Evidence of meeting #40 for Science and Research in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was scientific.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Madam Chair, does that mean I'll have two and a half minutes?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
We'll go to MP DeRidder for five minutes. There will be five minutes for the Liberals, and we'll end it with two and a half minutes for the Bloc.
MP DeRidder, please go ahead.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
You mentioned in the very beginning that you had a youth council that sent a report to the minister on the future of AI. Is that report public?
Chief Science Advisor of Canada, Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada
Yes, the report is public. It's on our website.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'll be sure to look at it because I want to read through it myself.
Thank you.
You also mentioned that we don't have a lot of pharmaceutical companies in Canada, and you'd love to see more. I think really great examples for ensuring that we retain our IP in Canada do come out of the pharmaceutical world. For example, penicillin and Ozempic were both Canadian inventions, but we didn't retain the IP and didn't see the economic impact.
I appreciate my colleagues' questions, as well, about Canadians being unsure of AI and what the future holds. IP retention, in the future, is a very critical component to ensure that we see the economic impact of AI and digital innovation moving forward.
Do you see a strong strategy and plan, right now, from the scientific standpoint, to ensure that our universities and researchers are educating our entrepreneurs and developers on the importance of IP retention for Canadian economic impact?
Chief Science Advisor of Canada, Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada
Thank you. This is a very important question.
Again, we cannot generalize because researchers in certain sectors are more aware of the possibility of actually securing IP, what it takes to protect it and so on. I think that we can do more.
Also, we have to realize that securing IP is costly. We don't just need the patent, the licence agreement and so on. There needs to be some push, as well, to be able to get money out of it.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I agree that it's costly to secure IP, but I think the societal impact.... For example, our economy being in a recession now is an indicator of how it's more costly to not retain our IP in Canada, especially in this technological era coming up.
One thing I didn't see in the AI strategy is any sort of measurable indicator for whether or not the strategy is working in the future.
What indicators do you think Canadians can look for, over the next couple of years, to determine whether our AI strategy is achieving what it set out to do?
Chief Science Advisor of Canada, Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada
I'm a big fan of indicators and of being able to evaluate whether things are working or, when they're not, to see how to do something else.
The AI strategy has many dimensions, so indicators are going to have to be used according to these dimensions. For example, if we think about increasing AI literacy, it's easy to measure where we are now, and to see what tools we're going to deploy, how many people we have reached and whether people's views on AI have changed. When it comes to AI and health, we're going to have to see what we're able to achieve in terms of accelerating access to health as well as regulatory reform and reviews of drugs.
It depends on each sector, but we absolutely need to have indicators.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I agree completely. I would like to have seen at least a piece of that in this strategy—any sort of measurable KPI, as it's called in industry. We'll see what the future holds.
In your view, what level of transparency should Canadians expect when AI systems are used in federal decision-making or public service delivery? I ask because you mentioned the importance of keeping things human-centric, and I agree with that. In your assessment, how important is this?
Chief Science Advisor of Canada, Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada
I believe it's essential that people know when AI has been used to manage their file, for example—whether it's in a number of services or decisions concerning them. It's absolutely essential because, otherwise, we might get into a backlash that will set us back in terms of adopting the technology.
Conservative
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'll use my last 20 seconds to thank you for your time today.
Liberal
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you so much.
It's nice to be able to ask you a few more questions.
I want to go back to the conversation we were having about previous cuts and the challenges those have posed. Programs like the polar environment atmospheric research lab and the Experimental Lakes Area had their funding cut by the previous Conservative government.
What has the restoration of these long-term programs meant for Canada's ability to track and respond to climate change?
Conservative
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
This is about the mandate of the chief science adviser. She was appointed in 2017. She can't comment on things that happened before that.
Chief Science Advisor of Canada, Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada
I'd just like to say that I really look forward to the day when science policy is not a wedge issue or a political issue in the country. It's in all of our best interest to have continuity in our programs, and to value our researchers and institutions.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm so pleased you said that, and I'd like to spend a bit of time on it.
You've been in this role now for a little while. Before that, as we know, you led research at a major university.
Can you speak to the existential threat to scientists and science in the face of misinformation and what I would call “armchair quarterbacking” on social media? What does that mean for research, researchers and, perhaps more importantly, public acceptance of scientific fact?