Speaking notes
Dr. Mona Nemer
Chief Science Advisor of Canada
Study on Governance and Accountability of Federal Science Policy and Institutions
SRSR Committee Meeting
Ottawa, Ontario
March 12, 2026
Check against delivery
Madam Chair, Honourable Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your study. I am here of course in my capacity as Chief Science Advisor, but my comments are also informed by my decades of experience working as a scientist, research director, educator and university vice president. This has afforded me the opportunity to view our science ecosystem from the perspectives of the academic, public and private sectors.
Canada invests billions of dollars each year in research and development. These investments enable discovery and 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. But 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 over time.
Accountability in science policy is sometimes equated to financial oversight—ensuring that public funds are spent appropriately and according to established rules. That is, of course, essential, and robust accountability mechanisms are in place at research institutions and with funders alike. But broader accountability addresses issues such as whether public investments are consistent with the country’s priority objectives and whether they are delivering societal benefits for all.
Naturally, different types of research require different approaches to evaluation and accountability.
For example, the goal of basic research is to support discovery, expand knowledge, and 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 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, redundancy and alignment with national priorities—be they global leadership, talent development, or socioeconomic innovation—is more attainable.
In conclusion, a national science strategy, supported by a modernized research funding organization and an independent advisory council working hand-in-hand with the Office of the Chief Science Advisor, would move Canada toward a more coherent, impactful and accountable research system—one that is forward-looking, sets clear goals, measures progress with appropriate tools, and ensures that federal investments deliver lasting benefits to Canadians.
Thank you.