Science and Research Committee on Nov. 5th, 2024

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

Thank you so much for the testimony today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

You're right on time. Thank you very much.

We'll now turn to MP Chen for six minutes.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses. This is for the chief science adviser.

You talked about your support for modernization. Can you share with our committee what is at stake if Canada does not move forward with a project like the capstone? What is at stake for Canada?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I think that what's at stake is not only our own global competitiveness, which translates into being able to keep the best researchers and the best innovators in the country, but also our ability to actually develop the solutions and technologies that we need to address the challenges we face. They all require different disciplines coming together.

I'll give you an example. I mentioned earlier the biomanufacturing strategy. In Canada, we have fallen behind in terms of the important area of medical devices and drug development, which are areas that require engineers and chemists to work with physiologists, clinicians, etc. I can give you many examples of these.

We have a lot of things falling between the cracks right now, and I think that we need to address that. Other countries have all addressed it. We're one of the few countries—one of the rare G7 countries—that has granting councils that are still discipline-based.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

It sounds to me like a lot of opportunity is there in terms of what the capstone can accomplish.

In this committee and through the testimony, we've heard concerns around pandemic preparedness. We've talked about the COVID pandemic as an example, and you have referenced it today as well.

How can we enhance the linkages between health research and the work of government through Health Canada under an organization like the capstone?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I think we need a lot of research and a lot of solutions in health. Many of them come from the research that we perform, whether we talk about neuroscience or medical devices. There's also a very important component, which is research informing public policy. That's what I mean when I say that it's not always only creating products but also informing on policies and on things that work or don't work—for example, when we talk about addiction or about homelessness. I think it's very important that research also benefits society through policy and the actions that we take.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Both the Naylor and Bouchard reports identified challenges in a similar way with respect to Canada's research system over the past decades. You rightfully point out that they bring convergent solutions to the table.

What are the most compelling, in your opinion?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I think, in both cases, they've raised the importance of bringing the different disciplines together with a harmonized approach to project funding and talent development. They've raised the issue, also, of the connection with innovation. Right now, innovation is viewed as totally separate. We have a bunch of programs for innovation, but we don't have.... No one is looking after the first “valley of death”, because it is not really in the granting councils' mandates. The innovation programs address issues that have already been in industry.

I think that's something we all care about. We all care about seeing things happening in this country in terms of benefits. We need to ask ourselves the question of how best to link these. This is why creating an organization to address not just the gaps but also the needs is very important.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

You've been reappointed to another term. Congratulations.

You've been in the role of chief science adviser since 2017. Could you share with us the most surprising thing you have encountered in your role?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I'm not going to tell you about the resistance to change, because that wouldn't surprise you.

Everywhere, needed things have been developed over time. These things became siloed. You have to break the silos. I saw it at the university. I see it in government. I see it in funding. We have to embrace change a little more enthusiastically.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

In terms of the capstone and welcoming modernization, what would you say is the biggest opportunity that can come from that modernization?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

You don't get to change your system every five years. I think it should be something that addresses our present needs but also has the flexibility to address future needs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are with us today.

Dr. Nemer, it's great to see you here again today. My first question is for you.

We've been thinking about it and holding consultations for eight years. Two committees were set up at the government's request, and produced the Naylor report and the Bouchard report. These two committees have consulted and analyzed the scientific ecosystem, and they are both calling for the creation of an organizational framework to strengthen the coordination and effectiveness of research funding in Canada.

If anyone in Canada knows about the science ecosystem, it's you. That's your job.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I know.

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

Congratulations on that.

Today, I would like to know how many more years we'll have to wait before we have a capstone organization. Do you think we have all the information we need to set up a capstone organization? What are we missing?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

The answer is simple. Yes, we have the information we need to take note of the information and do what needs to be done.

That said, as I just said, change is always difficult, but there are ways to do it. Of course, we don't want there to be a breakdown in the system. Researchers must continue to operate while a new system is put in place. It's feasible, it can be done, and it needs to be done.

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

Okay.

If I understand correctly, it's not a lack of information, but rather a lack of will and a lack of action.

Dr. Nemer, how do you see this organizational framework being put in place to address coordination and fairness, and to ensure that we have better interdisciplinary research? One of the recommendations highlights the importance of creating this capstone organization.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I don't know if you want me to tell you something specific, but I'll give you the example of Quebec. We've gone from three boards to one. As far as I know, research in Quebec has continued to go very well. There are ways of doing things. We certainly don't want to destroy things that are going well, but we want to deal with the things that need our attention.

I see that there are ways to improve the system while keeping what is good in it.

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

I appreciate that.

Dr. Nemer, from what I'm hearing today, the chief scientist spoke with the government, participated in two advisory committees and issued recommendations. It's been eight years.

Like the people listening to and watching us, I want to make sure I understand correctly: Did the chief scientist give the green light to the deployment of the new capstone organization?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

You're giving me powers that, unfortunately, I don't have.

I would like to point out that, when I took up my position, the Naylor report had just been tabled. When I was asked what I thought, I said that I supported the recommendations. As I said, I participated in the interim phase of the Canadian Science Policy Centre. I think we're ready to move on, and I don't think we need to wait. In fact, I don't see what we would gain by waiting.

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

Thank you for giving me a clear answer.

Dr. Nemer, there's an issue that I know is near and dear to your heart. I'm talking about the issue of francophone researchers. During our study on research and scientific publication in French, you made a number of recommendations, and I thank you again for that.

What specific measures could be taken to integrate more francophone researchers into the organizational structure that is the umbrella organization?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

It certainly has to be representative, both in terms of individuals and institutions. I think that's important.

That said, we must also not say to ourselves that the umbrella organization is the answer to everything. There are other organizations that need to be worked on as well.

I'm pleased to see that the Department of Canadian Heritage, for example, has set up a committee for science in French, and a member of my team is in fact on that committee. We continue to work on translation, with algorithms and artificial intelligence, among other things. The Association francophone pour le savoir, or Acfas, received funding.

I think we need to continue to move forward on all fronts. We aren't yet where we should be, and we must not stop.

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

You talked about representativeness and size.

During our study on the distribution of funding, we regularly heard that there was a challenge for large, small and medium-sized universities. The challenge is related to the distribution of funding, but also to representativeness.

You're an expert on the Canadian science ecosystem.

When small and medium-sized universities aren't consulted, what harmful effect can that have?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

If we are to have an organization that coordinates, assesses needs and handles missions, it's imperative to know the terrain where this will be done, to understand the strengths and challenges of the various communities and regions of the country.

If we don't do that, we'll have programs that are poorly adapted.