Industry Committee on Dec. 7th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Welcome, everybody, to meeting number 89. Who has the number 89 on their hockey jersey?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have 99.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

No, sorry, it doesn't work.

Today, pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, the committee will commence consideration of the order in council appointment of Ms. Mona Nemer to the position of special adviser to the Minister of Science, to be known as the chief science officer, as referred to the committee on Friday, October 20, 2017. The committee will be examining the individual's qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which she has been appointed.

We have with us today, Ms. Mona Nemer.

We're just going to get right into it. You have up to 10 minutes to present to us.

[Dr. Mona Nemer, Chief Science Advisor, Office of the Chief Science Advisor]

Good morning everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for inviting me today.

I'm truly honoured to be speaking to you as Canada's new chief science adviser.

As you, I believe in the importance of science and technology to advance our economy and our well-being.

In my 10 weeks on the job, I've been quite busy in starting to build this new office from the ground up, as you know.

I like to joke and say that I'm a start-up in government, and I'll let you judge what that means.

As you know, my role is to provide the Prime Minister, the Minister of Science, and cabinet with scientific advice to help make policy decisions. I'll be looking at ways the government can strengthen science and ensure that it's fully available to the public, and that federal scientists are able to speak freely about their work.

I firmly believe in the importance of science for society, and I will be a champion for open and accessible science.

I'd like to use my time today to tell the committee a bit about myself, where I come from, and what I bring to this office. I'll also tell you a bit about what we've been doing since September 26, my first day on the job, and the general direction my office will take over the next months.

As some of you may know, I was born and raised in Beirut by loving and hard-working parents. My mother was a schoolteacher and my father was a mechanical technician. They were both very actively engaged in progressive societal reforms. In our family, education and giving back to society were very important.

As a university student, I attended the American University of Beirut. I studied chemistry, because by that time, I realized that I really loved science and I wanted to do something to help other people, like find new treatments to fight disease.

However, soon after, war broke out in Lebanon and studying became extremely challenging. I spent more time, for that matter, in shelters than in classrooms or laboratories. After much contemplation, I left Beirut and came to North America where I completed my undergraduate degree in Wichita, Kansas, of all places. I then moved to beautiful Montreal in 1977 where I did my Ph.D. in chemistry at McGill University.

When I finished my Ph.D., I worked in a biotech start-up. While that was much fun, I realized that if I wanted to do something groundbreaking, I would really need to have a better understanding of biology and physiology.

I went back to train in the burgeoning field of molecular biology and biotechnology. There were very few labs in the world that actually did this kind of work. One of them was in Montreal, where I went, and then later I also completed my training at Columbia University in New York.

By the time I completed my training, which was many years—you can count the years—I did not imagine that my interest in understanding gene regulation would actually lead to a career in academic cardiovascular health, let alone the position that I have here today in front of you. I tell this to the committee because it's important to realize that for many researchers, knowing exactly what you will do after graduation is not a given. When young students ask me for advice on their careers, I always tell them to embrace the opportunities. It's a shared responsibility of educators, institutions, and governments to help prepare our youth for various job opportunities; and I submit to you, some that we cannot even imagine today. It's a responsibility that I have always taken to heart as an educator and academic executive.

I also say this because in a sense it's an analogy for research altogether. Discovery means not knowing in advance what your outcome will be. Yet, the vast majority of discovery research has had significant socio-economic impacts, from technology development to disease prevention and treatment.

Importantly, it's through discovery research, be it basic or applied, that we train tomorrow's workers, innovators, and leaders. It's vital that we support discovery research because without it, there is no talent development, new knowledge, or new innovation.

This was something that I learned throughout my career in academia—as a professor, then as a director at the Montreal Clinical Research Institute, and most recently as vice-president of research at the University of Ottawa.

During those years, I had the privilege to interact with bright, dynamic and passionate professors and researchers who cared about their science, their students and their communities. I saw myself as an enabler, a convenor and an ambassador. I am proud of my 20-plus years at the Montreal Clinical Research Institute and at the University of Ottawa, which I believe have prepared me well for my present role.

Canada's science capacity is an immense asset, and better collaboration between intramural and extramural researchers will advance our country's overall science and innovation capacity.

Our biggest global challenges, from health to transport to a safe environment and resilient societies, are complex and multi-faceted. To address these, we increasingly need to work horizontally, across disciplines, across departments, and across sectors. That is what I will do and what I will promote.

What have I done since September 26 and 27? Well, it's been a busy 10 weeks of meetings, public engagements, and outreach, both domestically and internationally. I have met with stakeholders in the science community across the country and abroad.

I can tell you that the science community is very excited about the Minister of Science's and the government's prioritizing of evidence-based policy. In fact, it's not just the science community. I have received almost 1,000 letters and communications from the public and, I would say, at least 200 or 300 from non-scientists. Everybody is excited by my position and by the attention given to evidence-based decision-making. Everywhere I go, they share their enthusiasm for bringing science to the forefront of decision-making.

I have been looking at ways to channel and utilize the enthusiastic support of the community into one of the key elements of my mandate: to promote a positive and productive dialogue among scientists, and with the public both in Canada and abroad. There is very important research being done within the government, and we need to open up channels between our government researchers and those in academia.

I have already begun this process with stakeholders in government and in the post-secondary research community. I have met with my counterparts in the Quebec government and the territorial governments, as well as with the science advisory leaders in the federal government.

I have reached out to all of the science-based departments and requested that they provide me with their directives and best practices on how they are helping their scientists communicate with the media. We will assess these practices and recommend guidelines to be adopted by all federal science departments.

I will also be working with the Treasury Board Secretariat to promote a national public consultation on open government, which includes both science and open data initiatives. These are important measures in making sure that science and quality data are freely available to the public.

I have also heard from student groups who want to contribute to science policy-making, and we are looking at ways to integrate them into our processes. I think it's great that our youth are actually re-engaging with the public arena.

In addition to all of the stakeholders I have met with across Canada, I also have reached out to the international science community. The message I took to them is that Canada continues to be open for scientific collaboration, but importantly, what I'm hearing in return is that they're looking to Canada for leadership on several fronts: Arctic research, brain health, regenerative medicine, artificial intelligence, climate and ocean sciences, and quantum information, just to name a few.

In Washington, Boston, Paris, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, everywhere I have heard the same message: Canada is a partner of choice. Now is our time to lead, I am convinced of it. The global challenges of the 21st century will require global responses, and Canada is very well-placed to lead at least some of those responses. We have the talent, the facilities, the reputation, and the expertise.

I look forward to working with the members of the committee in the weeks and months ahead to promote Canada's leadership in science and innovation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to answering the committee's questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much for your inspirational presentation. We're going to move right to questioning. I want to make sure everybody has time so we're going to start off the first round with five minutes.

Mr. Longfield, you have five minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Nemer, for being with us. It's great to see you again.

I'm excited to see what you're going to be doing with your challenge of bringing science forward, in particular getting data into the policy-making. I spoke with a constituent last night who was very concerned around the boreal caribou herd and wanted to make sure that we were using science in our decision-making. A lot of civil society is saying that we have to watch how we make decisions around the boreal caribou herd. He wants to make sure scientists are at the table when we're having those discussions so that Internet science isn't being used but real science is being used. Could you talk a little bit about how your office can help us to get scientists into these critical discussions such as, let's say, on the boreal caribou herd?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

The same question can apply to numerous other areas.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Of course.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

With the multiplication of sites that promote good science or bad science, real news and fake news, I think it's very important that we have the proper channels. My office right now is looking at developing our work plan actually, but one of the things that we're very eager to do is engage with the public in scientific literacy and also in engaging the scientists increasingly with the public. One of the ways is we're looking at having blogs that will have proper scientifically researched information. Of course, should the government ask us to look at particular questions regarding this or other issues, then we will convene the proper scientific experts and answer the questions.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Terrific. Thank you.

I know you're still working on your deliverables, and you're still working on consultations. There's an annual report that's coming forward on the state of federal science. Is that something that you need to highlight at this committee?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

As part of my mandate and my personal commitment, I will be providing an annual report that will be made public, and in that report of course we'll address all the issues that we're mandated to address, but also provide information on our activities, and any foresight reports or papers that we would have developed. Yes, as we speak, my office is actually looking at the structure of the annual report.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

The University of Guelph has a lot of scientists. We work with a lot of government scientists at Ag Canada. The scientists are very excited to hear that you're in place.

One of the questions I get as a member of Parliament is, so now with the Nemer report, is she going to be getting us funding? Could you speak to what your office is and isn't in terms of funding?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Yes. Some scientists have confused me with the Minister of Finance, perhaps.

As a scientist and a vice-president of research, I lived the Naylor report. I contributed to the fundamental science review. I have been quite candid about my support for increased funding in Canada, because the data are there and because of what I told you earlier in my speech, that research is the ground for developing talent, let alone new information.

Certainly, and I've told this to my colleague scientists, my job is not to be a chief lobbyist in government. I have a very explicit mandate stated in the order in council, and when asked about my advice on specific issues, I will provide it.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Jeneroux, you have five minutes.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Nemer, for being here and providing a comprehensive overview of your position.

We often see on the science file that this government has been critiqued that it's more photo ops than actual science. Have you been asked to date to weigh in on any decision by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Science?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I have a close working relationship with the Minister of Science. She has asked for my advice on a number of topics. I have frequent meetings with her.

After my initial meeting with him of two or three hours on day one, the Prime Minister offered to meet with me. I requested that we wait a little for me to get the lie of the land and have something more significant to discuss with him. I'm sure if there had been any emergencies, or if I felt he needed to know something, I would have contacted him or he would have contacted me.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

You would contact the minister. You would contact the Prime Minister. How do you see that structure working? You essentially report to the Prime Minister, but you're working hand in hand with the minister. You meet with the minister regularly. Do the two of you talk to the Prime Minister? Help us understand that.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

As I said, I met with the Prime Minister on day one, and I haven't met with him again, so I cannot tell you who will accompany me. I have worked with other ministers, so I don't want to give the impression that no one else has reached out to me. I have been quite pleased with the reception I have received. Other ministers have also reached out to me. I expect that if specific ministers need to talk to me, they'll talk to me, and if I need to talk with the Minister of Science or the Prime Minister, I will signal so.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I want to give you the opportunity to clarify here on an interview you did with TVO. You said you would leave the government to deal with the opposition, I guess alluding to the fact that you wouldn't be dealing with the opposition. You and I have had a meeting. It was great to get to meet you. I hope that continues, that this comment is taken a bit out of context perhaps, and that you do make yourself open to the opposition.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Yes. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to clarify this. As you know, you and I had a very enjoyable and productive meeting, and I'm more than happy to have similar ones again with you and other parliamentarians.

I meant that I intend to conduct my business and the business of my office in a non-partisan manner. I don't wish to get into politics. My role is not on the policy side, so if the opposition does not agree with the government on certain policies, I'm not going to be advocating for one or the other. I'm going to be providing unbiased scientific advice. Science is not a partisan matter, and I intend to conduct myself accordingly.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Great. I'm glad to hear that.

This is my last question in terms of time in this round. The fundamental science review hit on by my colleague Dr. Longfield calls for the creation of a new national advisory council on research and innovation to provide broad oversight to the federal research and innovation ecosystems.

What are your thoughts on the NACRI?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

First of all, I strongly believe in a harmonized and integrated approach to science, research, and innovation. Having a committee that provides advice on the ensemble of the portfolio is something that I certainly welcome, and I think it's in the best interest of the country.

I support having an advisory board. I think it's important to make sure that we're not all stepping on each other's toes and that everybody knows what their own mandate and responsibilities are. I think there needs to be harmonization, because sometimes too much of a good thing is like too little.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

It's nice to see Dr. Longfield got promoted.

Mr. Masse, you have five minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you for being here, Dr. Nemer.

One of the things I thought was nice about your presentation was hearing a bit about your background. In Windsor, where I come from, we have a strong Lebanese population. I think that weaves quite nicely into one of the questions that I have. As an example, we know that right now there are a thousand fewer scientists under the current government versus the previous government. Those positions, the minister mentioned in her testimony, were mostly related to unfilled positions. As well, we have the notion of increasing our capacity, so we have positions available. I'm wondering whether you have a time frame to fill vacant positions and whether there would be an expansion of positions in terms of scientists and government positions.