Science and Research Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

I'll move on to a bit more difficult question. I do appreciate your responses very much. They show that you've learned, to some extent, what the realities are with respect to the experience of indigenous peoples and what Canada's genocidal policies continue to do to indigenous peoples.

A very specific example is that scientists and knowledge of science seem to be considered more highly than indigenous traditional knowledge. What kind of approach do you take when those two different forms of knowledge are in conflict with each other? How would you make sure there was appropriate reconciliation so that indigenous traditional knowledge would be the one used to help guide decision-making?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you for this difficult and complex question.

I like to believe that the two knowledge systems can work hand in hand and that there is no contradiction between them once people have a better appreciation and understanding of what each brings to the equation. I prefer to think we can do it this way, but we have a long way to go.

I will be very honest with you on this: Difficult doesn't mean impossible. It just means that we have to work harder.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I think I'm running out of time.

I do hope that when you're doing your reports, you're continuing to support indigenous traditional knowledge and that some of that discussion revolves around how to make sure that indigenous traditional knowledge is considered on par with science so that decisions that impact indigenous peoples are based on both knowledge sets rather than on one over the other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have 10 seconds.

Do you have a comment on that, Ms. Nemer?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you.

We take this very seriously and we take it to heart. I can only commit to continuing to work. We're using every opportunity we have to do our bit. I sincerely believe in the place and role of science in reconciliation and I can only promise to continue working towards that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

Now, for the second round, we have Ben Lobb for five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today. It's Dr. Nemer. Is that correct?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Yes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I want to make sure I address you correctly.

I'm not going to go on about the annual reports too much, but right in the mandate it says that you shall make an annual report to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Science every year. Has anybody ever asked you where the reports were for the last three years or two years? Has anybody contacted your office and asked you about those?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Well, we keep the Prime Minister and the Minister of Science informed of all our work.

For example, you mentioned the mandate requiring that we report on the state of the science workforce and the state of the science infrastructure, which we have done. We just put out an elaborate report, actually, in December on the science workforce. It's not as if they're waiting for this one report to find out what we're doing or what the recommendations are.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Is the document you presented to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office at the end of the year a public document, or is that a cabinet briefing note to the Prime Minister's Office?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

We put together, actually, a substantive report on the science workforce. It's on our website and it was covered by the media as well. It is very much a public report.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

One other question I want to ask you is on independence.

As the chief science advisor, do you get to pick what you want to investigate, or are you nudged and told you might want to consider a certain topic? I noticed you did an interview and the Minister of Health had asked you to conduct the long COVID study.

It's not criticizing you at all. I'm just asking this: Do you feel you have the independence to study what you want, or are you advised by a cabinet minister on what you should study?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you for this question. I get asked this very often, so it's very pertinent. It's very important to understand the role.

We do both, anyway. The government can ask us for advice. Sometimes it requires a report, a small study or a round table, but we are absolutely free to decide on issues of importance that we want to investigate.

Long COVID is a good example, because we had been tracking the issue for a while and we'd had discussions with the Minister of Health about it, who then felt something substantive needed to happen that was beyond the Department of Health, because, of course, the Department of Health provides this.

There are a number of things we do. We provide science notes—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Can I interrupt you for one second?

When you're asked by the health department to do a study on long COVID, are you provided an additional budget, or is the expectation that you'll do it out of your own internal budget?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

The expectation is that we do it from our own internal budget. We don't get any extra funding for any of the extra work.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Can I ask you one other question?

When you're putting together your plan to study long COVID on the recommendation of the health minister—and I know you are a well-respected molecular cardiovascular researcher—does the idea ever come up that if you're going to look at long COVID, you should also look at whether there are any potential harms the vaccine did to people? We see that in the news all the time.

Do you have the independence to say that you will study this, but if you're going to look at everything to do with COVID, you should look at all of it?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

We absolutely have the ability to do this. This is exactly how it happens.

Even when the government asks us for advice on the use of science in a particular case, we assemble our own experts. We don't need any vetting from the government. We don't seek any vetting from the government. We do all the work independently and provide the report. Again, depending on how many of these we do, you can appreciate—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Can I ask one last quick question? Before you—

Am I at time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Yes. Perhaps you could share time within your group. They are very good questions, and it's a good discussion. We need to understand the governance, so thank you for that.

We'll go to Ms. Diab for five minutes.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Nemer, thank you very much. It's wonderful to see you again. Thank you for coming back to our committee. I know that you appeared once before as a witness. Let me thank you again for your contributions to our foundational first study and for the insight you shared with us at the time, when we studied graduate scholarships in June.

Personally, I think having a chief science advisor for our country is a big deal. Canadians should know more about the role and the work you've done and are doing and should be able to see and feel that scientific inquiry is valued and put to use in our country and in our policy-making.

For the benefit of those watching us at home throughout the country, your current post dates back to 2017, but you've come to this post with a long record of contributions to science in Canada. I know that you've trained more than 100 graduate and post-graduate students in your career, and have mentored and counselled many more. You're a leader in the field of molecular cardiology and have helped to make great strides in heart health with your research. You've also published over 200 academic publications and have made significant contributions to Canada's response to the pandemic.

This is work that not only keeps people safe and supports their health, but gives hope: hope that science can be put to use to better our world. In fact, I think where we met you in the last couple of years was at the Science Meets Parliament event. The number of students who have been coming here and have been introduced to the parliamentary work we do is so crucial in their fields, but also in our fields as parliamentarians, so that we can better connect.

I want to take this opportunity so that it does not go past me to say that it's very nice for me personally to see a fellow Lebanese Canadian woman in your position making a big difference in Canada. Thank you.

Your work as chief science advisor is broad. Your office provides advice to government on improving support for quality research and enhancing the science advisory function within government, including processes for science-informed decisions. I felt it was important to put that on the record, because it really makes a big difference.

In the age of disinformation, science has become political. Can you talk to the committee about the impact of disinformation on science? How can we combat it and what can your office do to safeguard science? What is the role that your office can play in protecting science in Canada? It's a pretty broad question, but I'm going to leave the opportunity for you to enlighten us on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have two minutes.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you very much. I'm humbled by your generous comments. It's a privilege to serve the country and to continue to serve science.

Disinformation and misinformation are issues that we all take very seriously. I think they're not only a threat to science; they're also a threat to democracy. They're a threat to how people carry out their lives. One thing for sure is that we can't always be on the reactive side and trying to correct what's out there that's not exact. We need to be proactive. I think transparency is our best ally.

Personally, I think we need to enhance scientific knowledge in the country so that people can tell by themselves what are appropriate sources of evidence and so on, but I think we need to involve the public in our deliberations.

I salute the report you put out in terms of citizen science. It's really with this in mind that we work, that we engage continuously with the public, but it's also that we take on specific projects.

Your colleague asked me if we take on topics ourselves. One of the topics that we have decided to report on, to produce, is called “Sky Canada”. It's about unidentified aerial phenomena. The reason we have taken this on is not because we believe one way or the other about extraterrestrials or anything like that; it's because we believe it's important that we have a scientific approach and transparency in how we assemble the information—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

—precisely to avoid any conspiracy theories and so on and so forth. This is just one example that we can—