Science and Research Committee on June 8th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

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

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Nemer, it is a pleasure to welcome you back to the committee.

I have carefully read the article you co-authored with Quebec's chief scientist, which states that science is under pressure. It is a call to action. In it, you refer to the U.S. government's budget cuts. There are budget cuts—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. We'll have to start from the beginning. There is no interpretation, again.

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

Oh, that's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Can you please say a sentence before we start?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Here is a concrete example of how French is a stumbling block in Canada's Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Start from the beginning.

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

Ms. Nemer, I carefully read the article you co-authored with Quebec's chief scientist, Rémi Quirion, in which you state that science is under pressure. In it, you issue a call to action about the cuts made by the U.S. administration to investments in science and research.

I'd like to talk about what's happening here in Canada. After all, we're not immune to this.

Here's a concrete example. Were you or your office consulted regarding the proposed amendment to the Pest Control Products Act in the context of Bill C‑30?

[Mona Nemer]

No.

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

All right.

I'd like your opinion on this amendment, since you're the chief science adviser. According to what experts and researchers are telling us, this is the biggest step backward since the creation of the Pest Control Products Act—or its adoption in 2002. I'm trying to explore with you how—for economic reasons—we can now be reintroducing pesticides that were previously banned in the name of science.

[Mona Nemer]

I'll answer based on what I know—since I wasn't consulted on this matter, I'm not familiar with all the nuances and details. I saw what was in the news, so I did a little research.

I'd begin by saying that many researchers are now advocating the “One Health” approach to take into account everything involving the environment, animals and humans. Ultimately, it's all interconnected. So when we look at certain products, we have to consider the bigger picture.

Of course, changes can sometimes be made because we know a little more about a product and have formed a more negative opinion of it due to its toxicity, but occasionally, we also find that, over time, a given product actually can be used under certain circumstances.

The fact remains that I am a scientific adviser, not a legislative adviser. So I really want to make my point here very clear.

I believe that what's important in all of this is not to lose the public's trust. There still needs to be clarity. If changes are made, the reasons must be clearly stated.

Emergency measures are also being discussed. In my case, I'm familiar with emergency measures—such as the approval of some medications. It's important that these measures be structured so that, ultimately, there is a verifiable and applicable scientific basis for them.

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

Let me take you back to a bad movie that you—and we—recently watched. In November 2025, you appeared before this committee, and we discussed Bill C‑5—which is now law—regarding projects of national interest or major projects. The government granted itself the right—just as it did under Bill C‑30—to assume new powers to circumvent the law.

I mentioned pesticides as an example. At the time, this applied to all laws except the Criminal Code, for a period of three years. I consider this a worrying shift. If, according to scientific findings, it was harmful in the past, it remains harmful today.

I'd like to hear your opinion on that. Some decisions are heavily criticized. Even science, as you said, is controversial—if not attacked and called into question. Generally speaking, do you think economic interests should take precedence over scientific assessments?

[Mona Nemer]

I will respond by pointing out that economics is also a science. So, when we talk about scientific advice, that also includes verifiable economic and societal impacts.

I think that, in all of this, there's a legislative aspect about which I really can't comment—namely, how governments change legislation and what they can and cannot do.

What I'm saying is that science can help us achieve our goals of building a prosperous Canada while maintaining public trust, but this balance is fragile. So it's very important to be clear about the evidence and the science we use when making decisions, regardless of their nature.

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

All right.

You said that, as part of your mandate, your role is to strengthen public trust in science. I'd like to hear your opinion on the government's latest strategy, specifically the one on artificial intelligence.

We, the parliamentary members of the committee, were unable to determine who participated in what is supposedly the broadest public consultation in the government's history—the artificial intelligence strategy. We asked questions, but the government refused to provide us with documents, claiming that translating them would be too expensive. Now, it is impossible to know who participated in the consultation and who actually influenced the government's decisions regarding this strategy.

Does this seem consistent with the government's own stated goal of strengthening public trust, when it is impossible to verify the identity or representativeness of participants in a strategic consultation?

[Mona Nemer]

I haven't followed every aspect of this issue, but I thought the names of those who participated in the consultation were made public.

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

No, some information is missing, including the content of the consultations.

I'm just trying to understand how you see this, from your perspective.

[Mona Nemer]

There may be privacy considerations. I'm not sure. It depends on what we ask people and what we promise them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The time is up for MP Blanchette-Joncas. Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Ho for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Nemer, in your opening statement, you advocated for the importance of independence and impartiality in the Office of the Chief Science Advisor.

Is the role of the chief science adviser to defend science from politics, or is it to help activist political ideology redefine science?

[Mona Nemer]

Objectively speaking, it's not to defend activists or to defend or criticize government decisions. It is to provide independent, unbiased scientific information and science advice.

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

Free from political interference....

Do you believe Canada's research system should be governed by excellence targets, or by demographic targets and identity markers?

[Mona Nemer]

I think Canada's science ecosystem has always been governed by excellence.

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

Wow.

When it comes to university funding and the appointment of prestigious research chair positions, if a university has a world-class candidate but that candidate does not help the institution meet the Liberals' top-down DEI requirements—such as the race quotas that the National Research Council applies to research chairs—is it acceptable for federal rules to pressure the university to pass over that candidate and threaten to withdraw federal funding if the university doesn't comply with this Liberal top-down policy?