Science and Research Committee on March 23rd, 2026

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

Setting up a new organization doesn't mean erasing everything that was done before. It could combine everything that was achieved.

[Karine Morin]

We agree.

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

Great.

What concrete measures do you propose to guarantee the vitality of research in French in the federal structure? What are the indicators, mechanisms and targets to put in place to ensure follow-up?

[Karine Morin]

Here again, it's a matter of prioritizing that objective, which can be measured quite easily by assessing the number of French-language researchers who submit a funding application in French and who later publish their work in French. All of that can be tracked and measured. If there are gaps in that regard, we can look at why and determine what support measures or incentives are needed.

In my view, choices are often made based on the type of research. If we want international co-operation, are we limiting ourselves to francophone countries or are we looking to work with other countries where the common language is English? It's important to understand the challenges so that we know what kind of support is needed for French-language researchers to choose to continue working in French within the system.

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

There is a fairly broad consensus on the fact that research in French is really underfunded and that researchers are more inclined to submit their applications in English. How could we make progress on that front and ensure that there is more research in French?

For example, in Quebec, if we look at the federal research funding granted to universities, we see that anglophones receive three to four times as much as francophones. Some people dispute that data, but researchers have compiled it.

[Karine Morin]

Again, are these informed choices or choices by default? I don't think we understand the specifics of every discipline and those of the researchers making the choices. There are certainly instances where support for research in French is lacking. Therefore, that support should be strengthened, especially in minority language communities outside Quebec, where universities are even more spread out and have even fewer resources, so that these communities can continue to evolve by conducting research in French.

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

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Doyle, what guarantees can you provide to ensure that small and medium-sized francophone and regional businesses have fair access to technology access centres and federal programs?

[Ken Doyle]

There are about 70 technology access centres in Canada, but there are 33 in Quebec. Our model is based on the system of college centres for the transfer of technology. Our data indicates that most of the companies we support in a given year are Quebec companies. There is expertise in Quebec, but there is also specialized expertise outside Quebec. There are centres in Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia that use their expertise to help SMEs in Quebec get closer to their goal, which is to commercialize their technologies.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Ho for five minutes. This is the start of our second round. Please go ahead.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to take a moment to move the motion that was put on notice back on February 11 of this year. I believe members in this committee have had ample time to look it over, and copies were distributed at the start of the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You would like to move this motion now. Please go ahead.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Should I read it, or should I just move on to debate?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Has everyone seen it?

MP Beaulieu, have you seen this motion MP Ho is moving? You're good. Okay.

MP Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I wanted to speak to the motion that Mr. Ho has moved. We are generally supportive of the motion with one amendment that I would like to propose, which is that we strike (e) from the motion, and then therefore change the number from five meetings, obviously, to four to reflect that. Other than that, I would be very supportive of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Is everyone in favour of the amendment by MP Noormohamed?

MP Beaulieu, are you okay with it?

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

I will support the proposal if the member who moved the motion is prepared to remove that point.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to See Minutes of Proceedings)

The motion is adopted. Thank you.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I'll use my remaining time to ask a few questions.

My first set of questions is for Professor Chan. It's good to have you here on this committee. As a U of T alum, I've seen first-hand the research process that U of T outputs every year. It really puts Canada on the map, on the world stage, when it comes to research.

Is Canada too focused on early-stage research funding at the expense of scaling and commercialization? In your view, what policies could be adopted to correct that imbalance?

[Timothy Chan]

It's always great to meet an alum.

I think it's not a zero-sum game. We need to continue to support the early-stage research because that is what fills the pipeline with ideas, with technologies and with inventions that will then fuel the businesses and the products of tomorrow. If there's a perception that we don't do as well in the latter half of the pipeline, then I think we have to invest there more, but I don't think that means it should come at the expense of investments upstream.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thanks, Professor Chan.

I'll ask the question again to Mr. Doyle. What ways can we fix that imbalance? We're seeing taxpayer-funded IP being owned overseas ultimately. What are some ways that the federal government can change its policy so that research is outputted to ownership by Canadians and for Canadians?

[Ken Doyle]

I mentioned the patent box earlier. I think that might be a step in the right direction, but there are best practices from other jurisdictions that we may want to look at. You're right. We have incredibly smart people doing some incredibly novel things, but that IP, when the company or the entity gets to a certain point, gets snatched up. It goes either down south or across the pond, and then gets, through the technology radius levels, commercialized and sold back to us as a finished product.

Other jurisdictions put hooks into the public funding of research projects where it's almost like the company runs a tab with the government. As the government invests more and more in that technology development, should they decide to sell their company or take that IP elsewhere, whoever acquires them has to pay off that tab, and then often a multiplier based on the future value of that. Those funds get reinvested into the companies that want to grow and scale in that country, and that's something we may want to explore as well.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Would you be agreeable to a policy where, if that money gets offshored, the recipients of that money would then have to pay it back to the government, or pay a portion of it back to the government?

[Ken Doyle]

I think it's absolutely the right approach to be able to reinvest those funds that do come back into the companies who do want to stay and grow here in Canada.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Doyle, we've seen in previous committee meetings that, depending on how you calculate it, there are hundreds of different grant programs for seed and investment and commercialization funding. Do you see the fragmentation in all the paperwork and the administration of those programs as being a barrier? Do you think some consolidation of the bureaucracies could maybe make the operation of that funding more efficient and easier for businesses to navigate?