Science and Research Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[Ken Doyle]

One of the major pain points we hear from the companies we work with every year is exactly that. There's a proliferation of programs at the federal and provincial levels asking for effectively the same piece of information five or six different ways, depending on the funding program. Then there are the timelines where the fiscal year of the program is not aligned with the company's operating quarters, or they're looking a quarter ahead and not towards March 31 or April 1. It's a bit of a disconnect at all levels.

You're right that there would be efficiencies gained by normalizing some of these items. If the goal is to help companies commercialize in Canada and create wealth, some of those barriers, such as the administrivia, might be one place to start.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP McKelvie for five minutes.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Morin.

I notice that you have experience in bioethics and law. This is about governance, and we did talk about balancing academic freedom with mission-oriented research, so I'm wondering what your thoughts are around governance of new and emerging technologies. I know that we always use AI as that example, but I think there are others, including synthetic biology.

I'm wondering if you could speak to some of your recommendations in that regard.

[Karine Morin]

Indeed, I think we see that in some fields there's been recognition early on that the new and emerging technologies would likely be very controversial. The best way to address that—to understand what the risks are, what the aversions are and what values are at stake—does entail having not just the scientists make those decisions on whether to advance or not advance, or whether it's more beneficial or detrimental, scientifically speaking; it's also seeing it from a perspective of societal values. Bring in those ethicists and other disciplines. Sociologists can assist in this regard. All sorts of other experts can help articulate the risks so that there can be a better understanding of trade-offs and whether to advance or not with certain controversial technologies and/or regulate them in such a way that they would remain very confined under oversight, making sure there's no trespassing of the societal willingness to try to advance them.

Oftentimes, behind some of the controversial technologies, certainly in health, there are lives at stake. I'm sure there are often willing patients who would want to see those advancements. We know that other individuals are averse to certain approaches. It's about how we bring that out to facilitate a consensus or to facilitate a very controlled, tightly regulated approach so that we can make sure there's no greater harm than necessary, but if there are benefits to be gained, we don't leave those aside for too long. When they're matters of health and illness and lives, oftentimes we are looking to find solutions to those conditions.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Doyle, you pointed out that you are an optimist. I heard you say that. I wrote it down. I'm wondering if you could speak to what you see as the opportunities in mission-driven research and collaboration. What are those potentials for Canada to make its mark? In particular, how can colleges have a role in that?

[Ken Doyle]

You're quite right. I am an optimist. I have a positive mental attitude. I'm buoyed by the fact that there's so much demand for the services the technology access centres offer. Each of the centres has an average wait-list of 11 weeks for companies that want to innovate, do cool stuff in Canada, commercialize and create wealth for this country. They just need an intermediary to help them out. That role—that pilot scale that we play in—is complementary to the great work going on in universities and government labs. We're the de-risking validator for the private sector, which can produce a million units of an innovative new technology or even adopt it themselves to save some money on the shop floor for their bottom line.

One of the coolest aspects, for sure, is this: Every project we do is partnered with industry or a community. We have professional R and D staff who do their thing. What I love is that it's a multidisciplinary team attacking the problem from every angle. College students and university students benefit, as well, as members of those teams. They're gaining innovation literacy and skills acquired during their studies, then have a competitive advantage in the labour market when they graduate and go out—whether it's working with the company they partnered with on the project or being able to speak to some really tangible, hands-on experience they have in a job interview. I think that's a really cool thing that we should be proud of. It's complementary to the other sides of the spectrum. We just need a bit more of it.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Dr. Chan, can you outline your thoughts? Today's study is very much on governance. If we are to better align with mission-driven research, where do you see the opportunities around that, and how should we be governing that or making those decisions?

[Timothy Chan]

Based on my background doing interdisciplinary research, I think mission-driven research is a very important area for Canada to be investing in. The tri-council funds the disciplinary work. We need to complement that with a new or reinvigorated approach to really think about mission-driven work. Everything that is complex in the world today is, you could argue, mission-driven and strategic because it is so messy: AI, energy, precision therapeutics, etc. Solving all this has a benefit to society.

In terms of how we govern this, it will take a collective approach to think about not only the disciplinary aspects but also the ultimate impacts that doing this type of work will have on society. It has to be a collective approach to governing and making sure the outcomes of this work benefit all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

With that, we will now proceed to MP Beaulieu for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Chan, what public dashboard should a university publish, including success rates by language, institution and discipline, for example, to strengthen accountability and align with the objectives of the committee's current study?

[Timothy Chan]

Thank you for the question. I hope you don't mind if I respond in English. My high-school French is not very good.

I'll give you one example. At the University of Toronto, we have many dashboards of the type you're referring to that report on all of our funding from different sources, in different types of areas and so on. Institutions have this data. We report this in aggregate to demonstrate how we are being successful in our research and how we are sharing this research in lots of different areas.

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

At the University of Toronto, do francophones have access to research tools and the like?

[Timothy Chan]

Yes, there is, 100%. All the data, research tools and supports given to our faculty, students and researchers are available to our entire community.

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

My question is for all three of you, even though Ms. Morin already spoken about this.

Do you agree that setting up an independent body to monitor, analyze and report on federal scientific policies would be feasible and relevant?

[Timothy Chan]

Having an independent organization to evaluate and assess that is a positive thing. We should be looking very critically at our research ecosystem, its successes and areas where we need improvement. Anything that provides rigorous accounting for what we are doing is a welcome addition.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Doyle, what do you think?

[Ken Doyle]

I completely agree with Mr. Chan.

There is an example that is both quite funny and sad. Up until three or four years ago, when you applied for a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada's college research funding program, the character limit was the same in English and in French—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

If you can, please, quickly wind up. You have 10 seconds.

[Ken Doyle]

The limit for francophones was increased by 30% only a few years ago. This is something that has to be taken into account from the outset.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Baldinelli for three and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair

Thank you to the witnesses.

Mr. Doyle, it's good to see you again. Thank you for being here.

I've always appreciated the applied research side of our scientific research and the funding of colleges. Niagara College in my community is the number one research college in all of Canada, and the work that Tech-Access does is critically important.

You say you deal with 6,000 businesses in a year. The whole notion of how you're able to turn applied research requests that come in from businesses into tangible outcomes is to be appreciated, particularly as funding dollars are very valuable. We're spending about $10 billion, and I would suggest that we're not investing in the college side to the degree that we should be.

You mentioned in your testimony this notion of the patent box idea. You talk about companies that work with Tech-Access in our college system retaining 100% of the patents. Can you go further into your notion of the patent box idea?

[Ken Doyle]

It's great to be back here again.

Our model, because we're relatively new to the game compared to university research and government research, is that the companies retain 100% of the intellectual property. In exchange for that, it's a true collaboration, but we don't want to encumber them with a random royalty stake or 3% equity stake kind of thing. Where they're small companies trying to get their widget close to commercialization and get in front of investors, we don't want to upset that, the trade-off being that whenever we can engage students and put them on the projects, we do.

Canada has had a number of novel things over the years—the scientific research and experimental development tax credit and low corporate tax rates and that kind of thing—which were great and spurred things in the seventies, eighties and nineties, but the rest of the world caught up and surpassed us. Now, I think, it is worth looking at trying to attract some of that back here, or at keeping the IP here with stuff like a patent box. A company comes up with an idea, a novel idea and they register that intellectual property. They get their patent and any revenues derived from that going forward would be tax-free or at the lowest possible tax rate, a very modest tax rate, to incentivize them to stay and commercialize here, rather than just shipping it abroad.

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

At the same time, should the government invest and that person leave the country, taking that IP with them, should those dollars we've invested into that corporation then come back to the taxpayers?

[Ken Doyle]

As a representative of Tech-Access Canada and, at the end of the day, a Canadian taxpayer, I think so. If they benefited from support from NSERC programs or from NRC IRAP and all these other leveraging support programs that are critically important to de-risk companies investing in R and D here, especially on the applied side closer to commercialization, I'd love to see whoever acquires that pay back that tab, so that it could be reinvested in companies that do want to grow and stay here and scale in Canada.