Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2025

[Matthew da Mota]

From a lot of studies in terms of innovation in technology, regulations do not necessarily impede innovation. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. There's no evidence that it is a sure thing that if we put in regulations, AI will be impeded in terms of innovation in Canada.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

You also noted that Canada really led the way and is a leader when it comes to research, but we haven't been such a leader when it comes to commercialization. We're certainly not a leader when it comes to adoption. We're far behind the United States.

In this broad debate about regulations, isn't there a real risk that taking a risk-averse approach will result in a regulatory framework that in some respects misses the boat in terms of actually addressing real risks? In other words, there's an overreach that is counterproductive and in the process stifles innovation, stifles commercialization and stifles adoption as the rest of the world moves ahead.

[Matthew da Mota]

I'm not going to say that every single regulation would be great. I think that world is possible, what you're saying. I would say that all of the issues you listed are happening right now, in a world where Canada has no regulation. Clearly, in terms of being behind on adoption, in terms of being behind on Canadians trusting AI—I think that's often a well-reasoned trust, because they don't know if they should trust these systems and their work—in terms of commercialization, in terms of Canada leading the way on research but then not being able to commercialize, and in terms of not being able to hold on to the IP, those are all issues that I think would have been solvable by making sure we had maybe not regulation but policy on holding on to IP, for example, that we fund with our own research funding, for example, over the last 30 years.

I think some regulations could miss the boat. I think in the EU AI Act, there's a focus on the number of FLOPs for training, for example, the size of the database and the training run for an AI system. I think those kinds of regulations might miss the boat. You might be able to, with new algorithms, train a system way easier on way less data, for example.

So yes, I think some of them might lock in certain things that would not be ideal, but I think actually what we're seeing is an economy and an ecosystem desperate for better guidance and better guidelines to help usher in the use of these tools and the development and innovation with these tools.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Gonzalo, do have any comments?

[Frédéric Gonzalo]

Once again, I believe that regulations do not hinder innovation. In fact, they offer guidelines that support clear navigation and more effective work.

However, as I mentioned earlier, this framework should be as gradual as possible in order to give small businesses an equal opportunity. As we know, 80% of the economy is based on small businesses or small family-owned stores, especially in rural areas. Regulations should not be too strict for these businesses and prevent them from keeping up with larger companies.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Gonzalo.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Sari, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will continue on the same topic, which I find very relevant.

We are discussing whether or not regulations can hinder innovation or the digital economy. Earlier, I asked what regulations and what controls we were speaking about. Are we talking about regulations on system development? From what the witnesses have said, I think I understood that it’s not possible or that it was almost impossible.

Are we talking about regulating the use of data or the exploitation of the data? I’m just trying to wrap my head around that.

Earlier, I asked whether learning algorithms, large language models and artificial neural networks could be controlled and if so, I’d like to know how.

From what I understood earlier, the technological side is coming out now. Given my professional background in technology, I don’t see how systems developed elsewhere, by companies in other countries, can be controlled when we don’t really have an influence on these entities or the regulatory power as far as they are concerned.

You have said that regulations cannot be a hindrance, but how can system development be regulated? I am not talking about regulating their use.

[Frédéric Gonzalo]

Would you like me to respond?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Certainly.

[Frédéric Gonzalo]

I will let the other witnesses speak to the issue of large language model platforms because, as mentioned earlier, I believe it would be very difficult to regulate what Anthropic, OpenAI and others may or may not do.

On the other hand, let’s take the example of data if we are talking about regulations. For example, the general public does not always know where the data they input in an Excel file that they save goes. Where does this data go? Is there a risk that the data will fall into the hands of—

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That is however—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just a moment, Mr. Sari. Mr. Ganzalo’s microphone is still causing some issues for the interpreters. I will stop the clock while we look into that.

[Frédéric Gonzalo]

Can you hear me better now?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Is it okay like that? I think so.

Go ahead, Mr. Sari.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I just want to clarify that what you spoke about is much more than raising people’s awareness of what is going on, for example when they submit an Excel file to a chatbot or similar system.

I have a simple question: Can the development of large language and learning model algorithms be controlled? That’s my question. Do we have that capacity?

Perhaps we don’t have the capacity to control what users can do, but we can raise their awareness. That’s my understanding.

[Frédéric Gonzalo]

Awareness, yes, but we can have regulations that tell people not to do certain things because a data breach could lead to legal violations.

I will defer to the other witnesses on large language model platforms.

[Vasiliki Bednar]

I mean, why can't we fathom governing companies like OpenAI? Is it because they appear to be dominant? Is it because we're afraid of them bullying us? We see situations right now where Canadian publishers and authors are being bullied by Google, which has decided, so that they can innovate, to tie the practice of their indexing so that you can show up in search. They're saying that if you want to show up in search, you have to let them take all the data on your site for their model. It's not something that we should say is inevitable and that we have to take. I would argue, and I have argued, that this is an abuse of their dominance. If we could signal in Canada that we won't let this practice happen, what innovation can we attract?

You know, earlier—although I'm saying to you that it's not inevitable—I was a bit of a Debbie Downer. I pointed to that digital chapter in CUSMA and said that there's a lot of stuff there that constrains us. That actually is an opportunity for Canada. There is no better time when we think about our sovereignty: Is the real “enemy” or bogeyperson here President Trump, or are we really talking about being subjugated by the Magnificent Seven companies? That is the opportunity for Canada to decide what markets we want to build and have here. That is what we're going to do through regulation. We need to do that without fear of that retaliation and retribution.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We are on the same page there. You also touched on another angle and spoke about a kind of CLOUD Act and having some digital sovereignty. I agree with you on digital sovereignty. In my opinion, this can be achieved. We have the capacity to be digitally sovereign. However, do we have this digital sovereignty in Canada? That’s why I’m asking this question. Right now, we don’t have the digital sovereignty that we could potentially have.

[Vasiliki Bednar]

We have work to do there. I think the whole challenge—a core challenge—with the digital economy is that with other products, we had standards and processes before they came to a marketplace. When we saw the digital economy, mobile applications and websites, what was really cool and exciting was that they could come to the market really quickly.

It means that app stores like Google's and Apple's, you could argue, are stronger regulators of the digital economy than states or countries like Canada. They're deciding what comes to the marketplace and under what terms, and that is what helps create and exacerbate this gap between our legislative ability to keep up and make sure that legislation and regulatory realities reflect what people are experiencing in their everyday lives.

Perversely, when that doesn't happen and continues not to happen and it feels like the state doesn't have our back as consumers and as citizens, you get worse trust and more unrest.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Bednar.

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I’ll do my best.

In October, the government launched a national artificial intelligence sprint to modernize Canada’s artificial intelligence strategy. The sprint is led by a working group that will review the AI strategy for the federal public service. To define the renewed strategy, the government will consider the working group’s recommendations and the results of a public consultation.

The problem is that a number of experts are already challenging the results of this consultation and they have said it is not very reliable. An article published in Le Devoir on October 29 quoted Matt Hatfield, who had expressed concern about this issue. He stated that “There may be some internet users who have asked AI to generate 100 answers,” for example. According to the article, “He criticized the government for accepting anonymous responses on its public consultation portal.” Matt Hatfield added, “I believe the government has not made any effort to truly understand what Canadians think about AI.” The article adds that according to Matt Hatfield, “Minister Evan Solomonhas a ‘casual view’ of artificial intelligence and is more focused on the sector’s business opportunities and innovation than on the risks and harms of this new technology.”

First, is there any chance that the consultation is biased? If so, should anonymous responses be excluded from the consultation?

Mr. da Mota, can you answer the first question and Mr. Gonzalo will go next?

[Matthew da Mota]

That is one idea.

I don't have a strong opinion on the anonymous submissions. Some people might want to remain anonymous for legitimate reasons, but it is a concern in terms of the quality of the input.

Even a short consultation is better than nothing, but I think we need more than consultation. There needs to be more accountability in these kinds of consultations—an ongoing process and discussion. Obviously, there's the working group, but I think we can do better to have more engagement with different communities that are affected and experts simultaneously to try to have more input throughout these processes going forward.

I don't know the details about—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

We are talking about 10,000 respondents within a very short time.

Mr. Gonzalo, what do you think about that?

[Frédéric Gonzalo]

Well, I think anonymous results are never the best approach when conducting surveys. There is a quantitative aspect and a qualitative aspect, and they both resonate in a certain way. That said, numerous studies, reports and more qualitative surveys provide an insight into the state of businesses and organizations.

Anonymous online surveys have some value, but I think an appropriate balance is required as well as weighing all considerations from your committee. A number of actions have already been taken. All the elements can then be weighed to get the big picture.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault, Mr. Gonzalo and Dr. da Mota.

Ms. Church, you have two and a half minutes. Go ahead, please.