Science and Research Committee on March 12th, 2026

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Have you ever felt like the researchers working in science in this government have not been able to speak their minds freely?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I haven't had complaints about that.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Have there been any Integrity Commissioner complaints regarding the way scientists have been treated by this government?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I can refer you to the science integrity policy, which requires a compliance review every year. We publish these online.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm sorry. I couldn't hear your answer because there were some conversations from across the way about sending scientists to a food bank.

Could you repeat your answer?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

There are 25 departments and agencies in which science is happening, including the National Research Council, where the science integrity policy is in effect. This allows us to have a yearly evaluation and compliance report published.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Over the last eight years you've been in this role, what has the state of the research community and science been within the Government of Canada?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

In the past seven or eight years, we have been doing quite a bit of research, both inside the Government of Canada and outside.

The investments in science are never enough, but they certainly have been consistent. There have been appropriate increases in investment in science and technology.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to now turn to Mr. Davies.

One thing we often hear from the Conservative Party is that there is a demand for tangible research outcomes. Otherwise, it's probably not worth anything. However, we had one witness, a couple of meetings ago, talk about the importance of, for example, the investments made in quantum mechanics. Those allowed quantum computing to take hold many years later.

Can you talk about the importance of investing in science and research today that may not have a tangible, specific outcome in the moment but that lead to future innovation and research?

[Mitch Davies]

The way to think about investments in science is to understand that it's all done with uncertainty. It's a similar thing to what the entrepreneur will undertake. They have to invest, but there's no assurance the business will succeed. There may not be an assurance that pursuing a particular avenue of research will succeed. It is inherently risky. The outcome might be that you learn what does not work, in many cases. You may reorient what you're trying to do so you can achieve a breakthrough.

Then there are the results, which can be quite profound. In fact, this was referenced in earlier testimony on artificial intelligence. It's the type of research that, now, we take for granted. It is embedded in the phone technology we're all using, and it's become ubiquitous. At the original point in time when it was introduced in the research milieu, there was a lot of skepticism regarding whether it would work and whether it was valid.

The issue is to have a system that supports that kind of investigation and openness and allows for it to be pursued. We're going to find a lot of fruit in taking some of those risks. It's inherent in the process of research and technology to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed with MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

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

Dr. Nemer, in a system that distributes several billion dollars in scientific funding every year, wouldn't it be normal for an independent mechanism to analyze the data in order to improve governance and transparency, but also public understanding?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Obviously, as in any business or activity, I think it's important to know what's working, what's not working, and how we can improve things.

Of course, first there is an analysis that is done by the operators themselves. After that, there is an independent analysis that must validate these figures, I think, and that must assess whether we are really achieving the objectives we have set.

By the way, the objectives are not necessarily to create companies. It's also about having a skilled workforce. It's about advancing science, as in the case of quantum or artificial intelligence.

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

Thank you.

Still in your report entitled “Towards a National Scientific Governance Framework”, published in 2025, you recommend establishing a national data governance framework, but also a focal point to coordinate the actors.

Could such a framework improve the transparency, analysis and accountability in the research funding system, as well as across all scientific policies in Canada?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

This is certainly a model that could be applied to research data itself, but not to research results data. In that case, it would be necessary to find what the focal point is and where the responsibility lies. Obviously, it's important that this be an independent organization or sector, if only to ensure credibility in the eyes of the public.

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

Dr. Nemer, in closing, I want to acknowledge all your courage. I know there's been a lot of talk lately about attacks on science in the United States, but also here in Canada. We're seeing a government making cuts to science. This is particularly the case with the Centre de référence en agriculture et agroalimentaire du Québec, which is closing its doors after 60 years. The same is true for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's research centre in Longueuil.

You said here, during your last appearance before the committee in November, that this situation amounts to a “nightmare”, that you weren't consulted on projects of national interest, and that the scientific expertise of your office isn't being taken into consideration.

I wanted to acknowledge all your work, Dr. Nemer.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now end this panel with three minutes for MP Kronis and then three minutes with MP Noormohamed.

MP Kronis, please go ahead.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Dr. Nemer, I want to clarify something a bit. The role of the chief science adviser is to provide independent scientific advice to the government. Is that correct?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

That's correct.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

That advice is most useful when your office is consulted before decisions are made. Is that correct?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Most of the time, it is, yes.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Earlier, you indicated that you were not consulted on the elimination of certain government programs. Is that correct?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

That's correct.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

My colleague across the way asked you about a time under a former prime minister, Prime Minister Harper, when he indicated that government science officers often felt muzzled. Is that correct?