Industry and Technology Committee on April 13th, 2026

[Joëlle Pineau]

Over the past few years, Mr. Bengio and I have pursued different research paths. We've had frequent conversations at Mila, but our concerns about intelligence are different. I've spent the past few years building and testing large models. Based on my experience, I recommend adopting a risk-based, measurable approach.

It's possible to imagine all kinds of more hypothetical risks when pondering the more theoretical aspects of this issue. Personally, through building and deploying these models, I came to the conclusion that a risk-based approach is of crucial importance. This approach has served us well in many other industries from automotive to nuclear to aviation, and it remains the benchmark for risk management. That's why I think it should inform our approach to AI as well.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Mr. Falk, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Madan, you indicated that 70% of the AI development in Canada is foreign-owned. Can you elaborate on that? How did that happen?

[Chris Madan]

We looked at patent data and saw that 75% of patents that are owned are foreign-owned and live here. I think it starts literally at that stage.

You talked about having a lot of research that happens here. We lose almost 25% of our STEM graduates. They move south immediately after graduation. Beyond the start-up stage, scale-up and most capital flow from outside of Canada.

We have a Telus Global Ventures arm. I was at a conference a month and a half ago, and we had a conversation about a number of Canadian start-ups who said their first client was a U.S. client. They couldn't even find Canadian clients. In a lot of cases, even to operate across a variety of different sectors, you're asked to give a reference from a U.S. client to show that you have scale.

There are a number of systemic barriers that hinder innovation at scale, and it plays out from there. A lot of start-ups end up moving south or being bought up through components.

We also know a lot of funding, especially in the STEM ecosystem, comes from places like DARPA, which then allows some of these businesses to grow and scale.

For me, that's the ecosystem we're dealing with. It plays its way into our productivity data and into a number of different components. Capital typically follows a risk profile, and I would say that risk certainty comes from policy certainty. Therefore, the ask I have of the committee would be to have policy certainty that will allow capital to flow and our businesses to flourish in Canada.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

When you think of data sovereignty, both in infrastructure and in development, could you share with the committee some low-hanging fruit that we should be seized with?

[Chris Madan]

Some of my colleagues have mentioned this. There are many things to be done. I would say there are three things we would benefit from. The first is defining sovereignty. Sovereignty is more than data residency. I think that's an important nuance because, in a lot of cases, data residency has been the de facto standard, and that is not, by definition, what we're talking about. Data sovereignty and AI sovereignty are really important factors. A number of reports are coming out, but I'd say that's number one. We would look at that.

The second one would be the certainty around certain aspects of data or certain data types that are critical for us. We can look at citizen service delivery, health care data or places where we want to truly improve productivity. Picking those sectors and putting them right at the top would be a really important aspect, where you could give more policy certainty.

The third one is the pieces of legislation that are still pending. We haven't updated PIPEDA in a long time, and our privacy laws, etc., need to be strengthened. Having policy certainty around those critical layers outside the data layer are important elements that will give businesses a lot of certainty and will give industry a lot of certainty. I think that will allow us to operate and innovate in those places.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

To the gentleman from Bell, when you think of data sovereignty as opposed to residency, what is Bell's thinking on that?

[Michel Richer]

Operationally, residence is a big piece of it. We think of four pillars. Where does data residency sit? Where does it rest? Data transit, which is the entire networking piece, does us limited good if the data is stored in Canada but, in order to get from point A to point B in Canada, needs to transit through the United States, for instance. This idea of having an east to west redundant, secure network is extremely important within the country, so we can guarantee that no matter what technology is being used, including IP technology, we keep the data in the country.

The third one is the—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'll just interrupt there.

Between the telecoms, is there a lot of infrastructure sharing that allows that data transfer from east to west?

[Michel Richer]

For the core transit of the data, it's typically managed independently by various telcos, with some commercial relationship in some cases, but we have links. Bell has dual links that go east to west and are fully redundant in Canadian territory.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You had a third point that you were going to make. I interrupted.

[Michel Richer]

Yes. The third point is the operational control: what runs, what doesn't run and what is getting updated in the systems. Also, the fourth one is the absolute control over governance of the systems in the jurisdiction.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.

Ms. Sudds, you'll finish us off here with five minutes.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

That's brilliant. Thank you very much.

I have a question for all three of the organizations that are companies and are here with us today. It is around the question of what role hardware needs to play or should play in Canada's AI strategy.

I'll perhaps start on the screen, with Ms. Pineau.

I take note that back in December, maybe, or in the fall, one of the co-founders of Cohere, Ivan Zhang authored an article through Build Canada that was called “Seize Canada's Semiconductor Opportunity”. In essence, through this article he argued that global supply chains are being reshaped by geopolitics and creating a once-in-a-generation opening for countries like Canada.

He also argued that we won't win by competing head-on with massive fabs, but we can win in targeted segments. We have assets in Canada like the Canadian Photonics Fabrication Centre, which is a strategic asset that is underleveraged. Also, he made the argument that Canada needs a hardware-aware AI strategy.

I'd be really curious to hear your thoughts, perhaps yours first, Ms. Pineau, and then we'll move back into the room.

[Joëlle Pineau]

I'm glad you're putting your finger on that. Ivan could probably talk about this a lot more eloquently than I can. I know that he's given it a lot of thought.

What I will say is that I do think there's an immense opportunity to open this up, and that whatever is today's technology may not be the technology we need in a few years. For a lot of today's technology, the race is really on the acquisition of the GPUs, these graphical processor units that are the building blocks for training the models, with Nvidia being one of the few giants and MD being another one that has the ability to produce this, but it doesn't mean that's going to be the solution that is dominating the market.

There's a lot of AI that is now moving towards being deployed on site. We're going to need hardware to deploy that AI in various devices, vehicles and others throughout the manufacturing industry, where really the GPU may not be the right form factor. To give you an example on that trajectory, a lot of the work we do at Cohere is actually in training much more efficient models. Where others are running models that need several dozen GPUs to run, we have models that run on just two GPUs, and maybe in a few years these models will be running on much smaller chips. The form factor may change.

I am fully supportive of exploring in what way we can build on the innovation and the research capacity we have in Canada—photonics and others—to really accelerate that field as well. We shouldn't think too short-term, especially when it comes to some of the more research bets that we support.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Amazing, and thank you for that.

Perhaps I'll go to Mr. Richer for a remark.

[Michel Richer]

Yes, sure.

I see two things on the question. First, as we think of hardware as absolutely critical in sovereignty, I'd put the emphasis on what's critical in terms of who controls it operationally. There's a question of where it is produced, who owns the IP when it's produced and, then, once it's on, who has the control of it. For instance, as of today, we do have sovereign hardware in our AI Fabric that is available for Canadian customers as well. That's the first part of the question.

To your second aspect, around how we are developing this and whether we can do it in Canada, absolutely. As we think of it, multiple people here referenced the AI importance of a full stack and of thinking that it's not only GPUs that run those systems. You need complex environments in which you have multiple IT components. You'll still have some GPUs, some networking equipment, some memory and some memory on RAM, and many Canadian companies are pushing the envelope here.

Minister Solomon was present at the announcement that Hypertec, a Montreal company, made last week, which is that they are the first Canadian OEM partner in the world for Nvidia.

There are 10 of those, and they're really pushing the envelope in research and partnering with other Canadian organizations. We're partnering with them in terms of bringing those capabilities so that we can be a partner in the overall global ecosystem, where we contribute and where we take advantage of what others develop.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Last but not least, we have Mr. Madan.

[Chris Madan]

Thank you for the great question.

I concur with my colleague over here on the two parts to the answer.

Part one is this: Especially on the hardware side, I think it's operational control that, in the near term, is the important strategic asset, especially if you think of all the elements that go into building these large-scale facilities. There are many components that are, by definition, Canadian. It's not just the chips. Think of the networking, the fibre that runs in and how the whole set-up happens. Beyond that, go into the racks, the storage, the memory and the various components. Owning all of that—I'll use the term “operational kill switch”—is what gives us control. That's a really critical, important factor as we think through this.

I'll come to the other part of the question, which is, how do we continue to develop this with a buy Canadian aspect? I think that's a really important aspect beyond the GPUs, the CPUs and the TPUs, where there is an arms race going on. Nvidia, one of our preferred partners and suppliers, is big over there, but companies like Broadcom are developing these at scale.

Beyond that, I would say that there's truly an opportunity for us, as Canadians, to look at that whole supply chain ecosystem. In fact, I'm on an AI sovereignty board that has published and sent off a letter that identifies 75 different Canadian companies playing across that ecosystem in the “start-up to scale-up” stage. We think they should be part of the sovereign AI supply chain ecosystem.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

That's amazing.

I'll wrap up super quickly, as the chair is looking at me.

My only comment back on that is this: Undoubtedly, the kill switch is an essential component. I would also argue that we saw, during COVID, what happens when others want to get their piece of the pie first. It's important to think about the hardware piece, because the ability to source it from other countries is not a guarantee.

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sudds.

Colleagues and witnesses, I appreciate your being here with us today. Again, as I said at the end of the first panel, and as I've been saying, it's a fascinating conversation and one that's incredibly timely, useful and important for the committee and, by extension, the House of Commons and the Government of Canada as it makes decisions about where things will go, moving forward with this massive disruption in technology and in our industry.

Colleagues, thank you for a good, fruitful discussion.

The meeting is adjourned.