Science and Research Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I'm sorry; you're interrupting. Let her finish.

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

No, this is my time, actually.

I would request those answers in written form. I have a minute and 10 seconds left.

In 2023 you attended the Trudeau Foundation final meeting for the application of nominees. In 2020 you attended the Trudeau Foundation and deputy ministers science committee. Would you mind telling the committee more about your involvement in these organizations?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

As the chief science advisor, like my homologues in the country and outside the country, including, for example, in Quebec, the U.K. and the U.S., we are expected to take part in the scientific life of the country. My involvement with the Trudeau Foundation has been to chair the scientific review committee, and I have no involvement other than ensuring the applications are reviewed properly on a meritorious basis and a list of nominations is submitted to the foundation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Now we're going to the next round. Go ahead, Dr. Jaczek, please, for six minutes.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Nemer, for coming to visit with us this morning.

You may be aware that our committee recently concluded a study on how best to integrate—or I think we preferred the word “braiding”—traditional indigenous observational knowledge into what we consider more mainstream western science. I think we all found that extremely interesting.

Could you describe how your office liaises in terms of science and research in post-secondary institutions in order for our country, for Canada, to understand what our indigenous people know? Have you had a role in liaising between the various institutions, etc.?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you for this question. This is a very important topic for the country and for my office.

We've been involved in facilitating the weaving of indigenous knowledge with western science and knowledge in many areas. To help us do this, we have a researcher in residence in my office who is an indigenous scholar from the University of Manitoba. This was following a request from the post-secondary institutions for help in terms of facilitating this, but also in the handling of indigenous knowledge in terms of, for example, open science. How can we manage this? How can we use it as evidence in impact assessments? We're involved in this.

We also have worked collaboratively with other departments to set up I-STEM, which is “Indigenous” and “STEM”. It is a pan-government organization that aims to facilitate the recruitment of indigenous scientists and scholars but also to facilitate the understanding of culturally sensitive issues and how best to liaise with the community and so on.

We've had a number of round tables as well with indigenous leaders, but as part of the CRCC, the Canada Research Coordinating Committee, we have also done a number of things around indigenous research. We've set up an indigenous circle. Just last week, my colleague, together with the U.S. scientists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, organized a workshop specifically on the use of indigenous knowledge and the cultural sensitivities around this.

We're very much conscious of the important role that indigenous knowledge can play, and we want to make sure that there are harmonious approaches to it across the country that are both culturally sensitive and respectful of the communities.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you so much for that.

As part of your experience to date as Canada's chief science advisor, do you have any recommendations on how to improve coordination of federal, post-secondary and industrial science and research? Are there lessons learned that we could use to make some recommendations as a committee to improve that type of coordination?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I think the coordination of research is critical for the country. With increasing pressure on precious resources, I think we really need to find ways to work together better. I'm not saying that this is not happening, but I think it could happen even more.

I think starting to develop a national science, technology and innovation strategy would be very helpful for the country. It will set our ambitions and our objectives, and then everybody can play their own part and role within this strategy so that there are no surprises and there's no fragmentation and we're not spreading the wealth thin, but at the end of the day, we'd actually have something to show for it.

That's one of the approaches I think would be quite beneficial.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Would you be prepared, as the chief science advisor, to lead that movement towards a national strategy?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I would be honoured and proud to do so if asked.

My counterpart in Australia is in the midst of doing this, and it would actually be an appropriate role for the chief science advisor to lead it, but of course with great consultations and collaboration with everyone in the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

Now we go to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses who are joining us.

Ms. Nemer, it's a pleasure to see you again today.

In 2015, Justin Trudeau's government promised to make Canada scientifically competitive once again on the international stage. Today, nine years later, what is your analysis of the concrete measures taken by this government to achieve this goal?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

The question of Canada's leadership on the international stage is a very interesting one. As I said in my opening remarks, our future prosperity depends on it. So it's very important.

First of all, I'd like to remind you that I'm a scientific adviser and I don't audit government measures. I can, however, comment on the data and what has been done.

The government has continued to invest in science, research and innovation in various ways. The challenge is that other countries have made even greater investments. You can't ensure that you remain a leader by continuing to do the same thing. When you're one of the leaders, you can only go backwards. As such, you really have to avoid going backwards.

In my humble opinion, we haven't seen such an acceleration of change in science and technology since the end of the Second World War. Exceptional circumstances call for exceptional measures. It is clear that we need to double our investment in research if Canada is to maintain its position. It's important that we keep our place.

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

Thank you, Ms. Nemer.

I'm going to rephrase my question.

What performance indicators tell us whether Canada is internationally competitive in the scientific field?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

We can look at different indicators, such as the percentage of GDP devoted to research. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, publishes this kind of analysis, which includes several variables. The first is GDP. If our GDP improves, we must also improve our investments. It's also important to know that these analyses are based on the sum of investments by the federal and provincial governments, universities, post-secondary institutions and industry.

These analyses exist, and they show that Canada has not even maintained a stable position in recent years. Everyone needs to increase their investment in this sector, particularly the—

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

I'm going to continue with my questions, Ms. Nemer.

What advice would you give the government on the investments to be earmarked in the next budget to support Canada's scientific ecosystem?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Mr. Chair, I clearly stated that I cannot make recommendations to the government. However, I have made it very clear in my public appearances that we need to increase investment in research and improve our support for researchers and young researchers, for example through post-doctoral fellowships.

Since taking up this position, I have expressed my support for the recommendations of the Naylor report, and I haven't changed my mind since.

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

Thank you, Ms. Nemer.

The Naylor report dates back to 2017. A few years later, the government mandated an advisory panel to take another look at the situation. This panel began its work in March. I'm an eternal optimist, but above all I'm a realist. I put some questions to Nipun Vats, the deputy minister responsible for science at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. He told me that, at the moment, there is no real plan to implement the 21 recommendations of the Bouchard report.

I'd like to know your opinion. You say you support the Naylor report. Have you had any discussions with the government? What advice have you given them about implementing the recommendations of an independent panel mandated by the government?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have 20 seconds.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I support a number of the recommendations in the Bouchard report, which are compatible with those in the Naylor report.

There have been two reports in five years, and both recommend the same thing and come to the same conclusion. So it's important that we take them on board and act. As to whether I've been involved in discussions about what to do next, the answer is yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

As the testimony is coming forward, I'm thinking that a lot of this can be used in our future studies, including the study Mr. Blanchette-Joncas brought forward to the committee that we will be beginning shortly.

Ms. Idlout, welcome again. You have six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mona, for sharing your expertise at this committee.

I'm going to ask you two easy questions first, and then I'll probably ask you more difficult questions.

This committee is currently conducting a study of how to integrate indigenous traditional knowledge and science into government policy development. Has your office considered how to do this?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

My office has considered doing this. In fact, we are reviewing, right now, our science integrity policy, which we put forward back in 2018 and which has been adopted by all the science-based departments and the government. We're reviewing it precisely to incorporate two additional important items we didn't have answers for before. One is the use of indigenous knowledge in science advice. The other one is about the use of machine learning and artificial intelligence in research and reports.

Yes, we are doing this.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you. I also appreciated the responses you had for another MP regarding the use of indigenous traditional knowledge.

What advice would you have for the government on how to combine or bring these two knowledge systems into government policy?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

It's really important for the public—and, of course, the elected officials are part of the public—to appreciate what indigenous knowledge is. I'm not certain that it is well understood by many people. I think we need a lot of engagement and some sensitization or education, if I can say that.

I will give the examples of the use of indigenous knowledge in the north to predict migration of animal species, weather events or production of food and other things. I think these are most definitely things that follow what we refer to as the scientific method, in the sense that they are observations that lead to conclusions and they are verifiable and have been repeated over and over. I think it is really important to do this. We need to engage in ongoing, continuous dialogue with different communities.

We're also doing this in our international engagement with other countries—sensitizing them to the fact that we do need to incorporate and be conscious of indigenous knowledge and indigenous community perspectives in much of our research. I think Canada can also be a leader internationally on this.