The committee studied the governance and accountability of federal science policies and institutions. Witnesses included Arif Babul, a distinguished university professor; Azim Shariff, a professor at the University of British Columbia; Ivan Oransky, executive director of the Center for Scientific Integrity; Frédéric Bouchard, dean at Université de Montréal; Anna Triandafyllidou, a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University; and Martin Maltais and Sophie Montreuil from the Association francophone pour le savoir.
Arif Babul emphasized that basic, applied, engineering, and innovation research each require distinct evaluation metrics, and that training highly qualified personnel is a common output. He noted that Canada's research funding has stagnated in real terms over two decades, and argued that governance must address inherited biases in award systems, reduce risk aversion, and enhance transparency through structured appeal mechanisms and international peer review, citing the European Research Council and U.S. National Science Foundation as models.
Azim Shariff explained that perceived politicization erodes trust in science across the political spectrum, and that both external government interference and internal political conformity can trigger this. He recommended that any monitoring body be insulated from partisan motives, focus on procedural fairness and aggregate trends rather than individual grants, and avoid mission creep, warning that heavy administrative burdens can shift incentives toward timidity and away from scientific risk-taking.
Ivan Oransky described oversight models in the U.S., Europe, and China, noting that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity relies on institutional self-reports and lacks subpoena power, while the NSF Office of Inspector General has such power. He argued that an independent federal body with proper guardrails could help, but cautioned that politicization can undermine it, and highlighted that incentive structures based on citation metrics drive misconduct and should be reformed.
Frédéric Bouchard, drawing on his advisory panel report, said the current system is fragmented and underfunded, lacking a coherent strategy to support large collaborations or mission-oriented research. He recommended a capstone organization with a policy branch, a science and innovation council, and a national strategy, and stressed that investigator-driven research and peer review must be preserved. He noted that key recommendations, including the capstone agency, have been announced but not yet enacted.
Anna Triandafyllidou described the governance of large federal programs like the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, which includes internal, interinstitutional, and external oversight, with close tri-council monitoring, performance measurement plans, and mid-term reviews. She said the existing structure works well but did not oppose a new entity if it achieves economies of scale, and emphasized that her programs are interdisciplinary and bilingual by design.
Martin Maltais and Sophie Montreuil argued that the new capstone organization must incorporate explicit targets to support French-language research, proposing that at least 25% of federal grants be allocated to French-speaking researchers, universities, and students, tracked by field. They called for accountability mechanisms that include indicators and a dedicated entity within the capstone organization, and stressed that funding criteria should incentivize dissemination of results in both official languages.
After the witnesses, members debated scheduling, with some suggesting consolidating meetings due to difficulty finding witnesses, while others noted that additional witness lists had been submitted to the clerk. The committee agreed to proceed with the next meeting as scheduled.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.