Dr. Mona Nemer, Chief Science Advisor of Canada, briefed the Standing Committee on Science and Research on a variety of topics including the role of quantum computing in space observation among other space-related topics.
The briefing was held Nov. 26, 2025 and nearly half of the time was centred on the Chief Science Advisor’s office mandate including budget and accountability. Other topics of discussion included AI and data, environment, energy and major projects, agriculture and health, and space and quantum.
Space, quantum and sovereignty
While no direct questions were asked on space and quantum technologies Dr. Nemer addressed these topics during her opening statement and in response to other questions.
In an exchange on “trust or skepticism in science” from Karim Bardeesy, Liberal MP, Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park (ON), Dr. Nemer cited the Sky Canada Project report as an example of how her office builds transparency to maintain public trust. The report was undertaken by her office on unidentified flying, or aerial, phenomena (UAP).
“Some people were surprised that we’re dealing with this, but it was foremost to make sure that we gain public trust and that people don’t think the government is hiding something.”
On quantum technology, a question from Ron McKinnon, Liberal MP, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam (BC), asked her to provide a “snapshot of the state of the art in quantum computing.” In her answer Dr. Nemer said, “The quantum revolution is now and the technology is here. It is going to revolutionize many things, from drug discovery to space observation.”
Dr. Nemer added that Canada is a top-five country in quantum research including in space. “My advice is that we need to double down on quantum. Just because it’s a strength, it’s not the time to withdraw, but rather to double down.”
On the topic of sovereignty, there was one exchange of note. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc Québécois MP, Rimouski—La Matapédia (QC), asked for comments related to the importance of science, and in particular “scientific sovereignty.”
In her response Dr. Nemer stressed the urgency of scientific sovereignty, noting that peers like Europe are aggressively investing to achieve it. She defended the long-term value of fundamental research, pointing out that revolutionary fields like fusion, quantum physics, and AI were ridiculed only decades ago. While acknowledging science drives economic prosperity, she warned against treating it strictly as an economic tool and emphasized the need to keep science independent from political interference.
“I fully believe that politics is never a good friend of science and that it’s always better to keep them separate.”
Questioning the Chief Science Advisor role
On the topic of the Chief Science Advisor’s mandate including budget and accountability, two Conservative MPs asked most of the questions with specific questions on the $4M budget, salary, travel and expenses. As well, questions on independence and performance were raised.
Conservative MPs spent some time questioning the role of the Chief Science Advisor and the office’s independence. Questions included “are you the head of an agency?” and “do you make any regulatory decisions…?”, “what is your salary”, what’s your mandate, and questioning what the Chief Science Advisor does for Canadian taxpayers. The mandate of the Chief Science Advisor is easy to find using any search engine.
Of course it is the role of MPs to ask questions, especially the official opposition, including hard hitting questions, in part to keep government appointees accountable. However some of the Conservative lines of questions were more theatrical, playing to a portion of their base as evidenced by several memes on social media which popped up afterwards.
Vincent Ho, Conservative MP for Richmond Hill South (ON), asked questions on Dr.Nemer’s salary and performance, “What exactly are your key performance indicators?” To which Dr. Nemer answered “I was appointed on what’s called good behaviour. I don’t get any bonus pay. It was done this way so that I maintain the independence of the office and I don’t have to provide the advice that the minister or the prime minister wants to hear and function in a truly unbiased manner.”
This led to Ho asking if Dr. Nemer’s salary is $393,000 to which she responded that the bracket of her salary is public information. Dr. Nemer was first appointed in 2017 and her salary bracket at the time was $265,300 – $311,100. She was reappointed again, for her fourth term, effective September 25, 2024 for three years with a salary bracket of $335,100 – $393,200.
This was followed up by another related question by Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative MP, Edmonton Southeast (AB) who asked for a definition of “good behaviour” to which Dr. Nemer replied, “It means the government can’t dismiss me without cause.” Mahal asked what that means. Dr. Nemer responded “When people are appointed to certain positions in government… they’re generally appointed at pleasure, which means the government can ask them to leave at any time. There are a few positions where people are appointed on good behaviour, like the Auditor General and others, where you want to maintain the independence of the office. You appoint them this way so that there is no political interference.”
Another line of questions from Ho related to the Annual Report of the Chief Science Advisor, a key annual deliverable. The 2024-25 report was released on Dec. 17, 2025 three weeks after the hearing, so Ho’s questions would relate to the 2023-24 report.
Ho asked if the Prime Minister read the report. She responded that her office provided it to the Prime Minister’s Office and that it was online. Ho pusher on this and her response was inaudible but Ho said “You don’t know. Okay.”
Ho pressed on the report further saying “How do we measure the value of this report that seems like a scrapbook with many images of conferences?”
The 2023-24 report in question is 52 pages and does include a fair amount of charts and pictures. As does the 58 page 2024-25 report.
Ho continues his line of questioning; “If your office stopped doing the work it did, what exactly would stop working in the government? How would that affect the everyday lives of Canadians?”
To which Dr. Memer responds with a couple of examples but the first one is interesting.
Dr. Nemer: I’m going to give you a couple of examples. I’ll use the example of H5N1. In the report, we provided the science and evidence that we need so we can manage it and actually prevent an epidemic. To do this, I brought together 10 different departments. Some were doing things in isolation from others, while others didn’t even feel they needed to be part of this.
Vincent Ho: That’s the federal report on viruses and vaccines and all that. Does that not fall under the purview of Health Canada? Why do we need a separate office to justify? They’re the ones doing the work. They’re the ones with the scientists and doctors.
Dr. Nemer: No, it doesn’t, because Health Canada’s mandate is health. When we’re talking about H5N1, we’re also talking about animal health, so we’re talking about the Department of Agriculture and CFIA. We’re talking about the Department of the Environment and Parks Canada. We’re talking about DFO.