Information & Ethics Committee on Jan. 26th, 2026

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

That is a tough question, because the technology is moving so fast that a good regulation for today's AI may be out of date by next month.

Right now, in our white paper, for example, we don't openly call for much new regulation, simply because there are so many areas where it is really hard to monitor what's going on in AI and to regulate software. It's a very fast-evolving technology. However, there are some basics you can put in place, like, for example, banning deepfakes and protecting children.

Also, to an earlier point, there are a lot of existing laws, like human rights laws, for example, with biased algorithms. That is something you should be able to protect Canadians against through existing laws by investing in the regulators and ensuring the Privacy Commissioner has enough power and resources to be able to track everything that's going on.

Given how fast things are moving and how hard it is to accurately create laws that will be robust into the future, focus on the simplest pieces, like banning deepfakes or requiring labelling, and on applying current laws as well as you can.

One analogy that comes up is that right now we're dealing with a cute little bear cub, and you need legislation to avoid scratches and bites. If it takes you five years to put a law in place, by the time you do it you'll then be dealing with a full-grown grizzly, and the laws and protections you'll need are very different. Given that we're in this transition period, doubling down on current laws and making sure the regulators have the power they need to be able to act on them while focusing on the things you can do relatively quickly and simply is probably your best strategy.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

What role should AI have in running part of the government? Do you have any experience or knowledge of whether any other governments around the world are using it?

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

It is clear that AI can be used to make government more efficient and to offer more services to Canadians at a lower cost. It is also clear that part of the reason you can do that is that it will cost less than salaries, since you'll be replacing a lot of human work with AI. That is a balance that I don't claim to have the right answer for.

I will say that I use AI every day. Its productivity is very useful. I would encourage government to use it wisely, obviously, within guidelines and with privacy impacts in mind. This is the challenge. The more useful these systems get and the cheaper and the more effective they are, the more we'll be dependent on them and the less we'll be relying on human labour.

When we talk about having a national conversation on AI, we need to talk to Canadians about this: If we reach a point where AI and robotics can do essentially all work, should we automate everything, or do we want to keep jobs for ourselves? If so, under what conditions would that be?

That is a very big conversation, and that's not to mention the psychological impact. For a lot of people, their sense of self comes from their work. If you tell them what they're doing is no longer needed because now AI can do all the coding and they can retire now as a coder...or if you're telling a voice-over actor that they can now retire because AI can do all the voice-over acting, are we going to ask that actor to become an engineer or something else?

The psychological and societal impacts of this change happening so fast are something that we need to be proactively thinking about and managing. This is where having a national conversation—giving people the opportunity to understand what's going on and where things are headed, and to have a meaningful ability to provide input as to what they want—is an essential piece of the solution.

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

One thing you mentioned in your earlier remarks was weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. I don't think the U.S., China and Russia care about anything as long as they are the superpower in that field.

What can the rest of the world do to prevent humanity from being at risk of being wiped out?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I need as quick a response as you can give.

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

As much as they like power, they also need to collaborate, because they are also vulnerable to AI. That's where our opening is.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That was quicker than I thought. Wonderful.

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

We'll finish with Ms. Lapointe, who will also have five minutes.

Mr. Brisson has just entered the room. In the next hour, we'll be hearing from three witnesses, so we can take a bit more time to talk.

Mr. Hardy, you have the floor.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Tessari L'Allié, I would like to continue the discussion. In the past, we found that the polarization generated by social media was really created by the algorithms behind the scenes.

With artificial intelligence, a more advanced development—and we were told that it was narrow AI as opposed to a slightly broader AI—could we be facing a serious issue that requires rapid attention, particularly from governments, so that the facts come out more often than just polarization, which ultimately greatly harms not only democracy, but also the progress of society?

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

We're talking more and more about computer pollution or information pollution. The government must deal with this somehow. Of course, a great deal of risk is involved. If one person says that something is true, another person will say that it's false. Then we have all the dynamics involved in the political perspectives.

We're indeed being bombarded by more and more information. In the past, we didn't really need to worry about this. There was relatively little information and there were few major media information hubs. If we want a functioning democracy, we need everyone to base their decisions on the same facts.

I would cautiously say that the governments must indeed play a role in maintaining the quality of the discussion. For example, they could ask the major technology companies to ban algorithms that encourage the most sensationalist content possible. On the contrary, we need algorithms that support content based on facts and concrete references instead.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Let's look at a public media outlet like the CBC. Do you think there should be very clear guidelines for government-funded news and fact-checking to ensure that news sources aren't deepfakes and reports aren't intended to polarize or spread opinions? Such guidelines should ensure that people really are seeing verified facts, facts that totally separate from opinion and aren't intended to be just polarizing.

I think that, in recent years, using artificial intelligence and seeing a glimpse of the algorithms behind it has been part of the process. However, it should be a government responsibility, especially when it's being done with people's money. It's important to ensure that people always rely on facts and avoid things like deepfakes.

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

I agree that there is a government responsibility here. I'm also very aware of how hard it is to do that without people perceiving it as the government's desire to impose its point of view on them. At the very least—

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt. I may be mistaken, but what I want to know is whether we can tell if a video is genuine or the kind of high-quality deepfake we were talking about earlier. Can anyone say they will never use them and will always check them? Is that something we can say at this point?

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

Based purely on the image we see, I would say no. The only way to really verify the facts is to ask other sources, such as other journalists or other people who were there in person, whether a given event really happened or not. It's really up to journalists, who have to be there because we can't rely on a text or an image or a video. It's too difficult.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

At this point, we've already lost control.

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

Yes.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

I have one last quick question.

Earlier, there was talk of legislating before we have the facts, instead of always looking backward and saying that maybe we should have legislated back then because now the line has been crossed.

Couldn't we start a discussion as a government, here in Ottawa, and start implementing robust legal guidelines for how things could happen? That way, regardless of whether they develop a little more in one way than another, we would already have laid the foundations for our society with respect to artificial intelligence. We would already have put limitations in place instead of constantly waiting and being three or four years behind the times.

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

Yes, absolutely, we have to look ahead and prepare for that. In fact, if the government wants to put proactive legislation in place, it really has to give the regulator a lot of flexibility, unfortunately, so it can act quickly. There is a model they talk about on the technology side; it's on Google. Everybody is constantly trying to position their website at the top of the page. Google has to update its rules on that almost every day. If the government wants its regulator to keep pace with technology, that regulator has to be able to implement measures on a weekly or even daily basis. The regulator will need a lot of power, but the government will need a lot of oversight over that regulator to make sure it's not abusing that power.

Essentially the government needs to be able to move as fast as technology. I don't have the expertise to tell you exactly how to set that up, but that's what the government would need if it wants to stay ahead of things. Look at the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Just two years after it was passed, there were problems with parts that were already out of date. If the government wants to move forward, there has to be a lot of flexibility and a lot of oversight by a third party to ensure that the regulator doesn't abuse that power.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Tessari L'Allié, thank you very much for being here. It's very enlightening.

You mentioned the EU law that has been in force for two years and already has things that aren't working. What would you suggest in light of that? When you say that flexibility is needed, what are you referring to?

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

The idea would be to have very general legislation that enables regulators, or the agency that will enforce the legislation, to take action and implement regulations very quickly—practically overnight—in response to new developments. I don't believe such a thing already exists in government. This would be a new type of regulation. The government would just have to try it. I can't say in advance if it will work or not, but if the government wants legislation that will stay up to date, that legislation will have to be general and the regulations will have to be very flexible.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I'm sure you know that Canada is a founding member of the International Network of AI Safety Institutes. Why is international coordination so important? You mentioned it earlier. What risks arise when a country acts in isolation? To me it seems like the race for the atomic bomb with everyone wanting to move as fast as possible so they can come out on top.

How can we coordinate internationally? This came up earlier. We're a medium-sized country. I'd like your opinion on that.

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

The most important thing is really to understand that everyone is in the same boat when it comes to the risks. Although I think it's unlikely that the Trump administration will lead international talks, the United States will need a treaty as well. At this point, Canada's role can be to put forward treaty proposals, to start conversations among countries, to start creating alliances and really lay the groundwork so that, when the time comes and the political will is there—once politicians finally understand that they have no choice—there is something ready to be signed.

We saw how many decades it took to reach a global agreement on the environment. Instead of waiting for the crisis to hit and then launching talks and drawing up treaties, we must get started now. Canada is currently well positioned to do that.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You talked about time. Looking ahead by five to 10 years, do you believe that Canada's current approach, combining research investments, security institutions and governance frameworks, establishes a solid foundation for a responsible and competitive AI ecosystem?

[Wyatt Tessari L'Allié]

I would say that we're doing a pretty good job for today's artificial intelligence, but right now, we're forgetting to prepare for tomorrow. There have been some good initiatives, such as voluntary codes and the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute, which are good steps forward but are still reactions to today's AI or yesterday's AI. What's really missing is a vision of where things are going.

The exponential trend is really starting to accelerate. The last third or half of the skills missing from artificial intelligence could possibly be developed within six months, even though it took 70 years from the beginning to reach ChatGPT. We have a good foundation and we have made efforts in terms of responsible artificial intelligence. We can continue in that direction, but it's really just the very beginning. The bulk of the work remains to be done.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

What you're saying is very interesting. You've been asked a number of questions here. Is there anything you would like to add or tell us about something that you were not asked about?