Canada’s 44th Parliament will have a Standing Committee on Science and Research after a motion put forward by Deputy House Leader Kirsty Duncan passed with unanimous support in the House of Commons last Wednesday.

Private Members' Motion-38 (M-38) sought to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to establish the science and research committee. Science is currently part of INDU, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Duncan, a former science minister, said during a House of Commons debate on April 27 that “it is time for scientists, researchers and students to be given the key to the people’s House.”

Shortly after the vote on May 26, she tweeted, “Thanks to everyone who supported M-38, and here’s to a future driven by knowledge, forged by curiosity and a quest for understanding.”

Rachael Maxwell, executive director at Evidence for Democracy, voiced support for the committee. “As a country, we need to do a better job of recognizing the critical role of science and research in our democratic processes; we all benefit when governments make decisions informed by the best available science and evidence. We applaud the new Committee as a step forward in this direction," Maxwell said in a statement.

The new committee will provide a permanent place for issues related to science and research to be studied and for Members of Parliament to hear from scientists and researchers on the public record, however it won't be the first mandated to focus on science or research. 

In a debate in the House, Duncan argued that over the past 50 years, science and research have been “ignored, unexplored and merely tacked on” to other committees. In the last Parliament, only two of INDU’s 27 reports, or seven percent, were linked to science and research, she said. One of those reports was the Fundamental Science Review, which was commissioned by Duncan when she was minister of science and led by David Naylor.

“A parliamentary committee can be a useful addition for citizens to better understand what our elected officials are up to. But more important in my view is how the governing administration in power makes use of the recommendations. On this latter point, the record has been relatively poor,” said Paul Dufour, adjunct professor at the Institute for Science, Society and Policy, University of Ottawa, in an email to Research Money.

During debate in the House, Richard Cannings, a Member of Parliament from British Columbia who is a biologist, called Motion-38 "important," but he reminded his colleagues that only one out of 10 of the Fundamental Science Review’s recommendations has been fully implemented. Six have been partially acted on and three "remain completely ignored," he said.

“I want to know how the member [Kirsty Duncan] feels about that slow roll-out of the Naylor recommendations. Would it not be a great first study for a new science and research standing committee to study the implementation of that report?” Cannings asked. 

R$