Science and Research Committee on March 12th, 2026

[Dr. Mohamad Nasser-Eddine, Vice-President of Programs and Planning, Canada Foundation for Innovation]

Thank you for the question.

For every competition that we issue, as Dr. Charbonneau mentioned, we have established criteria that are published on our website. We make sure that in the design of the assessment process, it's all based on merit and that the merit review process is also conducted in a transparent, rigorous and independent way that only rewards excellence.

The outcome of this process is also leveraged to provide constructive feedback to all the projects that are submitted to us, whether the project gets funded or not, because those that are not funded may return back to CFI stronger in the next competition. We ensure, at the project level, this transparency, and since these projects are also institutions, the institution can also see all these review materials.

When it comes to our board, which would take the final decision on these projects, they will also have this kind of assurance that the whole merit review process was conducted in a fair and transparent way that was also exempt of any bias that one could have on many levels. I hope that this answers your question.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Could you please describe how CFI monitors whether funded facilities continue to meet their intended objectives over time?

[Dr. Sylvain Charbonneau]

As I was mentioning earlier, we keep track of all the investment that is being made at the CFI level in collaboration with our partner provinces, of course, and the institutions. We keep monitoring them for a period of years. Every year we get the data that has accumulated, and we gather that and look at it in slightly different ways in terms of the success rate by province, by activity or vertically, if you wish.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Davies, how does the NRC ensure its research agenda stays aligned with broader national science priorities and is not siloed within separate internal branches?

[Mitch Davies]

Thank you for the question.

There are two important levels at which we can work to ensure that we're contributing to an overall coherent approach for science. The first, which I mentioned in my opening comments, is our strategic planning process, which is now set in place. It's a strategic plan for five years that we're coming up on halfway through. That is undertaken with a lot of consultation and engagement.

One mechanism available to me and the NRC, as well as the granting bodies and other folks who have been before the committee, is that we all serve on the same committee to foster coordination among us in terms of our priorities and our way of working. You see that come to life when we create joint programming in areas of national priority. For example, in quantum, with our colleagues at NSERC, we have jointly funded a number of areas to accelerate and advance a very important area of opportunity for the country. At the high level, it's by having a transparent planning process ourselves, being open to feedback and validating that with the people we work with, more or less day-to-day, quite frankly.

I would say priorities do change, and we've seen, even over the last number of years, the kinds of challenges Canada is facing and the things we need to respond to. We had an announcement on Monday of a significant investment on our part in defence-related research activity as part of this overall effort. That's something we all have to be responsive to. It's incumbent upon us, as heads of these organizations, to work closely together, and that's what we endeavour to do.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Given the committee's interest in data transparency, what steps has NRC taken to improve access to information about its programs, research outcomes and performance indicators?

[Mitch Davies]

Our report through the minister on our objectives and performance allows you to see how each research centre of the National Research Council has performed against its goals. There's quite a high level of information provided in that regard, and it's quite responsive to many questions that people would have of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. The time is up.

We will now go to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are with us today.

Dr. Nemer, it's good to have you with us again today.

In your experience, is there currently a mechanism in Canada, whether independent or within the government, capable of systematically analyzing the distribution of public research funding and its effects over time?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Thank you for that question, which is a complex one.

Are there any independent mechanisms to find out where the money is going and how it's being spent? Is there an integrated independent mechanism that can analyze the impact of investments? There are none that I'm aware of.

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

In your report titled “Towards a National Scientific Data Governance Framework”, you state that scientific data constitute a national asset and that their governance in Canada remains fragmented. Do you think this fragmentation could limit the ability to conduct scientific analyses of research funding policies and ensure rigorous accountability?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I should point out that the report focused on research data. Obviously, the same could be said of raw data on funding or publications, for example. So I think this is an area where we need to work together seriously. This may not be an issue that gets people excited, but it's essential if we are to make informed decisions.

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

Thank you very much, Chief Science Advisor. I think people clearly recognize that.

I understand that you're saying this is important. What I'm trying to understand is whether we currently have the tools and data needed to analyze our own research funding system.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

The research funding system is very complex. So, if, for example, we're trying to determine whether federal investments in areas such as artificial intelligence or agriculture are having an impact, we have to go and find data from at least a dozen organizations and sort through it. All of that is doable, but it would take a long time because the information isn't integrated. There are a multitude of programs and, incidentally, there are also programs within departments themselves, as your colleague mentioned earlier when speaking about the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. So we simply need to keep in mind that when we talk about federal investments in science, we're not just talking about what the three granting councils, the Canada Foundation for Innovation or the National Research Council of Canada give to federal facilities or institutions.

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

As I understand it, when it comes to public research funding, from a scientific perspective, the only way to rigorously assess that equity is to empirically analyze the variables that influence success rates, as well as their distribution within the funding system. Is that correct?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

First, data are fundamental. Second, we also need to define more clearly the equity question we're asking: Are we talking about equity among certain populations, among certain geographic areas, among certain fields?

With the right data, anything is possible.

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

Again, I would like to emphasize microdata, more commonly referred to in the scientific field as disaggregated data. In your opinion, if we want to conduct a scientific analysis of how the research funding system works, is access to this microdata—in a secure and anonymized setting, of course—an essential condition?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

Once again, having data is essential; otherwise I don't see what we would base our analysis on. You can't analyze things based on anecdotes.

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

I couldn't agree more. I think many of us have anecdotes we could share.

I now have a question about secure access. As you know, in many areas of public policy, secure environments allow researchers to analyze sensitive administrative data. To your knowledge, could a similar model be considered for studying, in particular, the research funding system in Canada, or even other issues?

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I think you're referring to the system that allows researchers to access Statistics Canada data for analysis or research, among other things.

It depends on whether we have the data or not. To what extent do Statistics Canada or other organizations have this data? If the data exist, we've already shown that it's possible to provide secure access, under certain conditions, so that the appropriate analyses can be carried out.

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

I have a question that has really been on my mind for several months. Researchers have come here and told us that they don't have access to certain data, microdata, to conduct research on the research system itself. One of the three granting councils, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, provided that data to a researcher. The other two refuse to do so, citing confidentiality and privacy concerns or, as we heard a little earlier, technological issues.

What do you think about this? You've spoken about the importance of data governance, and I'm looking for solutions to these problems.

[Dr. Mona Nemer]

I can tell you that we have a long way to go from a technological standpoint, that's for sure. There are a number of researchers who would very much like us to have much simpler and more accessible systems. I think it depends on whether you make it a priority or not. Anything is possible. It depends on the priority given to it, but I think data is essential. We can't compare ourselves to the rest of the planet, and we can't know what the impact of our investments is if we don't have access to reliable and verified data.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now start our second round of questioning with MP Ho for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first set of questions is for the head of the National Research Council. You mentioned that you're subject to Treasury Board oversight and requirements. Is that right? Today we're talking about accountability.

I'm sorry. Is that a yes?

[Mitch Davies]

It is.