Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 17th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault, you may begin.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

My motion concerns a study on artificial intelligence, or AI. I'll outline the issue before formally presenting the motion. The clerk has copies in English and French for distribution.

To provide some context, I would say that artificial intelligence is a process designed to give machines the ability to imitate certain skills specific to human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, creating content and making decisions.

We often hear that this technology is incredible and that it provides many advantages, and rightly so. However, what do we really know about this technology of technologies, this race to establish artificial superintelligence? Ultimately, we know very little.

However, in May 2023, a group of pioneering artificial intelligence experts and business leaders in this field warned the general public of the potential dangers of the innovation. They stated as follows: “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal‑scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

Since this concern was raised by the very people creating the superintelligence, it seems worthy of study. The goal isn't to unnecessarily slow down technological development, but to take proactive measures.

What are the positive and negative aspects of AI? What do we know about this technology of technologies, this race to establish artificial superintelligence? How can we regulate the various applications of AI? Financial considerations aside, how could this type of artificial superintelligence become a threat to the security of institutions and governments? When will governments reach a point of no return in terms of regulating artificial intelligence? How does artificial intelligence affect energy and environmental issues? Above all, how does artificial intelligence affect privacy and the control of access to information?

This drive to create artificial superintelligence raises an ethical question. Apart from the financial interests of these companies, what is the ultimate goal and what vision of humanity lies behind it?

A failure to address this issue now would amount to giving carte blanche to all‑powerful corporations and turning a blind eye. We must proceed with an informed approach. That's why my motion recommends the following:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the committee undertake a study to assess artificial intelligence (AI), the challenges it poses, and how it should be regulated; to this end, that the committee hold a minimum of four (4) meetings; that at the first meeting, the committee invite the Canadian Minister of AI to appear before it; that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government provide a comprehensive response to the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

The motion is in order. You have already spoken a bit about it, but do you have anything else to add for the committee?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I just want to say that the committee should indeed open this discussion and invite experts to participate. We need to begin an in‑depth ethical discussion on this topic. Above all, this issue will affect the control of access to information and privacy. That's all.

If our work can clear the way for other committees to propose avenues for research or study, so much the better. I believe that artificial intelligence is too big an issue for us to pass up the opportunity to conduct this type of study and bring in experts, even practitioners, to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this new technology. This issue requires ethical consideration. I believe that this falls within our mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

During the discussion, perhaps we could talk a bit more about privacy and that sort of thing.

Ms. Lapointe, you can talk about the motion.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Thériault, I find your motion very intriguing. Artificial intelligence is a recent development. We need to understand how it will affect our lives. I would like us to take the time to review this motion to see whether we might want to propose any amendments.

I personally find your proposed study quite appealing. In my opinion, the impact of artificial intelligence will rival the rise of the Internet. The advent of the Internet brought positive developments, but also negative effects that required countermeasures.

However, with artificial intelligence, what lies ahead is even more significant. I would like us to really examine the motion to ensure that we're all moving in the same direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

I also believe that, if the motion is adopted, the committee must look at other issues that fall within its mandate, such as privacy, for example.

Mr. Thériault, I believe that you want us to study these issues. As it stands, artificial intelligence is a broad topic that involves many challenges. Our committee's priority mandate is to look into privacy issues, for example.

Do you agree?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I agree.

I gave an overview of the situation. We now need to see what challenges lie ahead and how we can define them.

Obviously, some challenges will fall squarely within our purview. However, the witnesses who appear before us and our inquisitive questions will also help answer your question.

Artificial intelligence is indeed a special field. You know, back home, we talk about “the Internets” when referring to GAFA. When the government wanted to start regulating GAFA, they sent us packing.

Other committees will want to work on artificial intelligence, since it's a cross‑cutting issue. However, I believe that our committee should contribute to this topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I agree. Like Ms. Lapointe, I believe that we must give this issue some consideration.

I also understand that there may be one or two other committees studying artificial intelligence. However, we must stay within our mandate.

Mr. Sari, you have the floor next.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Thériault, first, thank you for this motion. I'm currently drafting a bill along the same lines. Of course, the ethical aspect of artificial intelligence, which you mentioned, is one of my areas of focus. I would be delighted to have a hallway discussion with you about artificial intelligence, since I've been teaching it for a number of years.

One thing that worries me most—and I don't think that you touched on this—is the potential for bias in the algorithms behind generative artificial intelligence in particular. You talked about this in your introduction. I would appreciate it if you could send us the document that you quoted, since it's quite relevant.

A second issue is of great concern to the committee. I asked a witness about this matter on Monday. It involves the possibility of using artificial intelligence to process access to information requests. I believe that this may even become necessary, given the amount of information to process. This raises questions about the ethics of using this type of technology for that purpose.

There are a number of aspects to address. However, before inviting witnesses, Mr. Thériault, we should first have a discussion to determine the topic of this study and its scope, in keeping with the role of this committee. We can then choose the aspects, angles or areas to address and the witnesses to invite for each of them. That's my proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I do have you down, Ms. Church.

Mr. Thériault, I believe that you're right to move this motion. However, the clerk sent only the text of the motion, without the preamble. If you agree, I suggest that everything that you wrote be sent to all committee members so that they can better understand your proposed study.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, the clerk has a copy of the motion, including the preamble.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The clerk sent only the text of the motion, without the preamble.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

If you want, we can send everything that you wrote to the other committee members so that they can better understand your proposal.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, absolutely. I thought that the preamble had also been sent out.

I think that, by inviting witnesses to address our various concerns, we'll be able to answer our colleagues' questions. I think that we need to move forward first and that things will become clearer as we go along. Mr. Sari seems to have expertise in certain aspects of the application of artificial intelligence. However, there are also people racing to develop artificial superintelligence. Not many companies in the world carry out this type of research. We could invite some of their representatives. I'm thinking in particular of people from the Université de Montréal, such as Yoshua Bengio. In short, there will be a list of witnesses. I think that this will shed light on the issues and guide our questions and recommendations at the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you.

I think that, once you see the preamble, you'll perhaps understand, Mr. Sari, and it will answer a lot of your questions. The problem is it's considered debate and we can't send it, but, with Mr. Thériault's permission, I think you'll have a better understanding of where he wants to go, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Ms. Church, go ahead, please.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Thériault, as well, thank you for proposing a very interesting and timely subject for us to look at in terms of our committee's mandate around both information and privacy. This is actually of great urgency and concern for many Canadians.

One of the things I would like to see scoped into the study, if at all possible and if you are amenable, is around a phenomenon that touches many Canadians in their pocketbooks when they're purchasing online. It's the increasing phenomenon around surveillance pricing. This really depends on private information like a person's location, a person's identity and a person's purchase history.

One of the main areas where we don't have much transparency right now is around how AI is being used to help create a system where consumers are at the mercy of highly fluctuating changes in pricing that are dependent on these personal data points being collected online and used by artificial intelligence to change prices instantaneously based on this information. It's a very emergent area of concern.

If you would be at all amenable to it, Mr. Thériault, I certainly would be interested in looking at that, because I think that also has a direct impact on many Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that intervention, Ms. Church.

I sent the preamble as a courtesy to put in context where Mr. Thériault was going with the motion. I would suggest that, as you submit your witness list, if you have anybody who's an expert in that regard, submit them to the clerk and the analyst. We will do everything we can to get them, too, because I agree with you that this is important.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I was just about to say that.

I like that aspect. In some committees, particularly the Standing Committee on Health, we've already done this. We set topics when members raise questions regarding a number of issues. I would be open to spending an hour at some point strictly on the topic raised by Ms. Church. Over the coming days, we'll be determining how to organize our work around this. I wanted to take a comprehensive approach that addresses the challenges posed by artificial intelligence and how we might regulate it. Then we'll get started! We're open to asking questions about specific sectors.

Some people have a broad perspective. They're familiar with artificial intelligence and its various applications. They can answer our questions. I'm open to this. Let's get started. We must decide how to organize our work.

We're currently voting on a motion to set up a study. However, subcommittees always then organize the work involved in a study. I think that, at that point, we can agree on the witnesses and topics to focus on, and so on. If necessary, we could even add a meeting if we want to. This will depend solely on our interest and the development of our reflection process, our understanding and our ability to make relevant recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

I thought of something today. We could meet as a subcommittee on Monday for an hour or so to discuss and plan our work for the fall, taking into account the studies approved today and the desired witnesses.

Do you agree?

Mr. Thériault, we're listening.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I don't know whether on Monday, given the deadlines…. We can meet with witnesses on…. We definitely need to draw up a list of witnesses and discuss how to organize our work. I think that this is our next step together.

I think that it's a good idea to meet on Monday to organize the studies. We also need to set a schedule for the work. I think that this is the right step to take.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Sari, go ahead.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I want to make sure that I got this right. On Monday, we can propose a list of witnesses to address the topic of artificial intelligence. However, we'll also be discussing other motions tabled, not just Mr. Thériault's motion. We'll also be organizing the work. I gather that this is the plan for Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes. We'll draw up a list of witnesses.

I was thinking about having a subcommittee meeting on planning anyway, on Monday, for at least one hour or so. Then there might be something else we need to do in the second hour, but I agree with Mr. Thériault: We had three motions that were passed today, and developing a plan for the fall is the next normal course of action. I will certainly talk to the clerk and the analysts about doing that.

I don't have any other discussion. We're on Mr. Thériault's motion. I'm going to first ask for consensus on the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

It is 6:26 p.m. I don't think we have any other business.

I want to thank you all for a very robust discussion on what I think are some very important issues we're going to get to deal with. That was really the purpose of today, to make sure we start the process of working this fall. I appreciate all the interventions, even the ones that didn't agree with me. That's what healthy debate is all about.

Thank you, everyone—our analysts, clerk and technicians.

The meeting is adjourned.