Science and Research Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Nemer, has your office been consulted on the implementation of the recommendations made by the advisory panel on the federal research support system in its report, commonly known as the Bouchard report?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Yes, we were consulted on this. We had discussions on the subject with the office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, with the department and with other government officials.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Can you give us your analysis of the world rankings? How does Canada compare with other countries?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Earlier, you asked me a question about performance indicators, and I didn't get a chance to give you a full answer.

In addition to the rankings drawn up by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, and the rankings of our institutions and universities, rankings can also be drawn up on the basis of patents granted in certain sectors.

Australia recently carried out a similar analysis, if I remember correctly. I can send you the study, which is quite interesting. According to this study, there are six areas in which Canada still ranks among the top five.

Let me ask my colleague how many technologies had been evaluated—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

You can send it to me in writing, Ms. Nemer.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Okay.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I want to come back to what I think is the crux of the problem. It's also mentioned in the report by the advisory panel on the federal research support system. I'm talking about investment in terms of gross domestic product, or GDP. You can guess that Canada is not at the top of the ranking; it is right at the bottom. Canada is the only G7 country to have reduced its investment in research and development over the last 20 years.

You will also be aware that in the last two federal government budgets, not a penny has been allocated to the three granting agencies, and not a penny more is expected to be granted in the next budget either. I'd like to know what you think. If we don't invest, we're not competitive and we're also slowing down our capacity for innovation.

You gave a very good example earlier about vaccines. Canada was the only G7 country unable to produce its own COVID-19 vaccine. Once again, between you and me, that's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Unfortunately, we are over time again. I'm sorry.

The time is going quickly, but we're 17 seconds over time, so I'm trying to keep things rolling. Maybe we can pick it up in your next round. We should have another three opportunities for you.

Mr. Davies, welcome to our committee. It's great to see you here.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

The annual report of the chief science advisor in 2021-22 identified one of your priorities as “augmenting the role of science in Canada’s emergency preparedness”. We're advised that your office has done a great deal of work on assisting the federal government with pandemic responses.

I'm wondering if you could share what some of the key lessons are on pandemic responses since the emergence of COVID-19.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I think there are many lessons learned in terms of science and science advice. I would say that on the positive side, science did inform the decisions. Scientists stepped up to the plate. You know they were part of many expert committees. At the same time, there were too many expert committees. It's unsustainable. It might be okay if the emergency lasts for a few months, but if it lasts for a few years, it's another story. We need to have a better way of doing this.

If we look at other countries, we see that they have better frameworks for the provision of science advice to government in cases of emergencies. I would suggest that we look at embedding the role of the chief science advisor and their responsibility in emergency preparedness and in the connectivity with the rest of the government.

One other thing I will say is that over the past few years, we have put science advisers in several departments. We're very pleased that the Department of Public Safety has come to the conclusion that having a science adviser in its department will be helpful to it. I think that's a very good development.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Speaking about other countries, the British Medical Journal has recommended that Canada conduct a public inquiry into all aspects of the way the federal government handled the COVID-19 pandemic, as the U.K. has done.

As Canada's chief science officer, do you agree that this would be a helpful step?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

In all truthfulness, I haven't considered a public inquiry. I think that's way beyond my responsibilities.

However, I agree with conducting a review of how well we did in terms of the coordination and prioritization of science, research and science advice. It's why we have asked Sir Mark Walport to chair a committee that is looking into precisely this question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you. I wish I could turn back the clock, but we are at the time again.

Mr. Maguire, welcome to our committee. It's great to see you. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Dr. Nemer, for your presentation today as well.

I had the opportunity of sitting on the natural resources committee a little over a year ago. I think it was the first time my office contacted you in this regard, on the topic of UAP, or unidentified anomalous phenomena. A lot has been been written and presented to the U.S. Congress on this topic. Scientists and experts in that field have briefed Congress on it. I know that our Canadian minister has been briefed. Some of our people here have been as well.

Is this a topic you would be interested in studying?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Mr. Chair, we have actually initiated a study on this subject, and we made it public that we are carrying out the study. I must say that it has generated a lot of public interest.

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

The Department of Natural Resources was looking at why these particular objects, or whatever they are, hover around nuclear facilities. I would think that this is of special interest. I've also seen that in some of the documents from France as well.

Can you comment on any connection you may have seen in that area, particularly in the study you're doing? What sorts of things are you studying?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Perhaps I can briefly summarize what our study is about.

What we're doing is looking at the process by which public reporting of unidentified aerial phenomena happens in the country and looking at making recommendations, if need be, on whether we need to improve on the system to help us align our efforts with those of our allies.

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

Have you asked any witnesses to come before your committee? Have you met with people from the U.S. who have been public at Congress on this?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Yes. Right now we're wrapping up, but we're continuing our contact and exchanges to gather information, both in Canada and outside of Canada. We have spoken with experts and self-identified experts who are working in this area.

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

I have a couple of quick questions.

Have the departments and agencies been forthcoming with the information you requested from them? When will the Sky Canada project be completed and publicly released?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

We sent questionnaires and requests for information to several departments that we think have been involved over the years or that may be involved right now. I will say that at the working level, we have received information from some.

The enthusiasm and responses have been uneven. We haven't taken it a step further, but we'll make sure we get the information that we need.

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

Yes. As we've seen in Congress, they've started to legislate that the information should be released.

Will any of your recommendations be about government transparency and the importance of releasing raw data and information to scientists and researchers here as well?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

We're not at the stage of recommendations yet, but I could perhaps offer the following.

Based on what we have gathered in terms of information so far, I think there is room for improvement around gathering and reporting on the information, and also in making it available to researchers and the public. I think these are the kinds of things that, if the information.... Of course, I can appreciate some information may be a national security concern, but I believe that, by and large, you can make the information public.

I think that's the best way to mitigate conspiracy theories and disinformation.