a way nobody intended. Where is the line? How do we protect the freedom to do research without letting federally funded projects produce something that could be generally dangerous?

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

That's an excellent question.

One thing I keep forgetting to mention is this is obviously a technology with a lot of really good benefits in science and research especially. The big thing we need to do is separate the kinds of AI that are a major concern from the ones that aren't.

As mentioned, with single-purpose systems, when you're training a machine learning model to do one single thing, there are some issues with bias and privacy, but you don't need to have hands-on regulation for that kind of stuff, or at least not as much.

With chatbots, you start getting into issues like deepfakes, and we're seeing teenagers commit suicide. There are some regulations you need, but you don't need to be quite as hands-on.

Where you really need to draw the line is AI agents. If your AI system can basically do the work of a human being on a computer, there needs to be a licence for that AI agent and there needs to be safety testing. Scientists and researchers should still be able to use them, but that's where it's kind of like it was with nuclear research. Up until a certain point, it was all fun and games: People could do the research on their own with no problem at all. When they realized, “Oh, wait a minute; you can get a chain reaction and cause a nuclear bomb,” that's when government stepped in and said that if you want to do research on this, you have to have security clearance and you have to work within certain bounds. That's what needs to happen with AI right now, because we're at that stage.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You have appeared before several committees in warning about how fast AI is developing, and your organization has put out a plan calling on Canada to treat advanced AI as a crisis-level issue. With that in mind, do you think NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC are equipped to evaluate and oversee AI research at the pace that this technology moves?

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

No. I don't think any traditional research would be.

I do think that, in an ideal world, if we can get our handle on the really dangerous models and at least put some kind of temporary moratorium on them, then we can absolutely harness our excellent scientists and researchers to figure out how we keep these systems under control, to take those figures to figure it out.

Then you can lift the moratorium and you get the best of both worlds. In the meantime, if you race ahead without that, then it'll be like.... Human research is too slow to be able to deal with that kind of threat.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

With this, the panel comes to an end.

I want to take the opportunity to thank all the witnesses for appearing before this committee.

We will suspend this meeting so the witnesses for the second panel can take their seats.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome back.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and 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 microphone, 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 or English or French. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses for the second panel.

We are joined today by the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, represented by Karine Morin, president and chief executive officer; Tech-Access Canada, represented by Ken Doyle, executive director; and the University of Toronto, represented by Professor Timothy Chan, associate vice-president and vice-provost, strategic initiatives.

Welcome to all our witnesses. Thank you for appearing before the committee. All of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, then we will go into a round of questioning.

We will begin with Ms. Morin.

Please go ahead.

[Karine Morin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

I'm Karine Morin, president and chief executive officer of the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences.

The federation promotes scholarship and leadership in the humanities and social sciences through advocacy, capacity building and knowledge exchange. Our membership spans 76 post-secondary institutions and 66 scholarly associations, representing a diverse community of 90,000 researchers and graduate students in Canada.

I'm pleased to appear before the committee to contribute to its work on the capstone organization and research excellence.

Today I wish to once again share my observations regarding our disciplines, as well as my previous experience within the granting agencies.

To begin, I want to note that for intramural and extramural research and innovation to be well governed and accountable, the science policy ecosystem must be guided by fundamental principles. In Canada, these principles are well established and are a core strength of our system.

Research is conducted ethically and with integrity. I note that the relevant tri-council policies uphold international best practices and undergo periodic reviews.

Assessment of research proposals should be carried out fairly and by experts and it is. Our peer reviewers act neutrally and they disclose their conflicts of interest. They are trained to avoid unconscious biases, and, again, these are the practices that are put forward by the research councils.

Furthermore, our agencies are at the forefront of assessing questions, such as whether the pool of applicants is representative of the population and whether certain groups perform better than others within given applicant pools.

For example, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, SSHRC, produces detailed and publicly available dashboards, because the federal government made it a policy.

Assessment of funding programs should be transparent, accountable to government and the public, and it is. Research councils' funding programs undergo rigorous public evaluations that assess relevance, efficiency in delivery and fulfillment of objectives. I would cite, as an example, a very comprehensive 2024 review of support for research training and talent development.

Let me turn to opportunities for improvements, which we must seize as we mobilize research and expand our understanding of its value. I first want to note the rapidly evolving field of metascience, which heavily relies on data. As you heard previously, the research councils' legacy systems currently present challenges; however, a new grant management system is being implemented and should eliminate some of these difficulties. Nevertheless, researchers are able to make data requests and to obtain such data to answer some research questions.

Nevertheless, clearer mechanisms could be implemented to support data requests from researchers and to make these data requests publicly listed, including the relevant findings or related publications. These improvements should be an important part of a capstone organization.

Furthermore, what is most needed is a clear mandate to assess strengths and gaps in our science policy. This should be embedded in the long-awaited advisory council on science and innovation and in the national strategy that is called for by the chief science adviser.

Finally, the key question is whether we are measuring the full benefits of federally funded research or relying on narrow assessments that value only certain types of research that mostly benefit private firms rather than communities. Measures need to extend beyond tech transfer, patents or spinoffs. Personally, I'm not convinced that I need another app on my phone.

To broaden the assessment of the value and impact of research is to establish a new contract between science and society, one that recognizes social innovation; supports research to be spread and scaled to benefit health, social resilience, adaptability and cohesion across our communities; restores greater trust in our institutions; and preserves our sovereignty. As we anticipate policies that will set mission-driven research, we must ensure that they will be human-centred.

To sum up, I would say that the federation believes that the government already has a number of mechanisms at its disposal to identify needed improvements. At this time, the federation doesn't believe it's necessary to create another body or another independent monitoring, analysis and accountability function. However, we do need to broaden our assessments of the value and impact of research to improve Canadian science policy for the benefit of everyone.

Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

With that, we will now proceed to Mr. Ken Doyle, executive director of Tech-Access Canada.

You have five minutes.

[Ken Doyle, Executive Director, Tech-Access Canada]

Thank you for the invitation to join you again this afternoon.

Tech-Access Canada is our national network of technology access centres that work directly with Canadian companies to help them adopt technologies, develop prototypes, validate innovations and move new products and processes into real-world use. Our centres focus on solving practical innovation challenges faced by small and medium-sized companies by providing access to highly specialized equipment, applied R and D, and commercialization expertise that helps translate promising ideas into the usable solutions people will pay for. Our non-dilutive support lets companies retain 100% of their IP and subsequent profits.

Over the past five years, more than 28,000 innovative Canadian companies have worked with our network, trusting our centres to help them improve productivity, adopt new technologies and bring innovations to market. One of our health tech centres has supported nearly 500 companies over the past five years and helped develop or improve more than 400 products and services, strengthening our digital health sector with made-in-Canada innovations.

From our perspective, Canada’s innovation ecosystem is not lacking in inspiration. My friend Dr. Chan from the University of Toronto will speak to how Canada already punches well above its weight in breakthrough and interdisciplinary research.

One of the consistent challenges identified—both in Canada and internationally—is translating knowledge into adoption to generate real economic and societal value. That is precisely where our centres operate. One of our Ontario centres helped a small company validate a proprietary predictive maintenance technology that uses smart sensors to detect equipment failures before they happen, helping them grow to $5 million in global sales and creating seven new jobs in Ontario. We work at the stage where novel technologies must be tested, adapted, prototyped and validated in real-world operating environments—steps that are often difficult for smaller companies to do without in-house R and D capacity.

In other countries, researchers describe themselves as “working with” national government research organizations. In Canada, we far too often hear these relationships described as “funder” and “award recipient”. Strengthening that “working with” dimension—connecting researchers, companies and national-scale infrastructure like our centres and the National Research Council—can help ensure that we translate more research into real-world outcomes.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that not all research outcomes are commercial in nature. Canada’s strength depends on a broad and balanced research ecosystem capable of supporting adoption and deployment. Our work complements longer-term research investments by helping ensure that emerging knowledge and technologies are actually used by companies, in the economy and in communities. One of our centres in western Canada partnered with northern communities to design high-performance buildings, achieving a 41% reduction in annual emissions while creating shared data to guide future infrastructure decisions in those same communities.

The technology access centre model has now been operating nationally for more than a decade and has been studied internationally, including by the OECD, as an example of applied research infrastructure that supports and enables firm-level innovation and technology adoption. Today, the network includes 70 centres across the country operating under a common, proven model. Demand is strong, the model is well understood and the results are consistent. In that sense, this is not a concept or pilot. It is proven infrastructure that is already delivering outcomes at scale.

A clean-tech company approached one of our centres to develop an automated solar panel recycling system. We helped them reduce manufacturing emissions by 33%, while also helping them recover valuable materials for reuse in their core product.

At a time when there is a strong focus on evidence and measurable outcomes, independent economic analysis using StatsCan data examined the performance of firms that collaborate with technology access centres. This analysis found that small companies working with one of our centres experienced substantially stronger growth in both sales and employment than comparable firms that did not. On average, small firms saw employment growth of 70% and increased sales of more than 140% following their engagement with a technology access centre. These are firm-level outcomes—measurable, real-world impacts that reflect companies adopting technology and creating wealth here at home.

As you consider questions of governance, accountability and effectiveness within the science and innovation ecosystem, we offer a simple observation: Strong outcomes depend not only on how research is funded but also on whether it is ultimately used. Canada has a diverse and capable research ecosystem. Ensuring that it delivers maximum benefit requires increased attention to adoption, deployment and scale. Our centres are designed to operate in that space, working shoulder to shoulder with companies to translate capability into impact. We are a proven, national network with a consistent model. We are trusted by thousands of companies each year and deliver measurable results. The infrastructure exists. The demand exists. The results are measurable. We are well positioned to do even more.

My parents raised me to be an optimist, and I think the future is bright.

Thank you. I look forward to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed with Professor Chan for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Timothy Chan, Associate Vice-President and Vice-Provost, Strategic Initiatives, University of Toronto]

Hello, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to be here today.

My name is Timothy Chan. I am the associate vice-president and vice-provost for strategic initiatives at the University of Toronto. In that role, I am responsible for the identification, assessment, prioritization and support of large-scale, excellence-driven, interdisciplinary research initiatives. Our institutional strategic initiatives, ISIs, cover areas including AI, robotics, energy and infectious disease. They tackle global challenges and catalyze collaboration across disciplines.

I am also a professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering. My research focuses on the development of novel optimization models to solve decision-making problems in health care, medicine, transportation and sports. Mirroring the focus of my administrative role at the university, my research program is deeply interdisciplinary and has been funded by a variety of sources, including NSERC and CIHR.

I'm here today representing the University of Toronto, which, according to the Times Higher Education world university rankings, is the number 21 ranked university in the world, number 10 among public universities and number one in Canada.

In 2024-25, U of T and our hospital partners secured approximately $1.5 billion in research funding, with about a third coming from the granting councils.

How does this funding translated into impact? In the last five years, we've published close to 70,000 scientific articles that have been cited over 1.4 million times. More than that, this research lays the foundation for industrial innovation. Last year alone, we supported close to 700 start-ups and generated over 100 patents. In 2025, PitchBook named U of T Canada's top university for producing venture-backed entrepreneurs. Every year, we engage industry partners in over 200 joint R and D projects.

Our reputation is also a magnet for international talent attraction. The most recent example comes from the Canada impact+ research chairs program, where U of T and our partner hospitals received nearly 1,000 applications from international scholars eager to join us.

I provide this information to the committee as context so you know how my research and institution shape my thinking around interdisciplinarity. Historically, the way much research has been done has been within disciplinary boundaries, and we have done well in this regard; however, societal grand challenges that we are faced with are increasingly requiring an interdisciplinary approach. Wicked problems require wicked approaches. Misson-driven priorities require focused support and coordination to ensure that strategic goals are met.

The granting councils provide a critical foundation for our national research ecosystem. Canada must leverage this foundation as it contemplates how best to invest in new mission-driven and strategic priorities, whether through a capstone agency or other mechanisms that provide an extra layer of coordination and support.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Now we will start our rounds of questioning. The first round is six minutes each. We will start with MP Mahal.

Please go ahead.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for attending this important meeting today.

I would like to start with Ken Doyle.

You come from a platform that is solely related to outcome, not just on rhetoric and what other institutes are doing. You come from where you can see the results. You offer results to companies, provide solutions and bring them to a platform or stage where they can commercialize or where they can make real use of Canadian dollars.

After a decade of Liberal innovation policy and billions in spending, would you agree that the system is overly focused on academic research and government announcements rather than on delivering real-world results like commercialization, productivity and firm growth?

[Ken Doyle]

All the structures are in place. From time to time, there come issues with connective tissue between them. The top of the funnel, the input and the basic discovery research, where we are a world leader, absolutely...and we should be proud of that. The translation piece into products, processes and services that people will pay for is where there's a bit more balancing that may need to happen. We stand ready, willing and able to do it. Demand is definitely there. It's in the enabling mechanisms that we may need a bit more support.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

That's right. Would you agree that Canada's innovation system is designed around the needs of institutions and administrators rather than the needs of businesses trying to bring products to the market?

[Ken Doyle]

I'm not sure if I can speak eloquently to that one.

Our centres are connected to post-secondary institutions across the country. For them, the challenge is operating as a small business, effectively, inside a public institution, where there's quite a bit of bureaucracy to deal with, which inhibits their ability to maximize their potential. For 40 hours a week of every week of every year, they're out there grinding and helping these companies turn really innovative ideas from the benchtop scale to the pilot scale into a product that can be scaled up and commercialized to create wealth here in Canada.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Doyle, you have demonstrated strong private-sector encouragement and engagement. Does that suggest that applied research models like yours are better at crowding in private investment than traditional academic funding schemes?

[Ken Doyle]

We work with 6,000 private companies a year, but we also work with 980 other partners, like universities, government labs and those kinds of public institutions, where we're partner-agnostic. We're assessing the novelty of their innovation challenge and whether we are in a position to help.

One of our true strengths is our ability to be objective with our clients and partners. If the idea doesn't have technological merit or commercial potential, we'll tell them to stop dumping money into something that's probably not going to be successful. We'll tell them to pivot and try a different approach.

That objectivity and cost avoidance is part of our secret sauce that makes us a trusted partner to so many thousands of companies every year.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

From your perspective, does the federal government have any credible way to track whether taxpayer-funded research is actually producing economic returns, or is the taxpayer writing blank cheques without measuring outcomes? It's especially when you have to relate the research to commercialization and industrialization, so that Canadians can see real value in their dollars being invested on the research side.

[Ken Doyle]

That's another very nuanced question. Thank you.

We're in sort of a weird space where we operate in the innovation ecosystem. We don't invent anything on one end and we don't invoice for anything on the other. We're sort of an intermediary. Another element of our secret sauce is giving the client 100% of the intellectual property to commercially exploit it. The trade-off there is that we have no hook in them later on to figure out if they commercialized, if they created wealth or if they sold out. What happened to that innovative IP that we helped advance along the technology readiness levels? Unfortunately, I'm unable to speak to that concretely.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

That's sad, isn't it? Despite all the spending, we are still not seeing results. That's a policy failure, in my opinion.

Is it fair to say that system is built for institutions and not for Canadian businesses, based on your experience?