Science and Research Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Have you seen the letter that the clerk sent on Tuesday, February 17? That is when we got that information from the translation bureau.

This is the letter dated February 16, 2026. It is from Annie Plouffe, vice-president, service to Parliament and interpretation, translation bureau. That is when the information came about this situation, and then the clerk sent out a letter to all of the members on February 17.

MP Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Chair, just to be clear, I am moving that motion. I'm not suggesting it; I'm actually moving the motion that I read out. If it has not been already, it will be distributed in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The motion that MP Noormohamed has moved has been distributed, in both official languages, to all of the members through email.

We'll have the debate on that motion.

The floor is with MP Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Madam Chair, could we suspend the meeting to analyze the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Can I request that all of the members please take their seats? I call this meeting to order.

We have the motion by MP Noormohamed. Is there any debate?

MP Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like my colleagues to explain their exact position. I gather that the delays aren't the issue, but rather the costs.

I would like my colleagues to clarify their view of the issue. I want to ask for information. As a parliamentary committee, our job is to carry out studies based on information, particularly data. We're asking for access to data. I understand that the legislation requires us to have it translated. I gather that people agree with this. I'm just trying to understand the exact issue. That way, we can do our job and access data to help us prepare the most accurate reports possible and then make recommendations to the government with a view to developing the best possible public policies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

MP Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

The whole purpose, as we understood it when we discussed this previously, was that I think we all recognized that information at this committee must appear in both official languages. That's a guiding principle. When we had the discussion, I think we all agreed that producing this material in English and French would be an unreasonable financial burden. We agreed, in my understanding, that we would have this study to ensure we had the right mechanisms in place so as to avoid this problem entirely.

This motion is simply to address formally what we had agreed to do, which was to have the study on how we should be governing this going forward. As per your recommendation, we have the tri-council and everyone else coming to be part of the conversation about what is the best mechanism we might use to solve the problem that I think you were very rightly trying to solve with the original motion.

I don't think there's any dispute at all in respect of what we're trying to accomplish. I think we agree. The issue we all agreed to was that in order to produce these documents in both official languages, which is the right thing to do.... The unreasonable financial burden on the system is the reason that we went down the path that we did. I'm very comfortable with being able to defend that position. I think we all would be.

I think the purpose of the study that we are in right now gives all of us comfort, I think, in ensuring that what comes out of it is a good, quality recommendation on the basis of everything and every witness we've had, including the tri-council, rather than just basing it on one particular collection of data and then leaving it to us, 400 business days from now—whatever the makeup of this committee will be—to determine what should happen. I think that in order to get to what you want more effectively, more expeditiously and in the most thoughtful way possible, this study is supposed to accomplish that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, MP Noormohamed.

MP Blanchette-Joncas.

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

I just want to clarify things, Madam Chair.

When we amended this initial motion, it was asking for disaggregated data. We then asked for aggregated data. That's what we agreed on. That's the first thing to note.

We now have a big problem here. We first had a government that didn't want to provide disaggregated data, citing privacy concerns. We then made an amendment. This is my colleague's motion, which I encourage you to look at, since it's public. He asked for aggregated data.

We're now faced with another problem. We're told that it would cost too much to obtain access to the data in order to have it analyzed and included in a report. That's what I'm trying to understand. We're getting everything mixed up.

First, I want the government to show transparency. I want the government to give parliamentarians, such as the members of this committee, access to this data. I would like to remind the people who are with us today or who are keeping up with our work that the granting agencies have an annual budget of $4 billion. We're talking here about $4.9 million, which I can understand may seem high. However, calculate the percentage. We're talking about $4.9 million out of a $4 billion budget to ensure transparency and equity in research funding. That was the original goal.

I would like my colleagues to respond today. Do they agree that we should show transparency and ensure that we can provide the best possible study reports? We need data for this. We're now faced with a fait accompli. We're told that access to this data costs money. Just imagine. It's our job to have access to the data. I think that, if we want to correct errors—if there are any, first of all—we obviously need access to this data. If there aren't any errors, so much the better. However, to do our job, we first need access to the data.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

I have MP Baldinelli and then MP McKelvie.

MP Baldinelli.

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

I'm going to follow up on some of the comments of my Liberal colleague.

If members recall, when we undertook this study, it was about the impact of the criteria for awarding federal funding on research excellence in Canada. I believe it was a robust study, and I imagine committee members would agree. We heard from numerous witnesses. My Conservative colleagues would agree with me that there's nothing precluding us from working on a report based on the testimony that was provided. For the cost of the material required and the data requested, I believe the cost-benefit analysis precludes us from even wanting to proceed on that additional material that my Bloc colleague is asking for. There's nothing that precludes us from working on having a draft report prepared and presenting to the House a robust report on the criteria and the issues with research excellence and funding in Canada.

If anything was an error on our part, it was not adopting a formal motion earlier, because I think there was consensus in this room that we would not proceed to spend that amount of money.

We undertook a Bloc study, which we are currently doing now, that talks about the notions of transparency, governance and a framework to talk about those issues that my Bloc colleague has an interest in, and that I think we should all have an interest in. We're currently getting some excellent testimony.

I think we should just proceed, pass and adopt this motion and then get on with other business that we have. I know my colleague here has another motion for a study he'd like to proceed with.

That's my recommendation to my colleagues here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, MP Baldinelli.

MP Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll mark this on my calendar. Today, February 26, 2026, we no longer have an official opposition here in Canada. The official opposition, which should be holding the government to account, is saying that it costs too much to retrieve the data. This is totally ridiculous. Our job is to have access to data for study reports. The official opposition is now saying that it costs too much and that the committee has agreed on something else.

First, this isn't what we agreed on. I'm not surprised to see Conservative Party members crossing the floor to join the Liberals. They aren't doing their job as the official opposition. At this point, the Bloc Québécois members are the ones obligated to hold the government to account.

I'm embarrassed for my Conservative colleagues today. They're telling us that $5 million out of a federal budget of over $500 billion costs too much for accountability purposes. We'll calculate the percentage for them if they don't know how. It's 0.006%.

I'll make a note of this. I'll also make a point of reminding them that the people who placed their trust in me want to feel confident in the proper investment of their money. Yet here we have a government that wants to move a motion to prevent the committee from accessing the data and analyzing these investments. Moreover, the Conservative Party supports it. Do you realize this?

I encourage my Conservative colleagues to do some soul‑searching today and to ask themselves why three consecutive members of Parliament joined the Liberals in three months. Did some of them not want to lose their seats in the next election? Did some of them want to take a little trip? I think that it's all well and good.

Today, I'm genuinely and thoroughly questioning the willingness of certain committee members to do their job. They tell us that accountability matters. Yet when the time comes to make decisions to ensure accountability, they aren't there. They refuse to do it.

I find the following quite objectionable. We're basically saying that we stand for values and that we agree with asking the government to avoid spending money foolishly. Today, however, the Conservatives are in agreement with the Liberals in refusing access to the data because they consider the amount too high. It's unbelievable. We're talking about 0.006% of the federal budget. Yet they deem this amount too high for the government to do its job and for us to obtain access to the data. Today, I would like to understand the Conservative values. Is it to let the government operate without accountability? The Conservatives are saying just that.

The Conservatives moved a motion this week in the House of Commons to tell us that asylum seekers are too expensive. Today, we want to analyze the data from funding agencies. We want to know whether the funding granted in this area is being invested properly and distributed equitably. Our recent study focused on this. We carried out a study on the criteria for excellence in research funding.

I'm currently questioning the validity of the position taken by the Conservatives. They're refusing to let us use a specific amount to verify certain public expenditures. I repeat that this accounts for 0.006% of the federal budget, a budget of over $500 billion.

Do you know what worries me even more? We've just had a record deficit in Canadian history to the tune of $78 billion. Yet we have a financial expert at the head of the government. How can we really trust a government that refuses to provide data and tells us that it costs too much to do so?

The Bloc Québécois has nevertheless been a good sport. On December 3, we moved a motion with the support of all parties. Ultimately, the government funding agencies didn't really agree to implement what we wanted. We called for mechanisms to ensure equitable funding, access to data through a secure and confidential gateway and ethical mechanisms. We're talking today about a translation bureau analysis showing that we need to invest a certain amount to access this data and to ensure that the money is being invested properly. I find it hard to understand how we can carry out a study without having the data.

To make matters worse, this study has brought some shocking revelations to light. Witnesses came forward and told us they didn't have access to the data needed for scientific analysis. These are credible researchers. They have even received government funding. The government that refuses to provide access to data is funding these researchers. Imagine the inconsistency. That's the first thing. The second thing concerns the situation. This researcher had access to data, including disaggregated data, from one of the three granting agencies. The inconsistency is twofold. First, the government funds a researcher, but won't provide access to the data. While the government should trust this researcher, it doesn't want to provide the data across all its funding agencies.

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council granted access to the data. However, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council refused to provide the data. This disaggregated data made it possible to carry out a comprehensive analysis of whether research funding in Canada is truly equitable.

Normally, a government that claims to operate transparently won't hide this data, especially not from a qualified researcher. I moved an initial motion in October so that we could obtain this data and do our job. Once again, I would like to reassure people. I didn't want to obtain the data for myself. I wanted to have it analyzed by qualified and, of course, trustworthy people. That was the main goal of the motion.

We also understand that a movement of people didn't want this data shared, for various reasons. I can understand them. We came back to the committee to adopt a motion on disaggregated data. We're talking about this motion today. On February 17, we received a response from the translation bureau stating that obtaining access to this data would cost money. However, some colleagues seem confused by the fact that we also agreed to ask the granting agencies whether they could implement a mechanism to give researchers actual access to this data.

Just imagine. In Canada, people fund a research system. Yet when researchers need data to carry out their work, the government refuses to give them access to it. Normally, if you're doing something right, you don't need to hide it. That's what my mother taught me, anyway. When you do good things, you can be happy to say so. Yet we currently have a government that refuses to grant access to data to credible and qualified individuals who are supervised by an ethics committee and who, of course, even receive government funding. They even have the support of their peers and the credibility to publish scientific papers in internationally recognized magazines.

Do you understand that we're now facing a serious problem? How can we, as parliamentarians, ensure that public funding is actually being invested wisely when, first, researchers who want to carry out this analysis don't have access to the data and second, when researchers want to know why they don't have access, the government hides behind privacy protection protocols? I think that it's a lie that one of the three government granting agencies has already submitted its data. We wonder why a government that claims to operate transparently allows one of these three organizations to share its data. Is the organization in the wrong? I don't know, but I would like to find out. Are the other two organizations that don't want to hand over their data, for very likely reasons, afraid that access to this information will give rise to certain analyses and reveal certain issues?

I'm proud of my current fight for government transparency and accountability to ensure that Canada's science policies are overseen by people who have both expertise and credibility. I've been a member of this committee since its creation in 2021. When researchers are forced to speak out publicly to report a situation as serious as the inability to access the data needed for scientific research, can we say that we live in a democracy here?

When researchers ask for access to public data funded by public money, and if they can't obtain that data even though they themselves receive government funding, I think that this poses serious problems. It raises questions and points to a serious problem with the governance of this data. That's why I moved the motion.

This motion is necessary, because a researcher is unable to access this data through the normal channels. A parliamentarian has to ask the government to provide the data.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I now count the fourth time that the same argument has been made, so either my colleague opposite might make some new arguments or perhaps you might consider cutting him off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, MP Noormohamed.

I request that you not repeat, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

What we often see in politics is that we have to repeat things so that people understand, especially when we are in the presence of government people. In political communication, the important thing is to repeat it so that people understand the information. Today, some colleagues said that they thought the problem was solved. However, it couldn’t be resolved, since we hadn’t discussed it—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Excuse me. There's no translation.

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

This is repetition. This is repetition. Is it working now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes.

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

The word “repetition” is important, because it’s something I’m working on here today. I think it’s necessary for people to understand that it’s fundamental to have access to data in the research world.

Having worked with many researchers, I saw that people had questions, for specific reasons and based on their ideologies. It’s up to them. However, my role as a parliamentarian with respect to the motion we are discussing today is to tell you that it is completely incomprehensible that a government would not agree, for ideological reasons, or perhaps out of precaution, to share data with someone who has expertise, credibility—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

With all due respect to my dear friend, we're now starting the fifth cycle of the same argument. He's acknowledged that he's repeating in order to be able to make a point.

Madam Chair, perhaps you might consider....

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

MP Blanchette-Joncas, that's a valid point. If you have made your point, please don't repeat.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be pleased to take the time to explain to my colleague exactly what I am talking about today.

I would like to read a letter dated February 16 that was sent to you. The subject reads as follows: “Request for the translation of research documents submitted as part of the motion filed in the context of the study on the 'Impact that the criteria for awarding federal funding have on research excellence in Canada'.”

I’ll read it, because it’s a matter of transparency for the people who follow our work, the scientific community and honest taxpayers:

Madam Chair: On October 1, 2025, the Standing Committee on Science and Research (Committee) adopted a motion for the production of documents further to its study on the Impact that the criteria for awarding federal funding have on research excellence in Canada. In response to the motion, the Committee received a total of about 88 million words that were then sent by federal organizations (the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC], the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [NSERC] and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR]) to the Translation Bureau (Bureau), for translation. The service agreement between the Bureau and the House of Commons administration provides for the translation of an annual volume of approximately 35 million words. Since the Committee’s request exceeds the agreed-upon annual volume and the documents are from three federal institutions, we had to conduct a number of verifications, discussions and consultations to provide a comprehensive response. As a comparison, the Bureau translates more than 325 million words annually, including about 60 million words for Parliament as a whole. Since the documents are from SSHRC, NSERC and CIHR, these institutions are responsible for providing the Committee with the translations. Section 8 of the Official Languages Act says that “any document made by or under the authority of a federal institution that is tabled in the Senate or the House of Commons by the Government of Canada shall be tabled in both official languages.” We confirmed this interpretation with the appropriate authorities. The budget allocated to the Bureau to provide Parliament with translation services cannot be used to translate these documents. However, the Bureau can provide these federal institutions with translation services through the linguistic services it offers on a cost-recovery basis. Over the past few months, the Bureau has worked closely with the Clerk of the Committee to prepare the documents received and resolve the quality issues related to the content (bilingual documents) and formatting. This considerably slowed down the final stages of assessing the documents. Then, we worked with digital imaging experts to prepare a quote that included various options for translating the project’s documents, which total more than 88 million words, including 42 million from specialized research fields, specifically biomedicine, chemistry, astrophysics and engineering. In the appendix, you will find a few options to consider, with or without the use of artificial intelligence, including the assignment of a dedicated team of 40 full-time translators for a period of 6 to 18 months. We kindly ask that you send this information to the institutions in question. My Linguistic Services colleagues will then be able to begin discussions with these three institutions so that the Committee can receive the documents in both official languages. I am available if the committee requires any additional information. Yours sincerely, Annie Plouffe Vice-President Service to Parliament and Interpretation Translation Bureau Public Services and Procurement Canada

I would like to explain the details of the appendix to those following our work today.

In the appendix, you will find option 1, which involves machine translation followed by a 100% comparative review. After the machine translation, there are two elements. There is the option of a 100% comparative review of the translated text to ensure consistency in both languages.

In the appendix, under option 1, we can see that there is a low risk of errors. It then states that the estimated total cost is $16.5 million—