Science and Research Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Exactly, yes. Thank you.

Do you believe it would be prudent, then, for parliamentarians to study your recommendations once they're released?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Well, of course—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

We could have a committee like this.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

—you're free to study it. I would certainly feel honoured that you've taken one of my studies and given it further study.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

Ms. Kayabaga, you have five minutes to finish this round.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Nemer, I would like to welcome you to the committee. Thank you for all the work you do and the value you bring to your role.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you so much for your interest and for the support of the committee for the role.

In one of your earliest reports, I believe you recommended that the role of the chief science advisor be enshrined in legislation. It's something that I very much agree with. I think this would safeguard the objectivity and the independence of the role. Another aspect, of course, is that as I mentioned, we're developing science advisers in various departments, and I very much believe that this network of science advisers will also be a value added for the country, for the government and for Canadians.

I think there also needs to be connectivity between the science advice, perhaps, and the federal science prioritization—the strategic thinking around science in the country. For example, having a national advisory council, I would say, on science and technology, in which the science adviser would play a role, would also be very significant for the country. I believe this is something that has been recommended in two reports now. My view is that these are appropriate observations and will be positive developments for the country when they happen.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I appreciate that. I think that's a really good answer, and it connects to my next question.

What are the lessons that you think we've learned through COVID, and how do we responsibly get into innovative AI? AI is taking over right now. There are a lot of conversations around COVID and AI.

In terms of countering misinformation or disinformation—I think earlier someone talked about the lack of information around vaccines and the hesitancy around vaccines—what kinds of recommendations would you make to make sure that when we're doing our work and as we advance technology, we're being responsible and implementing policies that directly respond to the lessons we learned through COVID?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

It will really be a missed opportunity, I think, if we don't take the lessons learned from the pandemic—constructively, that is.

In terms of the science and science advice, the federal government provided significant investment into research during the pandemic. I think that investment could have been better used if our system were not fragmented. We're still going along the lines of disciplines. Here, we actually had a problem to deal with that required all the disciplines.

Really, it required a different kind of approach and a different kind of prioritization as to what needed to be done between the extramural community and the government scientists—for example, the National Microbiology Lab, and others as well. I think we need to look into how we make these connectivities and this fast decision-making better and make sure that we have the tools and the capacity—the human capacity and the physical capacity—to respond to emergencies in the country.

We talk a lot about the pandemic, but we have climate emergencies over and over, and of course they will have an effect in terms of health, in terms of displacement of the population—you name it.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

It's going to touch on so many different areas. You need to have an integrated approach, with science converging to solve the problem in all its dimensions.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

When we—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, but we are out of time again. That finishes the third round.

We should have time for a complete fourth round if we can keep our time within the limits.

We will start with Mr. Tochor for five minutes, please.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you very much.

Do you think we should question science?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Science questions itself. The way we improve our knowledge is by questioning what we know and what we don't know and designing ways to enhance this knowledge and, through that, gathering knowledge through an objective means.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you, Dr. Nemer.

On the questioning of science, you talked about your study on UFOs right now. In the 1960s, people would say they were conspiracists, that it was misinformation and that there were no other vehicles. Now we have the chief science officer of Canada saying that she's studying them.

What would you say to anyone back in the 1960s who had concerns about UFOs?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I think we need to be careful about revisiting the past, especially when it comes to science. We're just not going to start questioning Galileo, right? Actually, there is a Galileo project at Harvard to scientifically examine unidentified aerial phenomena.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Yes, Dr. Nemer, there are people who questioned whether we have a flat earth, and they were stoned to death if they challenged the belief that we're the centre of the universe. That's no longer the case; thankfully, we do question what we believe to be true. That's how we either prove what our current belief is or what our new belief would be, based on what the science has shown.

Just to switch gears a little bit—I only have a few minutes left—in your office, how many consultants do you typically hire in a year?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Actually, I don't think we hire consultants. Our expert panel members work pro bono. That's the scientific culture.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

There are no consultants.

Of your staff, are they all back in the office now?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Do you mean physically?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Yes.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Well, we're following the recommendations of the Treasury Board and the Government of Canada, and they're in the office at least three days a week.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Everyone is in your office three days a week where you're located.

Switching gears just a little bit, back to what you study and the order, you said that there's a list that you can compile of the current studies. In any of the work you've done, have you admitted to coming to a false conclusion? After you review something, have you ever come to the realization that your belief before was wrong, and now you have a different take on things?

Everyone makes mistakes. When was the last time you can say you made a mistake?