Science and Research Committee on March 12th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I hope the witnesses are okay to send in the answer.

Thank you.

With that, this panel comes to an end. I really want to thank all of our witnesses from this panel for contributing to this important study.

With that, this meeting is suspended so that the second panel can take their places.

Once again, on behalf of all the members of the committee, I thank you for appearing before the committee.

This meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I would request all the members to please take their seats.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and all 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. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for this second panel.

Today, for this panel, we are joined by the Canada Foundation for Innovation, represented by Dr. Sylvain Charbonneau, president and chief executive officer. He is joined by Dr. Mohamad Nasser-Eddine, vice-president of programs and planning. We also have with us the National Research Council of Canada, represented by president Mitch Davies, as well as Dr. Julie Lefebvre, vice-president, emerging technologies. Our third witness for this panel is the Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada. We have Dr. Mona Nemer, the chief science adviser.

Welcome to all the witnesses. Thank you for joining this panel. All of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will go to our rounds of questioning.

We will start with Dr. Charbonneau.

Please go ahead.

[Dr. Sylvain Charbonneau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Foundation for Innovation]

Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee.

The Canada Foundation for Innovation is delighted to participate in this discussion and in your study on the governance and accountability of federal science policy and institutions.

We believe that good governance, transparency and accountability are key to maintaining public confidence in Canada's science and research ecosystem. This particularly holds true at a time when investing public funds in research and research infrastructure requires considerable resources and when expectations for results are high.

The CFI was created by Parliament in 1997, and since then has invested in almost 14,000 research infrastructure projects. These projects support the cutting-edge work of researchers and students at universities, colleges, research hospitals and not-for-profit research corporations across Canada. We have leveraged $12 billion of Government of Canada funding into a total investment of $27 billion through matching funds from the provinces, the private sector and others. The CFI's role is not to set science policy, but to support institutions to carry it out through investments like these.

In my opening remarks I would like to leave you with three key takeaways about the CFI's governance structures that support accountability to Canadians.

The first is that the CFI operates at arm's length from the federal government, with a distinct mandate to invest in research infrastructure and operations at institutions across Canada. We are accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Industry. We provide corporate plans, annual reports and regular evaluation as part of that accountability. A defining feature of our funding model is our direct relationship with the provinces. It allows us to work closely with provincial partners to align investment and make timely, strategic funding decisions based on research infrastructure priorities identified across the country.

My second key takeaway is that organizations like the CFI are subject to multiple rigorous layers of oversight. We designed our oversight model to protect the integrity of public funds. At its core, this approach relies on independent expert peer review of funding proposals, assessed against published criteria and using structured processes to ensure consistency and fairness.

The CFI is governed by a board of directors, almost half of whom are appointed by the Government of Canada. The board is responsible for strategic direction, financial oversight and risk management. The board makes final funding decisions with clear accountability, robust conflict of interest management and a documented rationale for each decision. Institutions must submit regular financial reports for all their funded projects, and the CFI performs audits to ensure funds are used as intended. We also monitor institutions to ensure that they have appropriate processes and controls in place to manage their awards. Our financial statements are audited annually, and we report publicly on our website on funded projects and outcomes so that Canadians can see how investments are used and what they achieve.

Measuring our impact is central to our accountability. We assess impact at the project, program and system levels by tracking results, evaluating outcomes and examining how our investments strengthen Canada's research ecosystem. This evidence is used to improve performance and ensure continued relevance across the full life cycle of the research infrastructure we fund. The CFI's accountability and funding framework is built on trust from our stakeholders, which we have earned through clear results. It is reinforced by rigorous governance, independent expert review, transparent decision-making and ongoing oversight.

The third point that I would like to address concerns the CFI's investments in research infrastructure.

There are tangible benefits here for Canadians. This type of investment enhances research capabilities, promotes innovation and contributes to economic growth and well‑being across the country.

In summary, I offer you again these three points.

First, the CFI operates at arm's length with a distinct mandate to invest in research infrastructure and operations at institutions across Canada.

Second, we have in place strong checks and balances to ensure public funds are managed responsibly.

Third, the research infrastructure we support plays a critical role in strengthening Canada's innovation capacity and long-term prosperity.

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

With that, we will now proceed to Mr. Davies, who is representing the National Research Council of Canada.

Mr. Davies, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks. Please go ahead.

[Mitch Davies, President, National Research Council of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to speak to you today on behalf of the National Research Council of Canada as part of this committee study.

I would like to start by acknowledging that the National Research Council of Canada, or NRC, carries out its activities on the unceded traditional territories of the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We recognize the privilege of conducting our research and activities on these lands. We respect the peoples who have cared for them.

The NRC is Canada's largest federal research and innovation organization. Its mission is to advance knowledge, apply leading‑edge technologies and work with other innovators to find creative, relevant and sustainable solutions to the country's current and future economic, social and environmental challenges. Its specialized facilities and expertise help it to bring together scientists, industry players and academia, as well as international partners, for collaborative innovation initiatives.

The NRC employs 4,500 full-time equivalent staff, including 2,300 scientists, engineers and technicians, who work in 24 sites across Canada. In 2024-25, the NRC's total expenditures were $1.708 billion, including $639.7 million in grants and contributions. Total revenue to the NRC over this period was $203.4 million, with 53% of this revenue from other government departments and 36% from industry. For the NRC, these revenues tie many of our activities to the direct delivery of value to our clients. We're doing value-added work for industry, and we're doing work that's responding to the needs of businesses and the priorities of the government and the country.

Within the NRC, our research spans four key areas, reflected in our 2024-29 strategic plan: digital and quantum technologies, health and biomanufacturing, climate change and sustainability, and the support of foundational research. Across these areas, our mission-oriented work supports national priorities such as housing, defence, quantum technologies, artificial intelligence and clean energy. In 2024, NRC researchers produced 1,473 peer-reviewed publications, filed 222 patents and engaged almost 1,000 clients. Through the NRC's challenge programs and ideation fund, we have collaborated with over 650 researchers across 95 academic and public institutions.

The NRC also supports and funds projects in innovative Canadian companies. For over 75 years, the NRC has supported Canadian small and medium-sized businesses through its industrial research assistance program known as IRAP. NRC IRAP helps SMEs grow and innovate and positions them to contribute to Canada's industrial development. IRAP at its core is designed to stimulate business innovation in Canadian SMEs to create new products, services and industrial processes.

In 2024‑25, the industrial research assistance program, or IRAP, served over 9,000 clients. It provided financial assistance to 3,136 companies and consulting services to 6,051 companies. This support helped to maintain around 13,750 jobs across Canada.

The NRC operates within a strong framework of governance and accountability. As a federal departmental corporation, the NRC reports to Parliament through the Minister of Industry. It shares its plans and results with the public through its annual report, departmental plan and departmental results report.

We are overseen by a statutory NRC council drawn from the stakeholder community and are subject to Treasury Board policies, including the policy on results. Funding decisions are merit-based, guided by clear eligibility and assessment criteria. Grants and contribution agreements are administered under the Government of Canada's policy on transfer payments. Conflict of interest safeguards, research integrity standards and research security measures apply across all NRC activities.

NRC's programs are evaluated on a regular cycle. Over the last five years, the NRC has undertaken 15 evaluations and 31 audits. Our five-year strategic plan was developed with input from external and internal stakeholders, the NRC council and the advisory councils of each of our research centres.

We ask our clients and collaborators how we're doing every year. According to our 2025 client impact survey, 95% of our clients report that the NRC helped them achieve results. The NRC is committed to strengthening Canada's research innovation capacity and contributing to Canada's prosperity and sustainability.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to answering the questions from the committee today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Dr. Mona Nemer, chief science adviser of Canada.

Please go ahead, Dr. Nemer. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Dr. Mona Nemer, Chief Science Advisor of Canada, Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada]

Thank you.

Madam Chair and honourable committee members, thank you for this opportunity to contribute to your study. I'm here, of course, in my capacity as chief science adviser. However, my comments are also informed by my decades of experience as a scientist, research director and academic vice‑president of research. These different roles gave me the opportunity to observe our scientific ecosystem from the perspective of the academic, public and private sectors.

Canada invests billions of dollars each year in research and development. These investments enable discovery and the training of highly qualified individuals, who in turn contribute to Canada's economy. The investments also help to improve public health and safety, strengthen our economy and help Canada respond to global challenges.

For these investments to achieve their full potential, they must be guided by clear national objectives. As I have testified to this committee in the past, a national science, technology and innovation strategy can help define those objectives and provide a framework for measuring progress and accountability over time.

Accountability in science policy is sometimes equated with financial oversight. This oversight seeks to ensure that public funds are spent appropriately and in keeping with the established rules. This is essential, of course. Both research institutions and funders have strong accountability mechanisms in place. However, accountability, in a broader sense, encompasses issues such as whether public investments align with national priorities and whether they generate societal benefits for everyone.

Naturally, different types of research require different approaches to evaluation and accountability. For example, the goal of basic research is to support discovery, to expand knowledge and to train the next generation of researchers. On the other hand, mission-driven or targeted research programs are designed to address specific societal or economic challenges, such as technology development, health innovation or food security. Accountability for these two distinct public investments in science requires different metrics and comparators, starting with program design, award criteria and timelines for deliverables. Recognizing these distinctions allows us to design accountability mechanisms that are appropriate to the nature of the research programs, whether they address talent, infrastructure or operations.

A national science, technology and innovation strategy would play a critical role in this regard. By defining national priorities and desired outcomes, such a strategy would provide a reference point against which progress could be measured and program effectiveness could be assessed. The national strategy should be guided by an advisory council on science and innovation composed of distinguished scientists, innovators and leaders from the public and private sectors, offering independent advice so that Canada's science and innovation agenda is informed by the best available knowledge and expertise.

The proposed capstone science organization could also contribute significantly to a robust and transparent effort to maximize the impact of federal investments. By consolidating the many federal research funding programs under one roof, a clearer system-wide perspective on gaps, redundancies and alignment with national priorities, be they global leadership, talent development or socio-economic innovation, would be more attainable.

In conclusion, a national science strategy supported by a modernized research funding organization and an independent advisory council working with the office of the chief science adviser would help Canada move towards a more consistent, effective and accountable research system that looks to the future, sets clear goals, measures progress with appropriate tools and ensures that federal investments produce lasting benefits for Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now begin our first round of questioning for six minutes each. We will begin with MP Baldinelli.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being with us today and particularly for the role each of you play in our federal research ecosystem.

I'm going to begin with Dr. Charbonneau, if I can.

I appreciated your remarks on how the Canada Foundation for Innovation works to ensure good governance, transparency and accountability, and how you work to strengthen trust in our research ecosystem. You talked about accountability and transparency mechanisms. In fact, you talked about how the organization works with institutions. They have to submit financial reports, and the CFI performs audits to ensure that funds are used as intended. This is all excellent to see because I think what you said in your remarks is key: that measuring our impact is central to our accountability.

Part of that measurement, I would suggest, is not only the allocating of the funds but also the results of how those funds are allocated. What's the success factor? We currently spend about $10 billion on publicly funded research in Canada. However, Canada only holds about 12% of patents. That means that 87% of Canadian-generated IP from taxpayers is foreign-owned. How do we measure success when precious taxpayer dollars are funding innovation that serves other countries' economies and societies and not Canada's?

[Dr. Sylvain Charbonneau]

Indeed, we have to ensure that the investments the federal government puts into this research infrastructure are well accounted for. We do this in partnership with the provinces. I should be clear that the investments we are making are institutional investments and are not geared towards single researchers.

Having said that, every year, in the annual report that we produce, we have clear accountability with regard to output and outcomes from these programs. Infrastructure is there not only for a single project but also for a number of programs existing within colleges, universities or research hospitals. Part of the data we're gathering as well is how many spinoffs have been created with the utilization of this infrastructure and how many contracts the universities and colleges are getting through the utilization of this infrastructure from the private sector.

With regard to IP, I have numbers for you. Over the last five years, there have been 200 provisional patents and PCTs have been filed with the investment we have made. The number of researchers who have found ways into the private sector and the overall ecosystem in Canada...so we do track these things as part of the performance evaluations and risk assessments we do on a regular basis.

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

Is there any follow-up from the federal government with regard to the funding it provides? Does it come back and ask, for example, “For the dollars we're providing, what are the results we are getting?” Is the government asking for specific results for the targeted dollars it's providing?

[Dr. Sylvain Charbonneau]

There is a formal performance evaluation and risk assessment done by the federal government every five years. Right now, we're almost at the tail end of one. With each one of our contribution agreements that we sign with the federal government, there are clear key performance indicators that are put in the documents, and we have to report on these to Parliament every year. That's related to what I was mentioning earlier about all the KPIs that are put in place. These KPIs will vary, depending on the program being launched. We can talk about the biomanufacturing investment that was made or the more recent impact+ chairs that were—

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

Maybe I should have asked this question in the earlier round.

Are those kinds of KPIs—that insistence by the federal government for the dollars—also applied to the tri-agencies? Would you know?

[Dr. Sylvain Charbonneau]

You would have to ask them.

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

Okay.

Dr. Nemer, I'm going to come to you now. Thank you for being here. It's good to see you again.

Your mandate speaks to providing advice to the federal government, and one part of your mandate talks about assessing and recommending “ways to improve the existing science advisory function within the federal government”. In January 2026, the government announced the closure of seven agricultural research institutes across the country. Just recently, 15 national agricultural organizations wrote to the government's agriculture committee to indicate that closing these agricultural research centres will undermine research that they say is fundamental to keeping food affordable in Canada.

As Canada's science adviser, did you provide advice on this decision?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you for the question.

These decisions were made at the level of each department, and I was not asked to provide advice in this instance on the impact or options around this.

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

There was no consultation with your office at all before this decision was made.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Not in this case.

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

Ultimately, what does that say about the government's position, faith and trust in an organization establishing...? What's the point of having a chief science adviser of Canada if not to advise on a decision that they're taking to cut research centres, seven critical research centres throughout the country that 15 national organizations in this country say help to ensure food affordability in this country? What does that say about their commitment, their view and their position on your office?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

You'll have to ask the department in question in this case, but there are accountabilities that are vertical in our system and there are some that are more horizontal. It's up to departments to seek advice from me or not seek it. They have no obligation.

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

Could you just quickly provide to the committee your thoughts on the closure of those offices and whether or not that was the right decision? You can provide that in writing to us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Now, we will proceed to MP Rana for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your valuable time.

Dr. Charbonneau, given the committee's interest in data transparency, what information does CFI currently publish about its funded projects? Are there areas where greater accessibility or clarity would help to publicly evaluate impacts?

[Dr. Sylvain Charbonneau]

For every single application that has been funded, the results are published on the CFI website.

I should say first that there is a sequence that needs to take place. There is a notice of intent first, which is published nationally. The idea behind that is to bring institutions together to make sure there is no duplication taking place across the country. From there on, formal applications are submitted. Then there's a series of peer review committees that go through the sequences of multidisciplinary access, if you wish. All of this data is on the CFI website.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Dr. Mohamad Nasser-Eddine, welcome.

When CFI reviews major infrastructure proposals, how do you ensure that assessment criteria are applied consistently and that the process remains transparent, particularly for the institutions with fewer internal resources to support their applications?