Evidence of meeting #24 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 companies.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Saini, you have five minutes, sir. Go ahead, please.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
This question is for Mr. Andrea Miotti.
Your company, ControlAI, is involved in developing some legislation. I understand you have done some work for England and the U.K. government. Can you tell us what that legislation was? What effect did that have on society? Has that legislation been passed in the U.K. and in the U.S.A.?
Chief Executive Officer, ControlAI
In the United Kingdom, we were invited to present a bill to the Prime Minister's office, which would effectively ban the development of superintelligence. This bill, as we can see in the U.K., has not yet passed. We are available to help any country pass such a bill, and we are available to advise any country. This is our main recommendation.
Also, what we have started doing in other countries, like Canada, as well as the U.S.A. and Germany, is just to brief lawmakers like you. We believe this is not only the biggest current challenge but also the biggest opportunity. I think most lawmakers are being kept in the dark about how big these risks are. Companies are spending millions of dollars to lobby, so that nobody talks about these risks. Both the public and the lawmakers—even though experts have been warning about this for years—are just being kept in the dark.
I think it's very important for lawmakers like you to learn where AI is going. Also, if you find it concerning, speak up, because your speaking up can make an enormous difference. It helps your colleagues look into the problem more, and if enough lawmakers start discussing this problem and start a genuine national conversation, we can get the ball rolling on getting genuine rules in place for this technology.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
You said that the U.K. government did not act on it and that it's just sitting there. What is happening in the U.S.A.? That's another country where you have worked with the government to pass that legislation.
Chief Executive Officer, ControlAI
In the U.S.A., we're also briefing lawmakers about this problem. There are some bills being discussed in the U.S. Right now, frankly, what we encounter is not that the majority of lawmakers are aware of the problems and unwilling to act, but for most of them, the first time we meet them is the first time they hear about exactly what's going on in AI. They're very grateful, but nobody's telling them what's going on. Nobody's talking about what's going on. This piece is the key one, just providing information to lawmakers to help them act in the interests of their citizens. I genuinely believe that once enough lawmakers like you know about the problems, change can and will happen.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you.
My next question is for you, Mr. Brisson.
Your company seeks to ensure responsible use of AI, particularly that it does not knowingly cause emotional distress, especially among vulnerable individuals. How should Canada hold companies responsible for emotional manipulation through the use of AI?
Chief Executive Officer, The Human Line Project
That's a great question. I think the first part is the litigation system you see in the U.S. right now. Dozens of cases are being presented. Also, the other part of regulation around emotional harm is research. Right now, the research we have is based on hypothesis or not on real data, but we have the data right now, and we need the funding for this research. We are working with Princeton, Stanford and other universities to conduct this research, but none has been researched so far.
We need to understand first what is happening in the brain and what is happening on a societal level for these people. Then we can put litigation into place and have injunctions, maybe, to have a solution.
Liberal
Gurbux Saini Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
One of the problems I see with most of these companies is that they are not Canadian companies. Therefore, how can the Canadian government control them?
January 26th, 2026 / 5:35 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, The Human Line Project
Even if it's not based in Canada, we have the population and the litigation system so that we can still go file for people in the U.S. That is a way maybe for people to have a voice. The solution might not be in Canada for the emotional harm, but it comes from the U.S. first. As with these companies you mentioned earlier—big tobacco—it's kind of the same. The only way they responded was not when the reports were there, but when it started hurting their pockets. I think these companies are kind of on a similar path.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That's the end of your time, Mr. Saini, but I do want to give Mr. Adler and Mr. Miotti a chance to answer your last question. I thought it was a good one. I saw their heads nodding.
Before we go to Mr. Thériault for two and a half minutes, Mr. Adler, give a quick response to Mr. Saini's question. Mr. Miotti, you can follow, please.
Artificial Intelligence Researcher, As an Individual
Canada can be a leader on diplomacy. We need a country to come forward and say that we recognize that the world is not ready, that we need real joint scientific efforts around clarifying this and what it would take to be ready.
Canada can absolutely be the leader on this issue.
Chief Executive Officer, ControlAI
I completely agree. Canada can lead the way.
Yes, many of its companies are not on Canadian soil, but Canada has a duty to protect its citizens, so it can still prohibit the development of superintelligence on Canadian soil as it endangers national security and all of its citizens. Canada can start working together with other like-minded countries, including other middle powers.
Even just making the first move can get this ball rolling. We have seen this with many other issues in the past. One country moving first can lead to many others following and can lead to genuine global change.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Miotti.
I understand there are no more questions between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Mr. Thériault, you have two and a half minutes to ask your final questions.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Gentlemen, I wanted us to be able to conclude this meeting properly and allow you to revisit your final remarks.
We agree that something must be done to stop the international race towards superintelligence.
Mr. Miotti, I challenge you to tell me, in two minutes or so, what you would do if you had this mandate.
Chief Executive Officer, ControlAI
That's a great question.
If you are a lawmaker, I believe the biggest thing you can do right now is speak out about the risks. Again, the more lawmakers speak out about the risks, the more your colleagues will look into them and learn about them, and then coalitions can start forming. If you have influence or a relevant position in the government, you can recommend what the government should do.
I believe the government could start discussing with other international partners the first steps of how we start getting an international agreement in place that bans superintelligence. Domestically, I believe Canada can immediately move to introduce legislation to ban superintelligence on its soil. I think this would be the biggest starting point for all of the other actions.
In summary, speaking about the problem is the first step. The more people speak, the more we can actually make progress. Ban it on Canadian soil first. Set the example and protect Canadian citizens at home. Internationally, speak with like-minded partners and start the process for an international agreement.
Thank you.
Conservative
Artificial Intelligence Researcher, As an Individual
I agree. We need to make this a goal state. If the countries come together and have an international summit on how to safely ban superintelligence, but we fail at the diplomacy, that would be unfortunate, but at least we would have tried. Right now it feels as though this isn't even recognized as a goal. We are on a collision course for a potentially awful outcome. We all need to come together and figure out if there resourceful, creative ways we can solve this. If we don't even try, what are we doing here?
Chief Executive Officer, The Human Line Project
Same here. We really need to educate ourselves about this issue. No one has read the conversations or understood the level of manipulation involved. Personally, I’m more interested in the psychological aspect. Just reading the conversations opens your eyes and you really understand how dangerous it can be.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Thériault.
That concludes the meeting for today.
I want to say thank you on behalf of the committee to our witnesses.
Mr. Miotti, you don't know how many times I wanted to say “Mr. Miyagi”. I'm sure you've heard that many times.
Mr. Adler, thank you.
Mr. Brisson, thank you for travelling here today under very dangerous conditions. Your testimony is important to us.
I'm going to dismiss the witnesses.
There are a couple of things. Number one, we are planning to study the Lobbying Act, probably by the end of February. We need concurrence from the House in order to study and have a legislative review of the Lobbying Act, so I want you to talk to your House leaders about that. I was going to propose that we move a motion today, but I understand, Madame Lapointe, that you want to talk to your House leader. That's fine. I'd like to deal with that next week, if we can.
There will be no meeting on Thursday, because of the shortened day.
Lastly, I think I speak on behalf of the committee.... We found out, during the meeting, that our former colleague Kirsty Duncan has passed away at the age of 59, so, on behalf of the committee, I want to express our condolences to her family.
A little-known fact is that Kirsty and I went to high school together, with Karen Ludwig as well. We actually have a picture from 2016 in the House of Commons, of all three of us. We took a great picture. Karen actually emailed me during the meeting, asking for that picture. On behalf of the committee, I want to express our condolences to her family as well. I'm sure you all feel that way.
The meeting's adjourned.
