Good morning, Chair and committee members.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. My name is Daniel Perry. I'm the director of federal affairs at the Council of Canadian Innovators. I'm joined today by my colleague, Skaidra Puodžiūnas, our senior director of policy and advocacy.
The Council of Canadian Innovators is Canada's 21st-century business council. We represent over 180 Canadian-headquartered, high-growth technology companies operating across a number of sectors, including artificial intelligence, big data, defence and digital infrastructure.
Today's committee study comes at an important moment, when building Canadian has never mattered more. The global economy is no longer neutral or rules-based. Leading economies are using industry strategies to secure control over critical infrastructure, value chains and standards. AI sits at the centre of this as a foundational layer not just for economic growth but also for national security.
The government's new AI strategy assumes that adoption follows trust. This is false. According to Statistics Canada, business use of artificial intelligence has tripled since 2024, where during the same time period, trust in AI has stagnated or declined. Canada's challenges are systemic and structural. Canadian firms have been slow to adopt new technology for decades. Trust was never the reason for this.
As the government can make the biggest difference, what is needed is to create conditions that allow companies to succeed while also protecting Canada's most vulnerable people. That is why this committee's focus on regulations is important. Where new rules are introduced, they are needed where they are necessary. They should look to address clear gaps in the current system and examine the current protections. This can be done using standards and setting them here in Canada, as well as by supporting Canadian companies through procurement.
Our recent submission to the AI transparency task force sets out five principles to guide this work.
First, assign responsibility based on who controls what. Developers should explain the systems they have built, while deployers should explain how AI is being used, what data it is handling and when humans are involved. Obligations should also scale with risk. An AI tool that makes payments on behalf of someone requires greater scrutiny than one that is being used to draft internal documents. I look to our membership for this. BorderPass is a great example. This year alone, its AI platform has processed over 12,000 immigration applications. A licensed lawyer oversees the application process, while AI is used for the volume. This ensures that accountability and scale work hand in hand.
Second, the government should help Canadians recognize when AI is being used to deceive them. Firms should disclose their use of AI, and labelling should be focused on content and interactions where a person could be misled or not aware that they're not talking with a human.
Third, requirements should be targeted and able to keep up with the pace of the progression of AI. Using recognized standards such as C2PA for content credentials will serve Canadians better than new binding legislation. These standards are able to keep up with the industry in a way legislation alone cannot. Last week's cabinet directive recognizing national standards and international standards as the default for regulators is a welcome step forward.
Fourth, the government should build on the institutions we currently have. Create new rules that will fill genuine gaps in the system rather than creating duplicate work or adding more to a growing bureaucracy. New AI should genuinely fill this and we have opportunities to do so.
Finally, procurement is one of the most underused tools that this government has at its disposal. Across all levels of government, public purchasing makes up roughly 15% of our GDP. When the government buys Canadian, it validates the technology here and abroad, helps firms scale domestically and also allows Canadian companies to respond to the needs of Canadians.
When Canadian firms own their intellectual property, own their data and their leadership team is based here, they remain accountable not just to their neighbours who are Canadians but also to Canadian law. If Canada is not leading, it will fall behind. AI decisions will be made by other countries and foreign companies that are not keeping the needs of women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ communities in mind.
Building Canadian means building companies that are owned here and the technology remains here. This is how we ensure AI is safe for all and effective for everyone.
With that, I'd like to thank you. I look forward to your questions.