Science and Research Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[Ken Doyle]

I think it is important that we acknowledge programs like the industrial research assistance program at the National Research Council, which does help thousands of companies every year. It even has “industrial research” in its name. That's a very effective model.

I've been a fan of the patent box model in other countries, where, when a company creates some intellectual property and patents it, future revenues are almost protected from taxation, if they do grow and commercialize here in Canada. That may be something the country may want to explore in a bit more detail.

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

SMEs face bigger barriers to adapting and scaling new technologies. After years of Liberal programs and promises, are SMEs still left behind by a system that is too complex, too slow and too disconnected from their needs? Can you elaborate?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You have three seconds left.

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

Can you provide a written answer?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Maybe we can come back in the second round. We have 35 minutes more to go.

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

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the three witnesses for their testimony.

Ms. Morin, first of all, why is it important to consider the social sciences and humanities perspective in our work on the governance and accountability of federal science policy and institutions? How does that perspective differ from that of other disciplines? Do you have any specific points or factors to bring to our attention in this regard?

[Karine Morin]

Yes, when it comes to science and technology, I think we tend to focus on the health sciences, natural sciences and engineering, and we forget the social sciences and humanities.

However, in the well-known case of COVID‑19, we know that biomedical researchers did their work and were able to produce a vaccine within a year. However, the pandemic continued on for several years after that. Why? It was due to factors related to human behaviour, factors specific to different communities, factors specific to health systems and institutions, and other factors that were not biomedical in nature.

If we focus solely on how to solve a complex problem like pandemics and only pay attention to biomedical research issues, we risk falling back into the same problems—that is, we will have a biomedical solution, a health solution, but not a solution tailored to communities, individuals or society.

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

In your testimony, you mentioned that one possible area for improvement would be to better assess the impact of research funded by the various federal programs. If I understand correctly, it's a matter of broadening our criteria to better understand the impact on Canadian society. Can you tell us more about this? How do you see this?

[Karine Morin]

Thank you for your question, because it aligns precisely with the purpose of my testimony, which is to point out that we are not paying attention to this impact. We fund a lot of research—and, in my opinion, rightly so—in the humanities and social sciences, but we don't really concern ourselves with its implications to better validate its importance and fully understand its impact on individuals, communities, society and institutions. These are therefore evaluation measures that haven't really been developed within our ecosystem.

I would say that's not the case, or very little, in other countries either. When we talk about science and innovation, we tend to pay much more attention to technological issues first and then economic issues, and we often seem to forget the issues of society, values and impacts on individuals, communities and society.

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

Do you have any examples of what such criteria might look like and how they could be better included?

[Karine Morin]

Perhaps the simplest examples I could give are related to health, among other things. We clearly understood that it wasn't just about finding solutions to diseases, but about treating patients. We adopted a perspective that was much more centred on the patient as an individual. If we did that in other areas, be it energy, development or natural resources, there would be ways to measure the impact on people and communities, among others. So I think we could find a number of examples in all sectors that are important for our research areas.

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

We know that the current governance frameworks include ministerial oversight, public reports, program evaluations and various mechanisms in place when a researcher receives funding. The motion before us is broad and focuses on the hypothetical creation of an independent body that would be responsible for monitoring, analysis, accountability and federal science policy.

If I understood you correctly, that wouldn't necessarily be the preferred approach. It would therefore be preferable to look at the current mechanisms and make the necessary adjustments. Do I understand you correctly?

[Karine Morin]

That would be my suggestion, yes.

There are already plenty of mechanisms in place. The idea is to broaden them to capture an even more comprehensive measure of the value of the impact of our government-subsidized research.

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

In that regard, you've already mentioned a number of avenues. Are there any avenues that you haven't had the opportunity to present to us so far and that you would like us to explore in our work?

[Karine Morin]

I wouldn't want to speak for a previous witness, but I did have the privilege of working at Genome Canada. The program they called “genomics in society,” I believe, assessed the impact of these new genomic technologies across sectors by looking at measures beyond economic ones. They were measures of impact on the various agricultural sectors, for example, on the various types of markets and communities, as well as on environmental, legal, ethical and public policy issues. These factors were all part of the program, which is quite unique, by the way.

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

Mr. Chan, you mentioned that your research has been supported by federal programs. Do you have any suggestions for improving existing accountability mechanisms, based on your experience?

[Timothy Chan]

I believe there are already a host of accountability mechanisms in place right now across our funding landscape and our granting councils. As an individual researcher, I have to submit reports and attest to financial reporting and end-of-project reporting. The institution has to attest, as well, to the responsible research that is conducted, the university to the responsible use of funds. Therefore, I believe there are already a host of reporting mechanisms and good governance processes in place.

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

Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. Your time is up.

We will proceed to MP Beaulieu for six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Ms. Morin, if we want to go beyond accounting audits and really judge the public interest of investments, which indicator of societal impact, including on francophone communities, should be standardized and published annually, in your opinion?

[Karine Morin]

I wish I had an answer to your question, but there isn't one, really. That hasn't been sufficiently developed. The work isn't being done, because those aren't the concerns we have when we subsidize science, research and technological development. It is done mainly for economic reasons.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

You said that you didn't think it was necessary to create an independent organization that could assess all research funding and that could also compare, for example, research in the humanities with research in health or biology. Is that correct?

[Karine Morin]

We've already talked a lot about the idea of creating an umbrella organization, which seems intended to better coordinate all the organizations. In my view, the type of measures I'm thinking of should be developed based on the ones that exist, that we know and that we know how to evaluate. To better recognize what's not being done, I would take a coordinated look at what's being done, rather than separately examine each granting agency, which only considers its own perspective. By bringing it all together, it becomes much more interdisciplinary, and that is probably where we would be better able to measure the effects on individuals, communities, society or institutions, among others.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Then, you're not necessarily opposed to the objective of creating an umbrella organization.

[Karine Morin]

We agree on that, but we have to wonder whether it's necessary to set up a new organization from scratch. I don't think there's a compelling case for it.