Science and Research

The committee discussed Canada's needs for research that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, known as "dual-use" technologies, and how to improve the country's defence research efforts. The first part of the meeting heard from officials from the Department of National Defence and Public Safety Canada. Wendy Hadwen from National Defence explained that Canada is increasing its defence spending to meet NATO targets and is developing a "Defence Industrial Strategy" to build up Canadian defence businesses. She highlighted "dual-use" technologies like drones, which have both military and civilian uses. Dr. Kate Kaminska, also from National Defence, introduced BOREALIS, a new group aimed at speeding up how quickly research becomes useful for defence and security, including setting up "Defence Innovation Secure Hubs" (DISHs) where companies and researchers can work together. Dr. Adam Green from Public Safety Canada talked about protecting Canadian research from foreign threats, mentioning the Research Security Centre which helps universities with security advice and reviews grant applications. Committee members asked about specific defence purchases, the role of gender and race in funding decisions, and how DND works with universities and other government groups. The second part of the meeting featured experts from colleges and universities. Dr. Mike Commito from Cambrian College emphasized the role of colleges in practical, "applied" research, training skilled workers, and testing technologies in real-world conditions, especially for mining and remote operations, which can also help defence. Dr. David Perry from the Canadian Global Affairs Institute stressed the need for clear goals, priorities, and better ways to turn research into actual military equipment, noting that the current system is too slow. Dr. Matthew da Mota from the Canadian Shield Institute warned against spending money without lasting benefits and highlighted the importance of keeping intellectual property (IP) in Canada and having clear standards for dual-use technologies. Dr. Alexandre Blais from the Université de Sherbrooke argued that basic research is crucial for national security and that investments in universities should count towards Canada's NATO commitments, especially in areas like quantum technology, which has both civilian and military uses. He also stressed the importance of supporting entire research "ecosystems" to keep talent and companies in Canada. A recurring theme was the need to speed up the process of getting new technologies from research labs into the hands of the Canadian Armed Forces. Committee members and witnesses discussed challenges with procurement, the importance of retaining Canadian intellectual property, and ensuring that new defence spending genuinely increases Canada's military capabilities rather than just reclassifying existing funds. There was also discussion about how to ensure that smaller universities and colleges, not just large institutions, benefit from and contribute to defence research investments. No specific decisions were made by the committee during this briefing session, but the discussions highlighted areas for future focus and improvement in Canada's defence and dual-use research strategy.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research met to discuss Canada's dual-use and defence research needs. Witnesses from École de technologie supérieure (ETS), Invest Ottawa, and RaceRocks shared their insights on how Canada can better leverage its research and innovation capabilities for both defence and civilian applications. The committee also heard from witnesses from the University of New Brunswick, the University of Calgary, and Tech-Access Canada. They discussed challenges and opportunities in defence economics, technology transfer, and collaboration between academia, industry, and government. Jean Belzile from ETS emphasized the need to speed up the process of turning research into real-world technologies for defence. Sonya Shorey from Invest Ottawa highlighted the importance of a coordinated national system that connects various sectors to maximize the impact of defence spending. Anita Pawluk from RaceRocks, an Indigenous-owned company, pointed out gaps in the innovation system that hinder Indigenous businesses from participating in defence contracts. Robert Huebert from the University of Calgary spoke about the lack of in-depth analysis of defence economics in Canada and the need for more open studies on successful and unsuccessful defence projects. Ken Doyle from Tech-Access Canada suggested practical actions like dual-use technology assessments and supplier modernization to improve defence readiness. Ian Church from the University of New Brunswick spoke about the need for better collaboration among ocean technology stakeholders. During the meeting, a motion was introduced to study the Government of Canada’s space procurement practices. The committee members debated the motion, and it was eventually passed. The committee agreed to end the meeting due to time constraints, thanking the witnesses for their contributions and apologizing for the meeting's disruptions.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research met to discuss Canada's dual-use and defence research needs. The committee heard from witnesses about how Canada can better leverage its science and technology capabilities for defence purposes, focusing on food security, innovation, and collaboration between industry, academia, and government. Witnesses included Karn Manhas from Terramera Inc., Major-General Paul Peyton from NATO DIANA, and Robert Asselin from U15 Canada, as well as Richard Shimooka from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Dr. Paul Brett from the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland, and Edoardo De Martin from Industrio AI Inc.. Karn Manhas emphasized the importance of food security as a defence issue, suggesting that Canada needs to protect its food systems from attack or disruption. Major-General Peyton highlighted NATO DIANA's role in accelerating the adoption of dual-use technologies and noted Canada's significant participation in the program. Robert Asselin discussed the need to strengthen Canadian industrial capacity and innovation assets through partnerships between universities, industry, and government. Richard Shimooka spoke about the need for an overall policy for the evolution of science and technology, and the challenges of effectively harnessing scientific capacity for the benefit of the Canadian Armed Forces. Edoardo De Martin advocated for scaling Canadian technology companies at home by securing early customers and accelerating procurement pathways. Dr. Paul Brett focused on how colleges and universities contribute to Canada's dual-use technology systems, and how the Marine Institute translates science into operational capability. Committee members questioned the witnesses on topics such as co-operation between universities and the defence industry, emerging technologies, and barriers to commercialization. The committee discussed the importance of investing in Canadian companies and research, as well as the need for clear policies on intellectual property and data sovereignty. There was also discussion about the government's defence procurement process and whether it adequately supports domestic innovation. The committee agreed to adopt the budget for the study on Canada's dual-use and defence research needs.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Science and Research met to discuss the implications of a preliminary agreement between Canada and China regarding electric vehicles (EVs). The meeting focused on concerns about the agreement's potential impact on Canada's automotive industry, national security, and trade relations with the United States. Witnesses included professors, industry representatives from General Motors and the Pacific Manufacturing Association of Canada, and policy experts. Some witnesses, like Professor Julian Karaguesian, argued that the agreement could benefit Canada by providing access to cheaper EVs and promoting trade diversification. He downplayed national security concerns, suggesting they were overblown. Other witnesses, such as Sarah Goldfeder from General Motors, expressed strong concerns about the agreement, arguing that it could undermine Canada's automotive industry, create dependence on foreign entities, and pose national security risks due to data collection by foreign-controlled vehicles. Brendan Sweeney from the Pacific Manufacturing Association of Canada, which represents Honda and Toyota, highlighted the risk of disrupting the level playing field for market-based actors in the automotive industry. During the meeting, a motion was introduced to study positive examples of EV infrastructure implementation in Canada, particularly in Quebec and British Columbia. This motion was later amended to broaden the scope to include lessons learned throughout the country. A separate motion was introduced to study the government's $200-million agreement concerning Spaceport Nova Scotia, but the committee voted to move to drafting instructions for the EV study, effectively ending public discussion of the Spaceport motion. This decision led to heated debate and accusations of filibustering and disrespect towards witnesses. Ultimately, the committee voted to proceed with drafting instructions for the study on the Canada-China EV agreement, which will take place in a closed session. This means that further discussions and decisions regarding the study will not be public. The meeting ended with unresolved concerns about the EV agreement's potential impact on Canada's automotive sector and trade relationships.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Science and Research met to discuss the implications of a preliminary arrangement between Canada and China regarding the electric vehicle (EV) sector. Witnesses presented different perspectives on the potential benefits and risks of allowing Chinese EVs into the Canadian market. Concerns were raised about data security, forced labor in the supply chain, and the impact on the Canadian auto industry. Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, a senior fellow at the University of Ottawa, expressed concerns about the Baidu software used in some Chinese EVs, stating that data collected by these vehicles could be accessed by Chinese officials. She also raised the issue of forced labor in the production of aluminum used in EVs. David Shipley, CEO of Beauceron Security, warned about the cybersecurity risks associated with all connected vehicles, not just Chinese EVs. He recommended a physical disconnect requirement for all connected vehicles sold in Canada. Rachel Doran, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, argued that Chinese EVs could help make EVs more affordable for Canadians and that controlled competition could benefit the Canadian auto industry. She suggested a two-pronged approach of selective exposure to Chinese EVs and preferential market access for domestic producers. Ryan Ahmed, assistant professor at McMaster University, suggested that the Canada-China arrangement can be constructive if paired with conditions on science, research, and domestic value-added. Moataz Mohamed, also from McMaster University, presented research showing that access to lower-cost electric vehicles will increase adoption, particularly among Canadians who are currently hesitant. Committee members questioned the witnesses on various aspects of the issue, including the potential impact on Canadian jobs, the ethical implications of forced labor, and the role of government in supporting the EV sector. A motion was put forward to allow the first-hour witnesses to stay for the second hour, but it was defeated. The committee agreed to undertake a study on the role of universities and colleges in supporting Canada's dual-use and defence research needs. The committee also scheduled future meetings to discuss draft reports on antimicrobial resistance and research funding criteria.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research met to discuss the implications of allowing Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) into the Canadian market. The committee heard from representatives from vehicle manufacturers' associations, a senior fellow specializing in Chinese affairs, and leaders from electric mobility and energy transition organizations. Brian Kingston from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association expressed concerns about unfair competition due to Chinese government subsidies and weak labor rights, as well as security risks related to data collection by Chinese-made vehicles. Charles Burton, a senior fellow, warned about the potential for Chinese EVs to be used for espionage and destabilization. David Adams from Global Automakers of Canada emphasized the need for a fair and transparent environment for all new entrants into the Canadian market, including Chinese manufacturers. Daniel Breton from Electric Mobility Canada argued that Chinese EVs could help accelerate the transition to electric vehicles and provide more affordable options for Canadians. Andrew McKinnon from Accelerate: Canada's ZEV Supply Chain Alliance stressed the importance of supporting Canada's own EV industry and protecting intellectual property. Moe Kabbara from the Transition Accelerator suggested that Canada could use joint ventures with Chinese automakers to build its own EV manufacturing capabilities. Committee members raised questions about the potential impact on Canadian jobs, the security risks associated with Chinese EVs, and the need for a level playing field for domestic manufacturers. The discussion highlighted the complex challenges and opportunities presented by the increasing presence of Chinese EVs in the Canadian market, with varying perspectives on how to best navigate this evolving landscape. No specific decisions or next steps were identified during the meeting.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Science and Research met to discuss the implications of a preliminary agreement between Canada and China regarding electric vehicles (EVs). The committee wanted to understand the potential impacts on Canada's EV sector, considering both opportunities and risks. Witnesses presented different perspectives on whether closer ties with China in the EV market are beneficial for Canada. Some expressed concerns about national security, data privacy, and human rights, while others emphasized the need for affordable EVs and a competitive auto industry. The committee is trying to figure out if the proposed law is good for Canada. Guy Saint-Jacques, former Canadian ambassador to China, suggested that Canada can benefit from China's advancements in EV technology and manufacturing. He proposed setting rules for Chinese EV manufacturers in Canada, such as requiring a certain percentage of Canadian content in their vehicles. Michael Kovrig, founder of the Global Network for Strategic Effects, warned about the risks of becoming too reliant on China, citing concerns about data security, forced labor, and the potential for China to use its economic power for political gain. He suggested limiting market access and aligning with other countries to counter these risks. Joanna Kyriazis from Clean Energy Canada argued that the agreement could help make EVs more affordable for Canadians and encourage investment in Canada's auto sector. She emphasized the need for a balanced approach that considers both consumer affordability and industrial competitiveness. Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, raised concerns about the large amounts of personal data collected by connected vehicles and the potential for this data to be accessed by foreign governments. He recommended strengthening privacy laws to protect Canadians' data. Committee members questioned the witnesses on various aspects of the agreement, including the balance between economic benefits and security risks, the potential for forced labor in the EV supply chain, and the impact on Canada's auto industry. They also discussed the need for clear regulations and safeguards to protect Canadians' data and privacy. The committee is trying to figure out how to protect Canadians' information. The committee did not make any specific decisions during the meeting. However, the discussion highlighted the complex issues involved in the Canada-China EV agreement and the need for careful consideration of both the potential benefits and risks. The committee will likely continue to study this issue and gather more information before making any recommendations.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research met to recognize the success of the Artemis II mission, which sent humans, including Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen, around the moon. MP Baldinelli introduced a motion to commend the mission's advancements and congratulate all partners involved, including the Canadian Space Agency and NASA, as well as the crew members. Other committee members like Vincent Ho, Taleeb Noormohamed, and Jagsharan Singh Mahal spoke in support of the motion, highlighting the mission's significance for international collaboration and Canadian pride. Committee members emphasized the importance of the mission as a symbol of what can be achieved when countries work together on scientific endeavors. They noted that Jeremy Hansen's participation highlighted Canada's leadership and contributions to space exploration. Members also reflected on the "overview effect," the shift in perspective astronauts experience when viewing Earth from space, and how it underscores the interconnectedness of humanity. The Chair, Salma Zahid, also expressed pride in recognizing the success of Artemis II, emphasizing Canada's role in the mission and the talent of Canadian researchers and scientists. The committee members unanimously adopted the motion to recognize and commend the Artemis II mission. Following the adoption of the motion, the committee moved to an in-camera session to discuss a draft report.

The Standing Committee on Science and Research met to discuss the governance and accountability of federal science policy and institutions. Witnesses from AI Governance and Safety Canada, BioCanRx, and Genome Canada shared their perspectives. Wyatt Tessari L'Allié warned about the rapid advancement of AI and the need for stronger safety measures and international cooperation. He suggested banning AI systems with unacceptable risks and developing defense strategies against weaponized AI. Dr. Stéphanie Michaud highlighted the importance of funding the steps needed to move research from labs to patients, especially in cancer immunotherapy, and pointed out gaps in the current funding system. She suggested an independent oversight function to assess real-world outcomes and patient access. Robert Annan emphasized that while Canada has world-class research, it needs better coordination and a national science strategy to maximize the impact of that research. He suggested focusing on mission-driven research and strengthening the pathways from research to practical applications. Committee members questioned the witnesses on various topics, including funding cuts, the role of government in directing research, and ensuring equitable access to resources. The discussion also touched on the need for better data governance and performance indicators to assess the societal impact of research investments. During the meeting, a motion was introduced and passed to undertake a study regarding the impact of federal funding for research and development on intellectual property ownership and commercialization in Canada. The committee will hold four meetings to hear from witnesses and gather information for the study. The committee members discussed the importance of ensuring that research funding leads to tangible benefits for Canadians and that intellectual property developed with public funds remains in Canada.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Science and Research met to discuss the accountability and governance of federal science institutions. The committee reviewed and approved several study budgets, including one for a study on the implications of the Canada-China joint arrangement on Canada's electric vehicle sector. A motion was passed to rescind a previous order for the production of documents related to the impact of federal funding on research excellence, due to translation issues. Witnesses from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) presented opening remarks. Dr. Paul Hébert (CIHR) emphasized the importance of collaboration and data in improving health outcomes. Dr. Alejandro Adem (NSERC) highlighted NSERC's investments in research and its commitment to open data. Dr. Sylvie Lamoureux (SSHRC) discussed SSHRC's governance and its support for research in social sciences and humanities. Committee members questioned the witnesses on various topics, including the distribution of research funding, measures to support research in both official languages, and the use of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) criteria in funding decisions. Some committee members expressed concerns about the concentration of funding in larger institutions and the potential impact of EDI requirements on research quality. Witnesses committed to providing additional information and analyses to the committee in writing.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Science and Research met to discuss the governance and accountability of federal science policy and institutions. Witnesses from Harvard University, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, and Simon Fraser University shared their perspectives. The committee is trying to figure out how to make sure that science research funded by the government is responsible and benefits the public. Sheila Jasanoff from Harvard University talked about the importance of public benefit, transparency, and the costs of accountability. She warned against centralizing oversight, suggesting that well-designed review processes are more effective. Martin Normand from the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in federal science policies to support French-language research, suggesting the Official Languages Act provides the necessary tools. He wants to make sure that French-speaking researchers get a fair shot at funding and support. Dugan O'Neil from Simon Fraser University focused on the governance of major research projects and the security of sensitive data. He stressed the importance of parliamentary oversight and aligning oversight mechanisms with the long-term nature of scientific research. Committee members asked questions about intellectual property, commercialization of research, and ensuring that federal research funding benefits Canada. They also talked about the challenges of balancing transparency with privacy and the need to support both early-stage and commercialization-focused research. The committee also discussed a previous motion about translating a large number of documents, but it was decided that the cost was too high and that the current study on governance would address the underlying issues. A Conservative party study on electric vehicles was proposed as the next topic, with a deadline set for submitting a list of witnesses. There was also debate about whether to proceed with the electric vehicle study or review a draft report on antimicrobial resistance first. The meeting ended with unresolved issues and a plan to continue discussions at a later date.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Science and Research met to discuss the governance and accountability of federal science policy and institutions. Witnesses from various universities and organizations shared their perspectives on how to improve the Canadian science and research landscape. Key topics included the importance of funding different types of research, addressing biases in evaluation systems, and ensuring transparency and public trust in science. The committee also discussed the role of EDI policies, the need for an independent body to monitor science policies, and the importance of supporting scientific research and knowledge dissemination in both English and French. Arif Babul, a professor from the University of Victoria, emphasized the need to evaluate different types of research using appropriate metrics and highlighted the importance of sustaining discovery research. He also suggested improvements to the evaluation process, such as addressing biases, mitigating risk aversion, and enhancing transparency. Azim Shariff, a professor from the University of British Columbia, discussed the psychological factors that can undermine trust in science, such as politicization and biases. He proposed that a monitoring body should be visibly insulated from partisan motives and focus on procedural fairness rather than adjudicating the merits of individual research projects. Ivan Oransky, executive director of the Center for Scientific Integrity, shared insights on how governments can promote scientific integrity and discussed different oversight models from the U.S. and Europe. Frédéric Bouchard, Dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Université de Montréal, discussed the recommendations from the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System, including the creation of a capstone organization and a national science and innovation strategy. Anna Triandafyllidou, a professor from Toronto Metropolitan University, spoke about the governance, accountability, and impact of multi-million dollar research programs. Martin Maltais, president of the Association francophone pour le savoir (Acfas), and Sophie Montreuil, executive director of Acfas, emphasized the importance of supporting scientific life in French and proposed that at least 25% of federal grants be allocated to French-speaking researchers and institutions. The committee members questioned the witnesses on various aspects of science policy and governance, including the allocation of SR and ED funds, the commercialization of research, and the implementation of EDI policies. There was a discussion on the need for a stronger strategic commercialization structure and the importance of retaining intellectual property in Canada. The committee also explored the role of a capstone organization in coordinating research efforts and ensuring that the system performs at the desired level. Ultimately, the committee is trying to figure out how to best ensure that Canada's science and research funding system is fair, effective, and trusted by the public. They are considering different models for oversight and accountability, as well as ways to promote scientific excellence and innovation. The committee will continue to gather information and perspectives from experts and stakeholders as they work towards developing recommendations for improving the Canadian science and research landscape.

The Canadian parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Research met to discuss artificial intelligence (AI). The committee adopted budgets for studies on AI and federal science policy. Witnesses from academia and industry shared their insights on Canada's position in the AI landscape, focusing on the need for responsible AI governance and strategic investment. Professor Mehmet Murat Kristal emphasized that Canada excels in AI research and talent but risks falling behind in AI execution and its impact on productivity. He suggested focusing on building institutional capability, training executives, and creating national data infrastructure. Dr. Taylor Owen stressed the importance of public trust and safety in AI systems, advocating for clear standards, transparency, and accountability. She suggested using existing legislative frameworks to implement AI governance measures. Dr. Steven Murphy and Dr. Peter Lewis highlighted the need to balance innovation with responsible AI development, focusing on human-centered applications in key Canadian industries. They emphasized the importance of diversifying AI research efforts and investing in interdisciplinary approaches. Jim Hinton, an intellectual property lawyer, warned that Canada is losing ownership of AI and suggested building sovereign compute infrastructure and spurring an IP economy. Anne Nguyen from the Conseil de l'innovation du Québec, discussed the importance of AI literacy and turning knowledge into a public good. Dr. Tijs Creutzberg from the Council of Canadian Academies, spoke about the challenges Canada faces in commercializing AI discoveries and the need for a modern research mindset. Committee members questioned the witnesses on various aspects of AI, including the government's AI strategy, regulatory gaps, data sovereignty, and the impact of AI on jobs. A motion was introduced to order the Department of Industry and the Department of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation to table documents relating to the development, content, governance, and implementation of the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy. The motion was adopted after debate and amendment. The committee agreed to order the Department of Industry and the Department of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation to table documents relating to the development, content, governance, and implementation of the National Artificial Intelligence Strategy.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Science and Research met to discuss the mandates of the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation. Mark Schaan, Associate Deputy Minister, and Nipun Vats, Assistant Deputy Minister, both from the Department of Industry, provided opening statements about supporting Canada's science, research, technology, and talent to boost the economy. They emphasized the importance of talent in areas like clean tech, manufacturing, AI, and life sciences. Minister Joly appeared in the second half of the meeting to discuss strengthening the Canadian economy through science, research, and talent, focusing on attracting top researchers and innovators to Canada. During the meeting, committee members questioned the witnesses on various topics. Tony Baldinelli (Conservative) inquired about the new EV mandate and a previous agreement with Cohere. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Bloc Québécois) pressed for details on public consultations regarding the pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy, specifically about Brookfield's involvement. Jagsharan Singh Mahal (Conservative) questioned the division of decision-making authority between the two ministers and the accountability for AI spending. Jennifer McKelvie (Liberal) discussed the college collaboration and innovation program and the strategic science fund program. Minister Joly faced questions about the government's approach to science and technology. She defended the government's investments in research and talent, emphasizing the importance of science to the government. She also addressed concerns about the EV mandate, the role of Chinese-made EVs in the Canadian market, and the government's relationship with China. She highlighted the government's efforts to attract talent, support research, and promote innovation in various sectors. The committee discussed the importance of supporting both English and French language research. They also touched on the need to reduce red tape and speed up funding for businesses involved in research and development. The committee identified the need to attract talent to Canada and the importance of supporting Canadian researchers and innovators. The committee agreed to meet again on February 9 to discuss future studies. They will also hold an informal meeting with the chair of the Canada-Lithuania Friendship Group at the Lithuanian Parliament. The committee will also meet on February 12 for their last meeting on the artificial intelligence study.