Evidence of meeting #21 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was businesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
My 12-year-old asked how much does this one cost, because the price wasn't there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I just put into Copilot, “Is Mr. Barrett's time up?” It said, “Yes, it is.”
Managing Director, The Canadian SHIELD Institute for Public Policy
It was a hallucination. We still have time.
Managing Director, The Canadian SHIELD Institute for Public Policy
I know.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Can we come back to you on that, Mr. Barrett? Okay, thank you.
Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Their insight is very compelling.
Dr. da Mota, earlier, you said that regulation kills innovation. Indeed, the European Union, which implemented regulatory measures, is now going to reverse course.
I would like you to tell us about that. What did you mean exactly?
Senior Policy Researcher, The Canadian SHIELD Institute for Public Policy
I apologize if it was unclear, but I meant to say the opposite—that regulation does not kill innovation.
There have been a number of prominent studies that show that regulation can limit certain types of innovation in some contexts, but often it does not limit the really big leap-forward innovations that we see.
Jurisdictions like Sweden and North Korea, for example, are, I think, somewhat good comparisons for Canada. They have shown that really good regulation around making sure that we have guardrails for a certain type of technology can ensure that businesses know how they can innovate and know the lanes they need to follow. Then they're free to do whatever they want.
A really great example of this would be in nuclear. Historically, Canada has a really great nuclear sector, and it's because we had really great regulation. Other countries, including the United States, did not have that as much. They've had disasters, and their nuclear industry declined. I would also say that for AI....
Well, I'll leave it at that.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I also have a question for you, Mr. Gonzalo.
You spoke about having graduated regulation, meaning small and medium-sized businesses would have different regulations from larger businesses. I would like to hear your suggestion on how this regulation could have different tiers.
Consultant, Speaker, Trainer in Digital Marketing and Artificial Intelligence, As an Individual
It’s important to be careful not to put in place universal regulations.
I’ll give you an example of what we see often. Right now, Quebec applies Bill 25 on privacy. It is well intended, but small businesses don’t know where to start with the bill. They don’t know what they can put on their website or who is responsible for collecting personal information. On the other hand, large businesses like Loto-Québec have legal teams and can apply the law. They also don’t use personal information in the same way as a small inn in Magog, which has a basic website for online reservations.
It’s important to see the basis for determining whether the regulations would apply to large companies or to SMEs with fewer than 100 employees, for example. Would the number of employees or the business turnover be taken into consideration? That’s where multi-level regulations would be worth considering. That’s what I meant.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Gonzalo.
My next question is for all the witnesses.
Canada is one of the founding members of the International Network of AI Safety Institutes. How can this type of international leadership contribute to the development of global security standards for cutting-edge models?
Do you think we need to work internationally to provide a framework for artificial intelligence?
Senior Policy Researcher, The Canadian SHIELD Institute for Public Policy
In terms of our participation, you're referring to the International Network of AI Safety Institutes. Yes, I think that work can be very important for things that are international.
I think there are international risks. One thing that China and the United States have come to some agreement on, although not in a formal agreement, is that AI should not be a nuclear command and control communications.... I think that's a good thing that we can agree on internationally.
There are high-risk areas where we should not be putting AI. We need to have international agreements on that.
I think certain things need to be addressed on a national level. There are certain challenges that are uniquely Canadian—or perhaps they're not uniquely Canadian, but we're the ones who are best suited to think about how to best address those in Canada. We can be a beacon or an example for other countries. We might be able to have influence through that network, but we need to address them at home first.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Gonzalo, would you like to add anything to that?
Consultant, Speaker, Trainer in Digital Marketing and Artificial Intelligence, As an Individual
No, I completely agree with Dr. da Mota’s remarks. I think our role as a global leader helps, even if it is just to be able to share information and to see what is being done elsewhere. This gives us a front row seat to what is taking place elsewhere and to see how we can develop our intelligence in this equation. While we can base ourselves on what is happening abroad, a big part of the regulations should be put in place here in Canada, and so I think the two complement each other well.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for five minutes.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
I have a question for Mr. Gonzalo.
Billions of dollars are being invested in artificial intelligence, but despite recent technological progress, there are no corresponding productivity gains.
The KPMG report released last week shows that in an online survey of 753 business leaders across Canada, 93% of them said their organizations are using artificial intelligence, up from 61% last year. However, only 2% of respondents said their organizations are seeing a return on their generative artificial intelligence investments.
Developing this type of technology takes a long time. Stephanie Terrill, Canadian managing partner of digital and transformation at KPMG, says that “new technologies take time to be adopted and demonstrate identifiable return on investment.” However, according to Ms. Terrill, declining productivity in Canada means that waiting for years for AI investments to create value is “downright risky”.
What is your opinion? Are you equally concerned?
Consultant, Speaker, Trainer in Digital Marketing and Artificial Intelligence, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
That’s a real challenge.
I would say that there are two parts to your question.
First, there are massive investments to the tune of billions of dollars. There is a bit of a bidding war if we want to tell it like it is. When it comes to investments in training or hosting these platforms, this bidding war is real. Some people have talked about a bubble, but I wouldn’t go that far because speaking of a bubble means that it will burst. I don’t think we are there yet, but the risk is real.
Now, when it comes to the KPMG report that you mentioned with respect to integrating technology, I would like to remind the committee that there was a lot of talk about the web 25 or 30 years ago. When the dot-coms came around, benefits were not felt overnight. There was indeed a bubble in that case, but beyond that, businesses had to see how they could integrate everything that was coming with their transfer to digital. There is still talk of digital transformation today, 30 years later, so it is clear that it is a lengthy process.
Artificial intelligence goes beyond this aspect because it is cross-cutting. It has different functions, including accounting, human resources, marketing and customer service. It has an impact on all areas of a company or organization. It affects the public, studies and culture. It affects all spheres of society.
Why then doesn’t it work in businesses, from what we’re seeing? Often, it’s because they wanted to take all the tools and wondered how to integrate them. They use Copilot instead of asking themselves as a business what solutions these tools can provide and what processes could be improved. Work needs to be done. Some businesses do this correctly and take time to implement pilot projects to test tools before integrating them, and this normally delivers better results. Quite often, many integrations are rushed or there has not been any organizational reflection.
In this case, the bubble is not going to burst. Integration must be done. Conversely, there is a genuine risk of an investment bidding war among OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and others in a bid to secure dominance in this field.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
What about declining productivity in the country? That is real. How long will this integration take if it is done properly?
Consultant, Speaker, Trainer in Digital Marketing and Artificial Intelligence, As an Individual
Yes, it is quite real. However, honestly, we can and should ask ChatGPT or Perplexity the question to see what they come up with. We are not psychic. It’s very difficult to answer that question. There are some indicators that can help us and which can point to certain things based on certain trends, but nevertheless, we are looking at an innovation. Everything that falls under artificial intelligence, and generative artificial intelligence in particular, will fundamentally change aspects of our daily lives. We are dealing with a big unknown. It’s therefore difficult to know how this will turn out.
We know that it will increase productivity. Will it justify the investments? Will there be a return on investment? In the short term, it may be difficult to answer in the affirmative. It is most likely to be more profitable in the medium and long term.
On the other hand, it’s impossible not to invest and at the same time see the possibilities. I think everyone agrees on that. That was alluded to in the remarks you cited.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Thériault. Your five minutes are up.
You’ll have another two and a half minutes later to ask questions.
Mr. Cooper, you have five minutes. Go ahead.
December 3rd, 2025 / 5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
I just want to ask Mr. da Mota to elaborate on a comment he made earlier.
If I misheard you, then please state so, but I understood you to say that regulations do not impede innovation. Did I hear that correctly?