Science and Research Committee on March 12th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 28 of the Standing Committee on Science and Research. The meeting is to study the governance and accountability of federal science policy and institutions.

Before we start, I would like to adopt some study budgets. The clerk sent you four supplementary draft budgets on Monday, March 2. The clerk also sent you a draft budget in the amount of $38,800 for our next study on implications of the Canada-China preliminary joint arrangement on Canada's electric vehicle sector.

Is everyone okay in regard to the budgets? One of the other four budgets is a request for a supplementary budget of an extra $1,000 for the antimicrobial resistance study. The second one is for an extra $1,000 for the artificial intelligence study. The third one is for the study of the impact of the criteria for awarding federal funding on research excellence in Canada. The supplementary amount requested is $2,500. The next one is for the study on the implications of the Canada-China preliminary joint arrangement on Canada's electric vehicle sector, which is for $38,800. The last one is for the study on the private sector investment in research and development in Canada, and the supplementary amount requested is $1,000.

Is everyone in agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The budgets are adopted.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for this panel, but I think MP Blanchette-Joncas would like to say something before we proceed to our witnesses.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, I seek the unanimous consent of my colleagues to move a motion.

When the committee adopted the order for the production of documents on October 1 and amended it on October 20, the objective was clear: Enable a rigorous analysis of how our research funding system works. The intention was never to call into question the granting agencies or the essential work they do to support research. Rather, the goal was to enable researchers, in an appropriate and secure framework, to have access to the microdata they needed to analyze the determinants of research success and better understand how the scientific funding system actually works. That approach also addressed the concerns expressed by a number of researchers who wanted to be able to more rigorously analyze the distribution of scientific funding and the factors that influence the allocation of public research funds.

In any knowledge-based society, the institutions that support science have to be open to scrutiny, analysis and understanding. Science itself advances through rigour, critical examination and transparency. A number of researchers have also emphasized that the analysis of scientific funding requires access to all applications, including funded and unfunded projects, to avoid bias and better understand the distribution of funding. Granting agencies have also pointed out the significant constraints they have to comply with, including in terms of privacy, confidentiality, peer reviews and data security. On top of that, the Translation Bureau has raised considerable constraints regarding the exceptional volume of documents involved.

The motion I am moving today seeks to take those real administrative constraints into account. That said, the issue that prompted this action is still important. Understanding how public research funds are distributed and enabling their analysis remain critical to ensuring that our science system is transparent and is trusted by Canadians. It is also in this spirit that the committee is now undertaking a broader reflection on the governance and accountability of federal scientific institutions. A strong system depends not only on the quality of the research it supports, but also on the transparency of institutions and their ability to be understood, analyzed and continually improved.

Madam Chair, I will read the text of the motion:

That, in light of the translation-related issues as conveyed by the Translation Bureau, the committee rescind the order for the production of documents adopted on October 1, 2025, and amended on October 20, 2025, and sent to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, as part of the study on the impact of federal funding allocation criteria on research excellence in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

MP Blanchette-Joncas has moved a motion. The clerk has emailed everyone. I hope everyone has seen it.

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, MP Blanchette-Joncas.

We will proceed to our witnesses for our first panel. I apologize for that.

I would really like to welcome the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, represented by Dr. Paul Hébert, president, and Jeff Moore, vice-president of corporate services and transformation. We are also joined by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, which is represented today by its president, Alejandro Adem, and Marcel Turcot, vice-president of strategic, corporate and public affairs. Our third organization for this panel is the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, represented by Dr. Sylvie Lamoureux, chief operating officer and vice-president of research, and Dr. Valérie Laflamme, associate vice-president of the tri-agency institutional programs secretariat.

All of the witnesses will have five minutes for their opening remarks, and then we will go to our rounds of questioning.

We will begin with Dr. Paul Hébert.

Please go ahead.

[Dr. Paul Hébert, President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research]

Madam Chair, members, thank you for the invitation to be here today.

I’m pleased to support this discussion on governance and accountability in federal science policy and institutions.

As president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, I lead an organization whose work is foundational to improving the health and prosperity of Canadians.

My team and I recognize the profound responsibility entrusted in us as stewards of public investment in health and life sciences research. This responsibility is anchored in our foundation—the Canadian Institues of Health Research Act, given royal assent in 2000—which remains a powerful piece of legislation.

CIHR’s purpose is simple: to create, apply, and mobilize knowledge that aims to improve the health and well-being of humanity, and the prosperity of all Canadians. It enshrines the principles of excellence, transparency and accountability that guide us to this day. For us, this means harnessing the full potential of Canada’s world class scientific community through engagement and collaboration, while aligning with our investments and programs.

At this point in human history, we are in the midst of a biological revolution fuelled by artificial intelligence, advanced biotechnology and data. This convergence of forces is accelerating our ability to understand life, cure disease and care for our patients. There is no doubt that this convergence is already having profound effects on how we conduct our science and care for our patients. For Canada, this represents a profound opportunity.

Over the past year, CIHR has undertaken a significant reorganization to strengthen our ability to deliver our scientific mission and achieve greater impact for Canadians. We will not measure our success by publications or accolades alone, but by whether Canadians are living longer, healthier lives and whether every person can count on the right care at the right time. We will also measure our success by the number of new drugs and treatments we discover and deliver to the world.

Realizing this promise, however, will require collaboration among the tri-councils, CFI, federal departments and agencies, and—for us—provinces and territories, because of the nature of our federated system. My hope is that, through all this, we become a more productive, innovative and healthier nation. For us, this means strengthening clinical research, leveraging our wealth of data and creating pathways to translate discoveries into solutions here at home.

As a national funder, CIHR plays a key role in convening partners and bridging disciplines to shape this shared vision. Collaboration is core to our collective work, and accountability to Canadians is our North Star. These values extend to the partnerships among our three agencies—NSERC, which you will hear from shortly, SSHRC and CIHR—as well as our CFI partner. Through the Canada research coordinating committee, which I chaired this past year, we have made great strides in harmonizing our policies and programs. That was before me, but since I've taken on this responsibility, we've strengthened aspects of delivering on missions. We've really focused on this in the past year, through our collaborative efforts. These include things like AI in health and life sciences. We are actively exploring Dr. Adem's and our colleagues' missions related to defence. Those are just two examples.

Of course, underpinning all this work is the independent peer review system we put in place. Canadian science is defined by creativity, boldness, rigour, curiosity and intellectual humility. Fair and effective peer review is how we fund this exceptional science and achieve these results.

Another legacy of the CIHR Act is our balanced and rigorous governance model. CIHR's governing council, our 13 institutes and their advisory bodies support informed scientific excellence and leadership with strong internal controls, audits and performance measurements. As you know, CIHR reports to Parliament through the Minister of Health every year.

Our arm's-length status preserves scientific independence, while still ensuring some accountability for Canadians, and—I would argue—meets some of the major missions of the government of the day. We also know that meaningful collaboration impact require a shared foundation of evidence. High-quality data, as mentioned by one of the vice-chairs here today—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. Can you quickly wind up, please?

[Dr. Paul Hébert]

Okay.

High-quality data strengthens oversight and builds trust in science institutions. For this reason, CIHR publishes extensive funding information online, including through Open Government, in addition to programs, evaluations, peer review membership and other data. We also support external data requests for “research on research” evidence. In fact, we've entertained 500 of those in the last several years.

As a learning organization, CIHR takes pride in the fact that our collaborative approach to data has directly led to funding program improvements. This ensures that we can contribute to outstanding, independent analyses while upholding our legislated obligations to privacy.

In closing, Canada has an opportunity to meet this moment and position its life sciences sector for global leadership. Canadians are counting on us to deliver, and CIHR is ready—guided firmly by the principles of transparency, accountability, and evidence-based decision making.

As a trusted partner and leader, CIHR—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Adem, representing the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. He is joining us through video conferencing.

Please, Mr. Adem, go ahead. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Dr. Alejandro Adem, President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council]

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

As the president of NSERC, I am pleased to discuss NSERC's governance, accountability and data management practices. I'm joined here by Marcel Turcot, NSERC's vice-president for strategic, corporate and public affairs.

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC, invests over $1.4 billion each year to support natural sciences and engineering research at more than 170 institutions across Canada. Our investments are supporting broad-based, internationally recognized discovery-oriented research. Since 2015, three NSERC-supported researchers based in Canada have won the Nobel Prize in physics.

We also enable invaluable research training to over 32,000 students and trainees each year, and at least 84% of NSERC-funded doctoral and postdoctoral award holders find employment in research or research- and development-focused organizations.

We also support industry partnerships with universities and colleges, powering engagement with over 2,800 nonacademic partners.

Our investments in research deliver impact locally, nationally and globally, while driving progress in priority areas aligned with economic objectives. Our track record over the past 10 years includes over $1.1 billion to support artificial intelligence research, over $650 million for northern research and over $500 million to support quantum research.

These research dollars have had real impact. For example, NSERC's AI investments backed the early work of pioneers like Geoffrey Hinton, who won a Nobel Prize in 2024, and Yoshua Bengio, who shared the famous Turing Award with Dr. Hinton and Yann LeCun in 2018.

NSERC also supported the work of Gilles Brassard, who made contributions that are recognized as fundamental to transformative quantum technologies.

NSERC and the other federal granting agencies work in a highly coordinated fashion to help the Canadian research ecosystem maintain and grow its impact.

Through active leadership in international science organizations, NSERC also helps shape global standards. Our world-class governance model is provided to us by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Act, which grants advisory functions and oversight to our council, composed of NSERC’s president and up to 18 members from academia and the private and not for profit sectors.

The council is also advised on specific policies and programs by three standing committees.

As a federal agency, we are subject to parliamentary oversight through the Minister of Industry and to legislation that outlines our accountability, such as the Financial Administration Act. Our programs and operations also adhere to Treasury Board oversight policies and directives, which are further strengthened by our independent audit committee and internal audit function.

Finally, our funding is awarded through a competitive peer review process run by rigorously selected and independent scientific experts.

This rigorous accountability also extends to our data management practices and modernization projects. As a federal institution, we have ethical responsibilities and legal obligations when it comes to legally protected information. We also follow and fully endorse the principles of transparent government, accessible data, and open research.

That is why we proactively disclose significant amounts of funding data, which is available to all Canadians on an annual basis. They include our departmental results reporting, the names of experts on our review committees and almost two million disaggregated data points on awards, which are published every year.

They also include results pages and dashboards that provide aggregated data and analysis on success rates for key programs, broken down by variables such as institution size, language of application, career stage and status or identity. Even the OECD has noted that Canada has one of the highest levels of research funding data openness and traceability.

Our upcoming tri-agency grants management solution will improve data harmonization across the agencies and make even more data available for analysis by consolidating multiple systems. This system will be phased in progressively, with full implementation expected in 2028.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I welcome any questions you might have and look forward to providing any clarifications you require.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Adem.

We will proceed to Dr. Sylvie Lamoureux, chief operating officer and vice-president of research for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Dr. Sylvie Lamoureux, Chief Operating Officer and Vice-President, Research, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me to speak today on behalf of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC.

I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Valérie Laflamme, SSHRC’s associate vice-president, Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat, or TIPS.

We welcome the committee’s attention to the topics of governance, accountability and transparency. These essential elements of good public service—and also of good research—are core features of both the work we do and the way we are structured and governed.

SSHRC is governed by a volunteer council, whose members are appointed through the Governor in Council appointments process. Our council operates according to a set of published bylaws, and we are subject to a range of legislative and policy requirements and directives.

SSHRC's strategic priorities, activities and performance are regularly assessed through formal reporting requirements and program evaluations and audits, including regular reporting to Parliament through our departmental plan and our departmental results report. In addition, for programs with higher-value grants, mid-term reviews are conducted to assess the progress of granted projects. We proactively disclose significant data describing our activities and funding decisions, including through annual public disclosure of funding results and several publicly available data dashboards.

Our core service to Canada is to support research and research training in the social sciences and humanities in order to help ensure Canada is equipped with a robust, sovereign research enterprise, providing the skills and expertise to help address today's challenges, as well as respond to future ones, whether they are anticipated or not.

Our commitment to accountability and transparency is evident in how we pursue this mandate. Our funding decisions are based on recommendations made by experts through a rigorous, independent, arm's-length merit review process in line with international best practices. We consult regularly with the research community and non-academic stakeholders on our processes. Moreover, the policies, processes and criteria that orient our funding decisions are all publicly available. We are held to account on our performance primarily through our council and through several advisory bodies representing our research community.

Additionally, SSHRC houses TIPS, which delivers some of Canada’s most prestigious and avant-garde research programs, including, among others, the New Frontiers in Research Fund, the Canada Research Chairs Program, and the new Canada Impact+ research chairs and emerging leaders programs announced in Budget 2025.

These programs all benefit from collaborative tri-agency governance structures, with the programs overseen by steering and management committees that include representatives of the three federal research funding agencies; the Canada Foundation for Innovation, or CFI; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; and Health Canada. More generally, the three funding agencies and the CFI work very closely together on a range of key policy issues, from data management to open access.

As a signatory of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, DORA, SSHRC strives to stay at the forefront of international best practices in research funding. SSHRC also supports research on the research process itself, which includes how research is funded, performed, communicated and evaluated. We are, for example, a member of the international Research on Research Institute, which improves how research is funded, evaluated and practised.

Finally, it's important to note that SSHRC collaborates across sectors, including with colleges and universities, the private sector, NGOs and organizations across governments. These connections help ensure that activities address the many challenges facing Canadians.

SSHRC is deeply committed to accountability, transparency and good governance—and strives for constant improvement. We welcome the committee’s study on this question, and the opportunity to support this important work.

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

With that, we will go to our rounds of questioning. The first round is six minutes each.

We will start with MP Kronis for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to ask my questions of Mr. Hébert.

I come from Vancouver Island, where access to health care is a real challenge, so I was happy to hear you talk about outcomes because that is all that matters to us.

Our tertiary hospital often isn't staffed like one, so many residents have to travel significant distances to get specialized care. Our local university, Vancouver Island University, is a small regional institution that is working to build research capacity but doesn't have the scale of the large research universities.

With that context in mind, what I'd like to ask you about is the demand for CIHR funding and how it's distributed across institutions. From your most recent grant competitions, can you talk to me a little bit about your success rates and how that has worked over time in terms of the applications you get versus grants actually funded?

[Dr. Paul Hébert]

Thank you for the question.

Let me start at the end, in a sense. Our success rate overall is 13% or 13.5%. I don't know the precise number. I do, but I just don't have it here correctly. It's around that range.

Over the years, it has gone up and down. I think the highest was 20%, probably seven to 10 years ago. It's steadily at that rate now and dropping, largely because of the grant pressure. The number of grants going out is increasing, but the number of demands is going way up. I was just talking to my colleagues from several granting councils in Australia and in the United Kingdom. Because of AI, we're all seeing this pressure of grants go way up, and we're all going to have to find ways to deal with it.

In terms of grant distribution, which was the next part of your question, if you look at the breakdown writ large, there are geographic differences. I'll break them down for you. Essentially, University of Toronto gets a significant portion of all of our grants. Then there's the middle core university sector of the U15, and then there are the smaller institutions. You will see differences in distribution based on the size of institutions.

In terms of geography around our country, Ontario does well because of the University of Toronto. You see that in middle Canada and Quebec. Depending on the competition, the Atlantic provinces see less. British Columbia will see that, given where you asked about, UBC does extremely well and the smaller universities less so.

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

What you're saying is that pressure on grants is increasing. There are thousands of grant proposals that are not supported each year, so there are high-quality projects that peer reviewers would consider fundable, including in communities like mine that are not able to be supported because of limited resources. Most of the funding is going to large institutions in urban areas.

Given the pressures that we face in our communities to be able to deliver health care and to be able to attract the talent that will do that, do you have any recommendations on what we could be doing to increase the funding to regions like ours?

[Dr. Paul Hébert]

I would say that's a very long discussion, but I'd be happy to go through at least some of the high points.

The first thing is that you're absolutely correct that in every competition, we leave a lot of great science on the table. Instead of a 13% success rate, we should probably be looking at 25%. In every single competition, there's not enough money to fund great science and great scientists. It creates unusual issues in grant distributions, as you're highlighting. There's great science in British Columbia—$165 million goes to the British Columbia ecosystem—and the distribution there is a bit odd even.

In terms of my recommendations, I would say that we need to get a lot more collaboration going in British Columbia. Knowing your health authorities and how they work, strengthening the whole of the ecosystem with collaborative intent would be a great idea. The pressures the province of British Columbia is undergoing right now are very large. Every single health authority is being asked to squeeze. They're squeezing the academic side too. Hiring people is becoming more and more difficult, and their positions are hard. To give you an example—

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

What does that mean for things like the purchasing power of grants these days? What does it mean for the size of research teams? How is that impacting results?

[Dr. Paul Hébert]

You're hitting on some really important points. In British Columbia, if UBC or Simon Fraser, the two bigger universities—

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

Let's talk about VIU.

[Dr. Paul Hébert]

What I mean is that what they have to do is share their platforms. Is there enough collaboration to share the platforms between all of the ecosystem universities? The answer is, yeah, so-so. They can improve that.

Are scientists working together? The way around this system is much more enhanced collaboration. What I often see is what I call zero-sum competition. The authorities compete with one another because of the funding pots, rather than work together. I spent three weeks in British Columbia last year. My daughter lives out in Vancouver. I visited UVic and spent a fair bit of time. That's what you see. Does the island health authority work with—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up for MP Kronis.

We will move to MP Deschênes-Thériault for six minutes.

Please go ahead, sir.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Witnesses, today's motion is about the accountability framework for federal science institutions. In this first round of questions, I'm going to focus on your obligations under Canada's Official Languages Act. As you know, you have to comply with this act as federal agencies. Since the act was modernized in 2023, part VII has focused on the progress toward substantive equality between both official languages. It also explicitly mentions positive measures that aim to support the creation and dissemination of information in French that helps advance scientific knowledge in all disciplines.

Since the modernized Official Languages Act was passed, what positive measures have each of your granting councils put in place to meet your enhanced obligations under the Official Languages Act?

We could start with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

[Dr. Sylvie Lamoureux]

Thank you for your question.

SSHRC recognizes the importance of research in French in Canada and of ensuring equitable access to federal research funding. The situation regarding application acceptance rates is interesting. While there has been a decline in the number of applications submitted in French over the past few years, the acceptance rates for applications submitted in French and those submitted in English are very similar in a number of our funding opportunities.

I would say that, since 2023, there's an effort to dig a little deeper, because the concept of substantive equality is very important. It may not be enough to look only at analyses in French and English. It's also important to take into account the realities of where applications come from. That makes it possible to better understand what happens to applications received in French from outside Quebec and their acceptance rate. It's a matter of having a perspective that takes into account Quebec and places outside Quebec, and understanding what happens to applications submitted in the various regions.

Investments in research on official languages and related topics, such as bilingualism, multilingualism, language law and policy, and official language communities total more than $8 million per year. From 2019 to 2023, those investments totalled $41.4 million. That also includes five Canada research chairs.

To answer your question specifically, I'd say the most important thing in all our commitments—whether with French-language, English-language or bilingual colleges or universities—is to ensure that we promote the French-language research support service from the Association canadienne-française pour l'avancement des sciences, or Acfas, to ensure that all researchers, no matter where they are, have the support they need to submit their applications.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you.

I will now invite Mr. Hébert to answer my question.