Science and Research Committee on June 8th, 2026

[Mona Nemer]

Actually, I visited Gilead, because we have a succursale in Alberta. I went there and visited to see whether its installation is such that they are able to—

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

However, you're not Health Canada. You're not industry. I can see why it would want to lobby Health Canada or the Minister of Industry, but you're supposed to be the independent arbiter of science.

[Mona Nemer]

Madam Chair, I'm trying to answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for the interruption.

MP Ho, if you're asking a question, please allow the witness to answer the question.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Dr. Nemer.

[Mona Nemer]

We have one manufacturing strategy in the country which is part of our health resilience. It's also part of our industrial strategy. The Prime Minister has spoken quite clearly about the importance of life sciences. I went across the country to see the landscape, because I know the field.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I have a last question, because it's my time.

When an American pharmaceutical company asks you for changes in some policy—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Oh, oh! That's tough.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

—how do you separate genuine scientific evidence from corporate sales pitches? What safeguards exist in your office to prevent that from happening?

[Mona Nemer]

First of all, we didn't talk policy and we didn't talk IP. We talked about the capacity to be able to respond to a need in the country. Now we have two pandemics going on, and if we're trying to make therapeutics or vaccines in that country, I ought to know what capacities we have so that I know how to advise the government. I can't advise hypothetically about whether we should procure from the outside or produce in Canada.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

I thought you said you don't set policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Your time is up, MP Ho.

Now we will proceed to MP Danko for five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to ask a series of questions on AI and AI adoption in Canada. This has been a fairly significant issue in Hamilton over the past week, where we've seen a fairly significant protest against AI, with people saying that they don't want any AI, no matter what. They're mostly basing those perceptions on predictive AI, large language models, chatbots, image generators and those kinds of things. I totally understand what their hesitations, anxieties and fears are regarding AI.

I want to give you an opportunity to talk about how, in science, research, innovation and business, Canadian organizations and researchers are already using AI. How can we leverage that to really build up Canada's economy for the future?

[Mona Nemer]

I find it quite preoccupying that some of the public don't trust AI, because this is a very important technology. It's like saying that we didn't trust digitalization, computers, biotechnology or, for that matter, nuclear technologies. In fact, this happened in some countries. When the public did not trust new technologies, I think it turned out to be detrimental for the prosperity of that country, at least in the given sector, which is why AI literacy is extremely important. AI education is extremely important.

Yes, there are areas where we need to be very clear about the guardrails so that we use the technology but it's human-centric.

It is a powerful technology that is being regularly used in science and drug development. We talked about health. There have been a lot of clinical trials where we know the toxicity, for example, of certain molecules. We don't need to repeat this if we can have an AI algorithm that is able to predict toxicities or lack thereof. This can greatly accelerate the use of life-saving drugs.

Of course, in terms of apps, there are also so many things that can allow people to have at least a first consultation on many things.

I believe that this is a very important technology, and Canada can be proud of our contributions. We need to accelerate adoption because I think that, the more people use the technology, the more they're going to trust it or know how to use it so that it's trustworthy.

At the same time, I think we need to have a clear policy framework to assure the population regarding bad actors or the bad use of the technology, just like we did with biotechnology.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you.

I want to ask you quickly about the importance of building Canadian sovereign AI infrastructure. This has been a big part of the reason that the federal government developed the AI strategy. It's to make sure that we have control over our own intellectual property and our own copyright and that we can regulate AI systems, as you were talking about. I'll give you a chance to expand on the importance of building sovereign AI capacity in Canada.

[Mona Nemer]

Sovereign AI capacity is extremely important for the reasons you mentioned. Of course, if we talk about health and other areas where privacy and sovereignty are so important, it's critical.

I'd like to say that, when we talk about sovereign AI, it's not just that the data centres need to be here. It's also that the algorithms need to be developed and performed here. Otherwise, even if the data is physically here, if the algorithms used are not ours, then we won't have sovereignty.

This really is extremely important at a time when countries are elbowing their way into data and technology.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you. That was a very wholesome answer. I think we can see where Canada needs to be a global leader in AI adoption and also use it to benefit our economy for the benefit of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Gaudreau.

Welcome to the committee. You have two and a half minutes. Please, go ahead.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's a privilege to have you here, Dr. Nemer.

I am here to stand in for my esteemed colleague for a few minutes.

I want to come back to a current issue. We all know what's happening with regard to farmers, the infamous Roundup and Bill C‑30.

Basically, my question is about the decision-making process. I quickly looked at your mandate. Is it standard practice to take into account reports, guidelines or advice before making a decision of this magnitude?

[Mona Nemer]

The answer is yes, we do take scientific advice into consideration, whether it's provided by the chief science adviser or by scientific advisers within departments.

I would like to clarify that the departments have their own scientific advisers. It's not possible for me to provide all the scientific advice. Normally, the government would ask me for scientific advice on complex issues that involve multiple departments or sectors. I just wanted to clarify that.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Have your counterparts, colleagues or subordinates received a request for advice from the minister?

[Mona Nemer]

To be honest, I didn't have a chance to ask them the question, since it didn't occur to me. I learned about the issue from the news. So it's still fresh for me.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Chair, I think it would be good to receive a written response from the chief science adviser indicating whether consultations were held. That's important for the public. As you know, when I speak, I do so on behalf of concerned citizens.

I have 30 seconds left, and I would like to discuss scientific development in rural areas.

Infrastructure is concentrated in urban centres. I'm thinking, for example, of research chairs. In Quebec and Canada, would it be necessary to establish infrastructure in rural areas in order to maintain the expertise we have?

[Mona Nemer]

The answer is yes and no. Some infrastructure requires proximity, while other infrastructure does not.

As you know, maintaining infrastructure and keeping it on the cutting edge of technology is expensive. Furthermore, there are—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but the time is up. Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Mahal for five minutes.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Dr. Nemer, as you have heard in the first round, my Liberal colleagues are quick to accuse Conservatives of being anti-science whenever we raise concerns about unsustainable spending. The same Liberal government is cutting billions of dollars from science and research across most government departments. By the government's own standard, would it be fair to say that cutting science funding from government departments is anti-science?