Science and Research Committee on May 25th, 2026

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do want to set the record straight on a couple of things, because my friend opposite.... I call him “my friend” because I do think of him in that way. I've had this conversation on several occasions. He also has met with individuals in the minister's office, who explained to him the frustration that we have also had in getting information from the department in respect of the breakdown.

Notwithstanding the above, we know exactly what the cost range is. More importantly, Madam Chair, what we also know is that the information the committee sought to find is now available publicly: 11,000 different submissions. I'm not entirely certain why there would be feigned outrage for information that is now available in the public domain. If folks are having a difficult time finding it, I will be glad to ensure that anybody who wants it has access to it.

The reality here is that there was over a million dollars in costs to find, for this committee, stuff that is actually available in the form that it was previously submitted. To repackage it so that it addresses whatever it is that the opposition wants at a cost of $1.2 million or $1.3 million seems to be a bit of a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Given that they speak about being the so-called party of fiscal prudence, I think they would be the ones who would be aghast that the government would be asked to spend money to package something in the way they want it packaged. The information is available. It's available to them. I would be glad to share it again with my colleagues if they would like it, but the idea that we would somehow be wasting money—and now time—to discuss this seems absolutely bananas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

MP Ho is next.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

First of all, I want to look at this estimate that we were given. It's not a range like, “Oh, it's going to cost roughly $1 million to $1.3 million.” It's a very specific number: $1,192,493.59 to $1,327,208.59. I mean, it gets to the cent, so clearly there is a precise breakdown that we were not provided. All we wanted was a precise breakdown of these numbers. It wasn't a ballpark figure of $1 million to $1.3 million, or something like that. It's a very specific number. It's a very precise number all the way to the penny.

Again, we just want to know what's being hidden here in terms of the cost: the cost breakdown. A Liberal member said, “Well, all the information is already public.” If it's already public, then why does it cost this much? There has to be a little more there than what's already public, because why would it cost that much?

I will cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I have a speaking list, so we'll come to you, MP Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Please note of this date, May 25, 2026, because it marks yet another attempt by the Liberal government to shirk its responsibilities.

I speak from experience, because I myself tabled the motion to obtain the information and the list of people who had submitted briefs as part of the consultation for the development of the pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy. We even had the minister among us when I moved this motion in February. As if it had been staged, on the very day of his testimony before the committee, his website posted the list I had requested, because he knew we were waiting for that list. Let's remember that, at the time, the government was in a minority, so that's why, of course, the minister had no choice but to comply with the request.

For those listening, the answer is that the government itself had rejected the motion that would have allowed the public to know who had participated in the consultation on what is supposedly the most important strategy in Canadian history: the pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy.

In short, we see that the government has said it is important for the public to participate in public consultations when it comes to strategic matters, such as artificial intelligence, but it is not important for the public to know who will be participating. That is what our colleague is telling us today. He is trying to make us believe that everything is available online. However, if it had been accessible online, we wouldn't have asked for it; it's as simple as that.

First, there is no list online of the 11,000 people participating. That is false. I invite our colleague to prove otherwise, and I will be happy to retract my statement if I'm wrong. However, that is not the case at all.

Second, what is most important is not just knowing who participated, but also knowing what was said; we do not know that either. I challenge our colleague to tell us what was said. Is this information truly accessible to taxpayers, Canadians and Quebeckers? The answer is no.

So today, we have a government that wants to develop an artificial intelligence strategy, but that won't tell us who participated in the consultation to influence its decisions and actions, nor what the people who participated actually said. My mother always told me that if something is good, there is no need to hide it, and there is no problem. Yet the government says that Canadians do not need to know that.

Personally, I am concerned, and that is why I am taking the time to clearly explain to those listening closely that there are potential conflicts between the government and international stakeholders, which means there are potential attempts at foreign interference through such strategies, particularly the pan-Canadian artificial intelligence strategy. This is not something I just woke up one morning and thought of. It has been reported repeatedly in the media, which tells us there is indeed a risk of people infiltrating our systems. Here, we have an opaque process and a government that refuses to make public the content of the consultations or the list of participants.

I am increasingly concerned about this kind of process. It took a member of a parliamentary committee—myself, in this case—to ask the government, through a motion, to tell us who participated in this consultation and what the participants said.

Today, the government is telling us to trust it, but it won't tell us what was said, and it won't let us know who said those things. I still find it quite unbelievable that a government that claims to be accountable would not share this crucial information—namely, who participated in the consultation, what the participants said and, subsequently, what the government took away from it.

In my view, it is about transparency, especially in a democratic system. Democracy does not really mean much anymore to the current Liberal government. It was this government that, for the first time in history, created a majority in the middle of a parliament. I would like to take a moment to explain to our listeners that, following the general election on April 28, 2025, it was a minority Parliament, but the government managed to convince members of other parties to join its team. That allowed the government to secure a majority Parliament.

In reality, this is undemocratic, because it does not respect the will of the people. The government says it respects traditions. From what I understand, in Canada, there is a tradition: elections. The election determines whether the government forms a minority or a majority Parliament, and which party will be in power. Here, the government is ignoring that. It tells us that the rules and practices of the House allow for a majority Parliament. However, this is still not insignificant. It has never happened in over 150 years. Never has a government secured a majority through defections. It is truly incredible. So, I think people need to remember this, because it is no ordinary anti-democratic act.

I will give you several examples. Today, there is another anti-democratic move here in the committee: We are being denied access to data. I find the ploy quite clever: The government is telling us it will cost us too much. In Canada, it costs too much to know the truth.

I like numbers, so I did some calculations for my colleagues. In the latest budget from the Prime Minister, who is a financial expert, the deficit stands at $78 billion. That's not insignificant either. It's the largest deficit in history. We are breaking records, but they are not good ones. So, we have a record deficit of $78 billion. Our colleague gives us his main, rock-solid argument to convince people: It costs too much to know the truth. So, I calculated the amount our colleague is talking about. Projected spending in the Canadian federal budget for fiscal year 2025–26 totals $586 billion. Out of that, we would take $1 million; that's the hypothetical amount our colleague heard behind the scenes, while having coffee and chatting with people from cabinet and the translation bureau. So, how much is that, $1 million out of $586 billion? It's 0.00017%. I'll repeat that for those listening: it's 0.00017%. That would be too much, according to our colleague and his government team, who tell us that people will not pay $1 million. That $1 million sounds like a lot, but we have to consider the proportion it represents, as I just did.

This amount will allow us to find out the truth. Are there people trying to advance their own interests? We don't know. We cannot even do our jobs because we do not have access to the data. Imagine that: Parliamentarians, members of Parliament elected by the people, cannot know who participated in a public consultation requested by the government. You cannot call it a public consultation if the data is not public. I would rather call it a public relations stunt to manipulate public opinion and the public. Once again, I cannot believe our colleague is telling us it will cost us too much.

Here in Quebec, our motto is Je me souviens—I remember. So, I remember that, recently, our colleague pulled the same stunt here, at the Standing Committee on Science and Research, during another of my attempts to gain access to data—specifically, data from funding agencies regarding accepted and rejected funding applications. Always with good intentions, I wanted to analyze potential imbalances in research funding in Canada. Our colleague told us that accessing the data would be too expensive. He told us that it would be too expensive to find out whether we could analyze data related to public funds allocated for scientific projects. It's the same ploy and the same mechanism.

For the government, the truth comes at too high a cost. I wish people would understand what is happening right now; in my opinion, it's something catastrophic, unhealthy, toxic and completely unacceptable in today's democratic system. As I said, I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised. If a government is capable of rigging a majority, what would it be willing to do next?

It reminds me of the importance of science, which is supposedly on the lips of my colleagues in government. I'll give another example: When the chief science adviser testified here last November, she expressed deep concern about projects of national importance to the government, that is to say projects of national interest. We can draw a parallel. The government tells us that it's important to address what could be the worst tariff crisis in Canadian history and that it must take the lead in prioritizing certain projects. Who decides which projects these are? How will that be decided? For the government, these are not important questions. What matters to them is that there are projects. If the projects are good, they should be able to demonstrate that.

Let me repeat what the chief science adviser said: She was not consulted on these projects. It's rather ironic that someone is hired to develop expertise, but when it comes time to make decisions, they don't consult her. Personally, I think it's a shame for her, but I think it's especially a shame for taxpayers. What's the point of paying people if, in the end, we don't listen to them? I obviously believe in science as such, not just in public relations and press conferences connected to it.

I think this has shown us that the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It has shown us this on several occasions. I'm going to give many examples, since my approach is very fact-based.

Another thing the chief scientist told us back in November—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Given that this is clearly now getting into a lively debate, perhaps we might release our witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I can check with the witnesses.

It's 5.30 p.m. I know we started the meeting a bit late. We started at 3:43 p.m.

Are you okay with taking the time to stay here, or would you like to leave because of other commitments?

[Lisa Campbell]

Thank you so much.

We are always happy to stay and talk about space if that's helpful to the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

MP Blanchette-Joncas has the floor.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Awesome. I love it. Let's talk about space.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

MP Blanchette-Joncas, go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I have great respect for the people at the Canadian Space Agency and I find it unfortunate to have to speak out, but my colleague has introduced this motion regarding a request dating back to February. Today, May 25, he is making a request that has no connection to the current study. I find it unfortunate, but I will nevertheless speak about science and research, and the importance of government investment. To my knowledge—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I am sorry for interrupting.

We have the motion on the floor. First, we have to dispose of that motion before we get into the discussion.

MP Blanchette-Joncas, you have the floor if you would like to continue speaking to the motion.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

All right. Of course, Madam Chair.

The government tells us it costs too much, and yet, in the latest budget, we see budget cuts of over $30 million for the Canadian Space Agency over the next few years. That means that fathers and mothers will lose their jobs; that means projects will be scrapped, too.

The Prime Minister, who is still a financial expert, recently told us that he and his government were proud that a Canadian astronaut had participated in a space mission. At the same time, however, they are cutting funding for the organization that made that astronaut's training possible. Do you see how inconsistent this is? They say the agency is important, but they're cutting its funding.

Personally, if I know that fruits and vegetables are good for my health, I eat them. I think it's as simple as that. It seems pretty simple, doesn't it? For example, when you want flowers to bloom in the garden, you water them. It's the same thing. Right now, the government isn't watering the Canadian Space Agency. What is it doing? It's making budget cuts. This doesn't just apply to the Canadian Space Agency, but to the entire government apparatus. However, when it comes time to tell us it has money for projects, it does.

Madam Chair, here's my response in conjunction with the motion: If it costs too much to access data to uncover the truth, I think it would be important, in the future, to develop solutions to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Here on the committee, we have two concrete examples.

First, there is the example of funding data from funding agencies, which was requested but denied due to a lack of funding. I know this because, once again, I was the one who moved this motion for access to the data. Look, accredited researchers couldn't access the data. We're not in North Korea; we're in Canada. Researchers can't access data on the funding granted to scientific projects by funding agencies. It's unbelievable that I have to tell you that. These researchers even came before the committee to tell us that, yes, they couldn't do their job as scientists because the government refused to give access to this data.

So I took up the cause and asked the government if it could provide the data. It refused, saying the data was too sensitive and privacy had to be protected. So I asked if, in this case, it could create a mechanism or a channel to provide access to the data. It said no, because after all, it didn't have the necessary software and systems. You see, it's always a never-ending cycle designed to wear us down and ensure we never manage to do our job, which is to hold the government to account.

Just imagine that the people who manage scientific research projects in Canada conduct self-evaluations of their projects, right within their own organizations. There's no external analysis. To put it simply, just so people understand, in Canada, it's as if a hockey team were appointing the referees. That's what's happening in research funding. The government, through its funding agencies, conducts its own internal analyses. It tells us to trust it, that it's public money and that we don't need access to the data. Personally, I'm concerned, because there's a lot of anxiety in the scientific community when it can't access this data.

Today, we have another example: artificial intelligence, which is supposedly a key priority for the government. It tells us this is a priority and that it will invest record amounts in it. However, it won't tell us who participated in its public consultation or how it was conducted.

First, were these people influenced to participate? Did people have direct ties to the government representatives to try to include certain things in this public consultation?

Also, I clearly remember what the minister in charge said when he came to testify before the committee. He told us that he was very proud of the public consultation because, in his opinion, it was the largest public consultation in Canadian history. When he mentioned that in committee, I was surprised. If he's telling us that this is his largest consultation, how is it that Canada wasn't better prepared?

First, we need to know who is participating.

Second, we need to know whether we're going to inform the public.

I understand that 11,000 participants is a lot of people. I understand that it can take time to collect the data and compile it all. I wonder: If the government is unable to provide us with this data so that we, as parliamentarians, can verify what was said, I wonder how we can do our jobs.

I would still like to mention the people who were very concerned about artificial intelligence and the strategy. As a member of Parliament, I can tell you that people wrote to us during our study on AI to express their concerns about how the federal government's new strategy would be unveiled and presented.

I recall that it happened rather quickly. Six months have passed since the consultations, which, it should be noted, were conducted on an accelerated timeline. That's another thing Minister Solomon had promised. It was, after all, a promise made by the government when the minister appeared before the committee. The minister also stated last fall that Canada could not afford to wait and that it had to act quickly. Let me tell you this: The minister himself apologized for this delay. It's pretty incredible, really. The government tells us it's in such a hurry to establish the strategy that it doesn't have time to inform the public and parliamentarians so that they know what will be included in this strategy.

The minister had also explained that, in his view, the impact of AI had supposedly evolved and that it would be necessary to continue meeting with groups and conducting consultations. He had also mentioned recent meetings with union leaders, environmentalists and young people. What also surprised me was that, even as the consultations were taking place, the minister was telling us that the strategy was about to become obsolete. He said that the sector had changed considerably, that the impact of artificial intelligence had also evolved.

The minister mentioned that the strategy was supposed to address the changing needs of the workforce. Personally, I'd like to know what was included in this strategy and who is seeking to influence the government's decisions right now.

A public consultation was therefore conducted, gathering over 11,000 comments, to which we have no access. This is the subject of the motion we are debating today.

The government also stated that it had analyzed those comments using artificial intelligence. The minister also mentioned that Canada would avoid over-indexing on warnings and regulation to ensure that the economy benefits from AI. He noted that the situation had evolved somewhat since the government announced its rushed consultation. So, by his own admission, things moved quickly. However, what isn't moving quickly are the government's actions. Let me remind you that, in the last Parliament, the government didn't even manage to pass its own bill to regulate AI.

Let's recap. We have a government that conducts a rushed consultation and isn't transparent about its actions or the data it collects. It says it wants to implement a strategy, but its strategy is lagging behind. Now it's telling us that, yes, ultimately, it developed its strategy with consultants, and perhaps by the time it launches its strategy, things will have evolved so much that the strategy will already be outdated.

The other inconsistency we see here on the part of the government is that it has not established a legislative framework for certain forms of AI. I even recall that, during the study we conducted here, we asked questions of the minister and the deputy minister. We asked them if we could shut down software that threatened people's safety tomorrow morning. They weren't able to answer that. That is concerning. We're told that artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that can stimulate economic development, but we're unable to stop it if it becomes harmful. I find that worrisome. Meanwhile, we're being asked not to worry and told that a strategy will be unveiled.

That's the way I look at it. I think it would be important for us, as parliamentarians, to understand this, and it's important for the general public to understand too. I think people have a right to know what happened. People paid for individuals to coordinate a public consultation, but they aren't allowed to know what happened during that public consultation.

I still remember the discussions we had in February, even before I introduced this motion. My colleagues in the government tried to convince me that everything was available online. I went online to check. An Excel spreadsheet—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting.

It's already 5:43. We will have to continue with this until the debate collapses and we can have a vote. If the witnesses would like to leave, you can.

Before you leave, I really want to thank you for appearing before the committee and providing your important input. I'm sorry for not allowing you to have the full time to answer the questions, but thanks for coming.

[Lisa Campbell]

Thank you very much, everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

On behalf of all the members, thank you.

We'll go back to MP Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I was going to say that, yes, there's been a lot of criticism about this rushed public consultation. Even the government has admitted that it was conducted very quickly.

I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight the concerns of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which expressed concern that “federal consultations to update Canada’s strategy on artificial intelligence were rushed” and that—listen to this—they favoured “corporate interests at the expense of other voices”. In a letter to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, the union stated that it wished to warn the minister that “the updated strategy likely won’t address workers’ needs and protect the public interest”. According to the union, not only were there “short timelines”, as the government noted, but the consultation was also “corporate-heavy”. That's what's concerning.

Furthermore, the union pointed out the “lack of taskforce representation”. That's another issue. The government is so skilled at public relations that it said it was also going to create a panel of experts in parallel to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting.

I will ask members to take their seats and allow the witnesses to leave, because we have too much noise within the room. Thank you.

The floor is with MP Blanchette-Joncas.

Go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Now, I was talking about the fact that the organization raised the issue of poor representation within the expert group. Last October, the federal government held a speedy consultation and even set up a task force charged with updating the strategy. I can tell you that we never got any details or explanations about how the task force members were appointed. Once again, this shows that the government was operating in an opaque and secretive manner. It didn't even want to explain to lawmakers how it had done things.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, noted that, “although the government appointed a CUPE representative to the AI Strategy Taskforce, they excluded many other groups and experts including unions, civil society organizations, and researchers on AI and work, AI governance, privacy, and human rights.”

That's why CUPE called for “the consultation to be extended and broadened to ensure a more representative and fair process.” Unfortunately, the government refused. That is pretty important.

In short, in its letter to Minister Solomon, CUPE stated that it wished to draw the minister's attention to its “concern regarding the consultation process for an updated Canadian AI Strategy.” CUPE welcomed “the inclusion of a CUPE staff member on the AI Strategy Taskforce” but noted that it remains “deeply concerned about several elements of the process that appear to compromise its integrity and inclusiveness.”

I'd like to offer my take on this. It's as if everything had already been arranged. The government made sure everyone was caught off guard, except for the people it wanted to see on the task force. Indeed, CUPE noted in its letter that “tight timelines for consultation significantly limits meaningful engagement” and that “many stakeholders, particularly those from under represented or marginalized communities, require more time to review materials, consult with their networks, and formulate thoughtful responses.” According to CUPE, rushing the process “excludes valuable perspectives and undermines the legitimacy of the consultation outcomes.”

Furthermore, CUPE stated in its letter that it was concerned about “the lack of representation on the taskforce.” According to CUPE, the group's composition appeared to “favour commercial or institutional interests, which do not reflect the broader public interest.” To clarify, this is about the general public interest, that is, the interest of the people who paid for this consultation. That makes the fact that taxpayers can't find out who participated in a public consultation conducted by the government hard to fathom. It's troubling.

In short, CUPE said that the makeup of the task force would favour certain people. It suggested that “an array of unions should be involved as workers in different sectors will be affected in disparate ways.” Thus, according to CUPE, “a much wider range of civil society voices should be present, bringing unique knowledge on privacy, data rights, civil liberties, and human rights.” CUPE then stated that “the task force should also include researchers who focus on the impact of AI on work, AI governance, bias and discrimination in AI systems, and data protection and privacy.” This last point is, of course, another very important issue that I'm concerned about.

It added that “consultation processes that fail to include broader representation lack legitimacy and throw into question the authenticity of federal government endeavours on AI.” That's serious. CUPE, which represents public servants, questioned whether the government truly wanted a representative group that served the public interest.

This is important. Some people believe that the government exists to benefit certain individuals. That's what we're digging into today, and that's why we want access to this data. However, as members of Parliament, we're unable to get it because the government is denying us access to the data. Once again, it's hiding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. We are beyond two hours of committee time. The clerk has checked in regard to the resources available. We have the resources available until 7 p.m. That means we have one hour and 10 minutes more.

What is the will of the committee members? Would you like to continue or...?

Actually, MP Blanchette-Joncas has the floor, so the committee cannot really decide what to do until someone brings in a motion.

MP Blanchette-Joncas, go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for reminding my colleagues that it's important to respect the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Sometimes they're not in the habit of doing so.

I felt it was important to read this letter because it shows that parliamentarians aren't the only ones who were concerned about the way the government conducted this public consultation and created separate committees in an attempt to positively influence public opinion. Here again, the government is very skilled at using public communications to manipulate public opinion in its favour. This strategy, which the government says is of critical importance, is yet another example of that.

There were also several questions about commercialization raised during the consultation. According to CUPE, the task force membership “appears to prioritize the interests of AI corporations over the public interest.” Indeed, in its letter to the minister, CUPE noted that, “while economic considerations are important, they should not overshadow social, labour, human rights and community-based concerns.” Therefore, it went on, “a balanced approach is essential to ensure that the updated Canadian AI strategy adequately addresses risks inherent in AI technology.”

In short, CUPE asked the government to extend the consultation period and to ensure a representative consultation process by “increasing representation on AI consultative bodies, including the taskforce and the Advisory Council on Artificial Intelligence”. CUPE also asked the government to “[develop] a more comprehensive set of consultation questions that address the varied risks of AI.”

I'll let you guess how the government responded to these requests: zip, zilch, zero. The government didn't extend the consultation period or reconsider the task force membership. It may well have appointed those members itself.

Furthermore, in its submission for the consultation, CUPE made recommendations concerning five key areas in which artificial intelligence clearly plays a significant role. This is no small matter. CUPE, which represents 800,000 members, made these recommendations public.

For CUPE, “before responding to questions in the federal AI strategy survey, it is worth noting what questions are missing from the survey.” Go figure: The government consulted the public, but there were also questions prepared in advance. That's another thing that orients the strategies, and it suggests that the government had preconceived ideas and wanted the findings to line up. It did everything in its power to make that happen.

Anyway, in its brief, CUPE provided answers to several additional questions that, in its view, should have been integrated into the consultation on the artificial intelligence strategy.

The first recommendation in the brief is: “The Federal Government should introduce comprehensive laws and regulations that provide worker protection, ensure data privacy, enact climate change protections, ensure the sustainability of our energy systems and regulate private corporations.”

The second recommendation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, MP Blanchette-Joncas.

Please keep your remarks related to the motion.

There is a new update. We have resources available until 8 p.m.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I'm talking about AI, so this is on topic.

Here's the second recommendation:

The Federal Government should build a public AI stack which includes cloud infrastructure, data management and AI models and applications. This public physical and digital infrastructure would promote accountability and transparency, advance the public interest and develop Canada's digital sovereignty.

The other thing, which is in the third recommendation, is this:

The Federal Government should operate under an accountability framework that centers consultations with and input from unions, academic researchers, civil society, among others, and ensure all decisions are based on unbiased research and data mined from sectoral tables and CUPE's proposed Innovation Hub and Canadian Observatory on AI.

There's a fourth recommendation:

The Federal Government should invest in foundational digital literacy education for Canadians, in training and re-training public sector workers who are or will interact with AI and in social safety net supports such as Employment Insurance for workers who will be displaced because of AI.

Among the additional questions that CUPE would have liked the government to incorporate into its strategy is one about research needed to understand the impact of AI on work:

In Canada, we do not yet have a complete picture of AI's impact on working conditions, job loss, and skills and training needs of workers. We do know that AI can affect different job classifications in disparate and distinct ways – even when they are in the same workplace. CUPE's own research and consultations with members have found that AI's disparate impacts are best captured through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Internationally, we have varying assessments of how AI will affect jobs. Most economists say the impact is hard to predict because we don't know exactly how AI will develop and how quickly. Statistics Canada has found that 31% of workers are in jobs likely to dramatically change or disappear because of AI and 29% of workers are in jobs where they will likely do their jobs alongside AI systems. Some research has indicated that the impact of AI implementation will be gendered with twice as many women-dominated jobs at risk compared to men-dominated jobs. Research is also showing how increasing AI-amplified monitoring, surveillance and algorithmic management in the workforce is affecting the well-being of workers, the human rights of workers and power dynamics between workers and employers.

The brief includes a footnote here. It's important to mention the research consulted. This information is from a scientific article by Antonio Aloisi and Valerio De Stefano, accessed in 2025, entitled “AI at Work, Algorithmic Bosses, and the Ambivalence of Automation”, which was published in Artificial Intelligence and Labour Law. It's also from an article by Armin Granulo et al. entitled “The Social Cost of Algorithmic Management”, which was published in the illustrious Harvard Business Review. The brief also cites an article by Benta Mbare et al. entitled “Algorithmic Management, Wellbeing and Platform Work: Understanding the Psychosocial Risks and Experiences of Food Couriers in Finland,” as well as an article entitled “Algorithmic Discrimination: Examining Its Types and Regulatory Measures with Emphasis on US Legal Practices”, both published in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence.

As you can see, I'm practising my English. Some Quebec Liberal MPs are in the habit of speaking English often, and although they really inspire me, I am acutely aware that Quebec's only official language is French. Nonetheless, that doesn't stop us from knowing how to speak another language. Indeed, we know that people in Quebec are the most bilingual even though Quebec has only one official language: French.

I would like to continue my presentation about CUPE's submission. I was talking about the tools that, for example—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm hearing from members that many members have commitments, and they have to leave.

I can suspend the meeting at 6:30, and we can come back to it if this is not resolved before that. We can come back to it on Thursday when we're scheduled for a briefing session with the chief statistician of Statistics Canada.

If we continue with this, I can suspend and cancel that meeting and continue with this meeting.