Absolutely. I do want to note that nine recommendations are complete, but there are 13 in progress. Technically, 22 out of 35 recommendations have seen some progress. That is a notable win. But you are correct in saying that there are 13 recommendations that are still unresolved.
These include NACRI, or the council of science and innovation body you referred to. Other unresolved recommendations include the call to implement a first ministers conference on research excellence, bringing together both provincial and federal actors when it comes to talking about and investing in science and research. Another unresolved recommendation is to harmonize legislation across the federal funding agencies, as well as to review the current allocation of funding across the federal funding agencies.
I will note that these remain unresolved, but I do want to point out that there are a few caveats to consider when it comes to looking at the fundamental science review. This review was published in 2017. It's been almost five years. There have been two mandates and two governments since. We've also been living through the COVID-19 pandemic. The science landscape in Canada has changed, as has the global science landscape.
I do also want to note that while the fundamental science review had a large and broad scope, it wasn't inclusive of all the different inputs in Canada's science ecosystem. It didn't include government science and it didn't include applied science, so it's not a very complete report.
What I want to note in my last 30 seconds is that whether we use the fundamental science review as a guide or not, it is urgent that we continue to invest in Canada's science and research ecosystem. The challenges we're facing—climate change, future pandemics—are not going away. The costs of not having the right evidence on hand will be far greater in the long run than the immediate costs of investing in science and research today.
Thank you.