Science and Research Committee on Nov. 5th, 2025

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Yes, please, if I may, I would like to move my motion now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, please.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Given the context and trying to keep it as simple and as—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, MP Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

The motion is not within the scope of today's study, nor is it on the agenda. Therefore, it cannot be moved. Either we continue the discussion, and I offer my sincere co-operation once again, or we continue the ridiculous performance we are currently witnessing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The fact is that I have raised this issue and this is a concern. I will repeat that this is about the reputation of our committee. Because I have opened this for discussion, I will rule it in order for MP Noormohamed to bring the motion.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion will be distributed in both official languages immediately. I move:

Notwithstanding the motion the committee adopted on October 20th and given that the order for disaggregated data will cost more than $4 million of taxpayer money, the word “disaggregated” be deleted and replaced with the following, “aggregated and anonymized”.

Madam Chair, I believe this addresses the assurance that Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas just gave to the community. It also reflects the comments made by my friend opposite, and I hope that it does two things. It gives the scientific community the assurance they're looking for. More importantly, it also assures taxpayers that we indeed, in this committee, continue to be good stewards of their resources and achieve the goals that committee members wish to achieve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We have a motion.

MP McKelvie.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing forward this motion. I did speak publicly when this motion was tabled by the member opposite from the Bloc Québécois. I did say that I found it problematic and that researchers may not want their ideas released publicly, especially for unfunded proposals, because there's a potential for others to steal those ideas and because there is privacy involved in that. So, I did comment on that already.

I would also like to point out that, in addition to the letters to committee that we have received, there was an open letter to protect tri-council data that was brought forward. In that letter, it says, “This motion is incredibly damaging, unscientific in its approach, unethical, and puts minoritized researchers and graduate students at risk.” It has been signed by 5,000 people.

I would also like to show some of the comments that have come into my office from researchers who are from McGill, the University of Toronto, Ontario Tech, York, Western, the University of Calgary, the University of Alberta, the University of Saskatchewan and more. I have anonymized their names, which is the proper way to deal with these things. They say that the confidentiality of the peer review process is sacrosanct and that this will irreparably undermine trust in the processes that govern peer review. They say that this motion provides no such justification and thus represents an unreasonable and disproportionate invasion of privacy, that it undermines the ethical and confidentiality commitments on which scientific review depends, and that it undermines scientific peer review in Canada and diminishes our reputation in the eyes of the international scientific community.

A letter we have received from SSHRC, one of the tri-councils, says, “As previously communicated, some of the information requested is difficult to access and compile in a usable manner.”

I appreciate that our colleague is bringing forward a motion that can provide data, but it should be in a way that makes sense fiscally and responsibly, that protects the privacy of researchers, that protects intellectual property, and that gives us a way to move forward with the report that we would like to table and have back to committee so that we can assess research excellence criteria in Canada, which is what the study is intended to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, MP McKelvie.

MP Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to continue my comments on the motion moved by my colleague.

I want to reiterate what I mentioned at the outset. As a member of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, it is my duty and responsibility to ensure that federal science policies are administered with consistency, transparency and ethical rigour.

I understand and share the concerns expressed by a number of members of the scientific community following the motion I put forward to the committee. Remember that my motion was adopted unanimously by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

What happens in camera in committee business is not to be discussed, but it is now being discussed publicly again. While I appreciate the point that my colleague is trying to make, I think that if we're all going to adhere to rules, we have to follow the same set of rules. I think we're all in agreement on the objective that he's trying to accomplish, but we also have to remember that in camera is in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

I'll suspend the meeting for a minute to check with the clerk on what was in camera and what was public.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

I want to clarify for all the members that a point of order has been raised by MP Noormohamed, so I will read from page 1029 of chapter 20, “Committees”, of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.

We cannot talk about anything related to the in camera meeting here. You can talk about this topic, but you cannot refer to any matter related to the in camera meeting.

MP Blanchette-Joncas, go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, let me remind you that on October 1, when we passed this motion, the committee meeting was public. As a member of Parliament on the committee, I have the right to speak on this subject.

I just want to reassure the people listening to us who are worried. I'm not looking to waste anyone's time right now. I even find it unfortunate that the witnesses here today are witnessing our discussions.

I honestly thought we were going to deal with this at six o'clock. Before starting the meeting, I even told my colleagues that I was ready for us to make the meeting public so that people could listen to us and record all our discussions.

I would like your co-operation in simply expressing myself for a minute and conveying to the scientific community a message that has resonated with me as a member and vice-chair of this committee.

I want the scientific community to hear us, because they are currently worried. I just want to reassure them on the original intent of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Is there any other debate on this motion?

Yes, MP Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a question for you.

I'm trying to understand. Can you let me finish the statement I've been trying to read since the beginning of the committee meeting? I would just like to tell the scientific community what I want to do and what the purpose of this motion is, to provide access to disaggregated data. That's my only goal.

Then we can vote on the motion and move on. We can certainly continue the work on the study planned by the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, you can speak. You have the floor.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

What I was saying a little earlier is that the motion that was unanimously adopted on October 1, in public, was not intended to judge projects or expose researchers. It was more about understanding, based on data, whether the federal funding system results in systemic discrimination or inequities in terms of language, institution size, gender, discipline or institutional prestige.

I am aware that this initiative may have been mistakenly perceived as a threat to confidentiality. I also understand the distrust of the community at a time when, internationally, science has sometimes been weaponized for political purposes, particularly as we are currently seeing from our neighbours to the south. However, here we're not talking about interference or ideology; we're talking about accountability and institutional responsibility. I want to reiterate that such sensitive data cannot be made public. We had all debated it and agreed to anonymize the data. It's a discussion I've had publicly with my colleagues, and it's even available online.

This debate arose out of a very real case. Researcher Julien Larregue, under the federal research on research initiative, led jointly by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Michael Smith Health Research BC, wanted to study the distribution of scientific funding in Canada. However, while the initiative is specifically aimed at better understanding funding dynamics, two of the three granting agencies, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, have refused to share the necessary data with him, despite an approved ethical protocol and strict confidentiality guarantees.

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council has agreed to work with him, which shows that it is entirely possible to strike a balance between transparency, rigour and the protection of personal information. My request doesn't come from nowhere. The data from this granting agency is already available to researchers.

The irony is striking: The same organizations that fund research and transparency refuse to make their own operations transparent. However, Julien Larregue's work has gone through all the scientific validation stages. He received a knowledge grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and an ethical endorsement from Université Laval. He was also published in the Canadian Journal of Sociology, the country's leading scholarly journal.

My goal today, reflected in my motion, is not to wage an ideological crusade, but to defend a principle of method and responsibility. Transparency should not be seen as a threat to science, but as a condition of its legitimacy. If our system is fair, the data will prove it. If there are imbalances, we have a collective duty to correct them.

Scientific data should never be withheld out of institutional convenience or demanded under political pressure. Freedom of research is based on a balance between autonomy and responsibility. What we are proposing is to ensure balance by putting transparency under ethical and scientific oversight, not political influence. Combining transparency and protection is possible, and even necessary. Countries like Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway are already doing this by giving researchers controlled access to aggregated or disaggregated data on their funding system.

Canada cannot claim to be a model of scientific integrity if it remains opaque about how it distributes its own public funds. Science doesn't exist to protect institutions; it exists to serve society. It thrives not in fear or silence, but in clarity and trust. That trust is what we need to protect together.

That's why I prepared a solution, and I can talk about it in committee business. It includes the possibility of establishing a secure ethical protocol, inspired in particular by the international Five Safes model, which is already used by Statistics Canada, to enable accredited researchers to analyze data without compromising privacy or academic freedom. That way, serious researchers can finally do research on research and politicians and public institutions that use taxpayer funds will be held accountable. This is a necessary step to maintain public trust in our scientific system. I hope that the community has heard us today and understood me clearly about the sincere objectives of this initiative, which was proposed on October 1.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, MP Blanchette-Joncas.

Is there any further debate?

Go ahead, MP Baldinelli.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Madam Chair, I'd like to speak to the motion by my colleague and propose an amendment to it. It's a friendly amendment.

As my Bloc colleague said, this motion was discussed on both October 1 and October 20. I would suggest we use “Notwithstanding the motion the committee adopted on October 1st and on October 20th”, and then the wording will continue as indicated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have an amendment to the motion proposed by MP Noormohamed. It is a friendly amendment. Is everyone okay with it, or do we need to vote?

[An hon. member]

I would ask for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will have a recorded vote on the amendment as proposed by MP Baldinelli.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion by MP Noormohamed as amended is now on the floor. Seeing no debate, we will have a recorded vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

MP Baldinelli.