The committee was studying governance and accountability in federal science policy and institutions. Witnesses included the presidents of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and the National Research Council (NRC), along with the Chief Science Advisor of Canada and other officials.
Dr. Paul Hébert of CIHR described a 13% grant success rate, declining due to rising demand, with most funding concentrated in large urban universities like the University of Toronto. He recommended increased collaboration among institutions in regions like British Columbia to address inequities, and noted that CIHR has conducted 500 internal analyses of funding biases using both funded and unfunded applications, but he was unaware of any independent external mechanism for such analysis.
Dr. Alejandro Adem of NSERC highlighted that Canada has one of the highest levels of research funding data openness globally, with nearly two million disaggregated data points published annually. He defended equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) initiatives as necessary to address historical underrepresentation in science and engineering, and noted that a new tri-agency grants management system due in 2028 will improve data harmonization.
Dr. Sylvie Lamoureux of SSHRC said the agency supports research on research and publishes data dashboards, but acknowledged that technological and privacy challenges limit access to microdata for independent analysis. She stated that SSHRC’s governing council provides diverse advice on policies and priorities, and that the agency has not seen a significant disparity in success rates between French and English applications.
Dr. Valérie Laflamme of SSHRC added that analysis of systemic barriers is embedded in all decision-making processes, not conducted separately, and that the agency cannot provide a standalone document on bias analysis.
Dr. Sylvain Charbonneau of CFI described a governance model with independent expert peer review, board oversight, and annual audits, with all funded projects published online. He noted that CFI tracks outcomes like patents and spinoffs, and that the federal government conducts formal performance evaluations every five years with key performance indicators.
Mitch Davies of NRC said the agency aligns its research agenda with national priorities through strategic planning and coordination with other funding bodies, and that it publishes performance data for each research centre. He defended a $61,000 expenditure on rooftop furniture as part of a $70-million collaboration centre, stating it was procured through an open tender and is used year-round.
Dr. Mona Nemer, the Chief Science Advisor, called for a national science, technology, and innovation strategy to define objectives and measure progress, and supported a capstone science organization to consolidate federal research funding programs. She said she was not consulted on the closure of seven agricultural research institutes, and noted that there is no integrated independent mechanism to analyze the distribution and impact of federal research funding across all organizations.
Dr. Mohamad Nasser-Eddine of CFI explained that the agency ensures consistent assessment criteria through a merit review process that provides constructive feedback to all applicants, funded or not, and that the board reviews the process for fairness and transparency.
The committee adopted a motion by unanimous consent to rescind a previous order for the production of documents from the three granting agencies, citing translation-related issues raised by the Translation Bureau. The motion’s mover stated that the original goal was to enable analysis of research funding distribution, but that administrative constraints made compliance impractical.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.