INDU meeting 29 · 2026-03-23 — Committee Evidence — LegisWatch

Summary

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology (INDU) studied the regulation and governance of artificial intelligence (AI) in Canada, hearing from six witnesses: Michael Geist, Colin Bennett, Yoshua Bengio, Ali Dehghantanha, Carys Craig, and Wendy Cukier, all appearing as individuals.

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, cautioned against rushing AI regulation, arguing that reviving Bill C-27 would repeat mistakes and undermine competitiveness. He recommended prioritizing a modernized privacy law, an AI transparency act requiring public policies and disclosure of training data, and a clearer strategy that avoids panic-driven policies, noting that government consultations have not fully reflected stakeholder responses.

Colin Bennett, Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, stressed the need for an overarching statutory framework for AI, supported by credible oversight and widespread consultation, including citizens' assemblies. He argued that regulatory certainty reduces legal risks and that a new privacy law should treat privacy as a fundamental human right, giving the Privacy Commissioner full enforcement tools without a data protection tribunal, and imposing stronger rules for personal data transferred abroad.

Yoshua Bengio, Full Professor at the Université de Montréal, warned that frontier AI companies are locked in a race that cuts corners on safety, with risks including deepfakes, cyber-attacks, and potential catastrophic outcomes. He recommended national laws and international treaties with like-minded middle powers, focusing on transparency and risk management, and argued that safety and innovation can go hand in hand, citing his work at LawZero on designing trustworthy AI.

Ali Dehghantanha, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity and Threat Intelligence at the University of Guelph, identified a critical trust gap limiting AI adoption, as current governance focuses on pre-deployment checks but lacks run-time monitoring and control. He recommended standards for continuous risk monitoring, incentives for secure AI deployment, and investment in a control layer between AI applications and foundational models to detect and contain misuse in real time.

Carys Craig, Associate Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School, urged the committee to distinguish copyright law from AI regulation, arguing that expanding copyright to address AI risks would distort principles and concentrate power in big tech. She recommended confirming a text and data-mining exception for informational analysis, rather than requiring licences for training, and maintaining that AI-generated outputs should not receive copyright protection.

Wendy Cukier, Professor at the Ted Rogers School of Management, emphasized that Canada is a laggard in AI adoption, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises, which provide 90% of private sector employment. She called for sectoral strategies, government as a model user, and a focus on skills beyond STEM, including business and ethics, while doubling down on efforts to prevent AI from reinforcing bias and the digital divide.

The committee heard questions from members, with exchanges focusing on timelines for superintelligent AI, the need for faster action, the role of citizens' assemblies, and the importance of disclosure and human oversight. No procedural debate, motions, or votes occurred during this meeting.

AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.

Witnesses · 6

Michael Geist

Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual

Opening remarks

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. As you heard, my name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I appear in a personal capacity, representing only my own views. I think we all recognize that we are in a moment when there is mounting pressure to do something quickly on AI regulation. That pressure is understandable, but is, I fear, somewhat risky. I would submit that we can't simply fall back on doing something. The goal must be well-considered legal and regulatory frameworks that balance facilitating innovation with safeguards against potential risks and harms. I have concerns that some of our initial efforts to find that balance have led to a haphazard amalgam of proposals that risk doing more harm than good. Let me provide you with four quick examples of where I have some concerns, and then I'll shift to three recommendations. First, Bill C-27, the former privacy and AI bill—I appeared before this committee on that bill—always felt like a rushed response to the pressure to do something on AI. It largely mirrored the EU approach, which has failed to find broad support.…

Full testimony ↗

Colin Bennett

Professor Emeritus, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Opening remarks

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm delighted to be here. I am a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Victoria and a fellow of the Centre for Global Studies, and I've researched and written about national and international privacy protection policy for over 40 years. I'm also an adviser to a number of civil liberties and digital rights associations, including the Centre for Digital Rights. While I can see that there's some remarkable potential for AI—it is mind-blowing—a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary. The initial enthusiasm has now given rise, as we know, to recognition of the enormous risks to our economy, our environment, our social fabric and our civil liberties. I hope, therefore, that the committee can remain very skeptical about the business narrative that prescriptive regulation of artificial intelligence will burden companies, suppress investment and surrender capacity ground to other countries. Regulatory certainty can reduce legal and reputational risks for companies building at scale, and safety and privacy by design requirements can drive better engineering. The real liability, in my view, is building AI systems and products that…

Wendy Cukier

Professor, Entrepreneurship and Strategy, Ted Rogers School of Management, and Academic Director, Diversity Institute, As an Individual

Opening remarks

Thanks so much. It's really a privilege to be here among such learned and smart people. I will try to supplement what has already been said. I'm a professor of entrepreneurship and innovation at Toronto Metropolitan University. I was also the vice-president of research and innovation, so I'm very invested in and committed to issues around the commercialization of technology in Canada. At the same time, I'm part of a number of big studies that are focused on responsible use, and I think we've heard a lot about the risks associated with artificial intelligence that have to be taken seriously. I previously submitted a brief to the AI task force, and I'm happy to provide it to this committee. It reinforced a lot of the points that have already been made about infrastructure development, about sovereignty and the limits of sovereignty, about the urgent need for a regulatory framework for increased risk and to create some measure of certainty, and about the importance of balancing risks and rewards. What I want to focus on today, though, because I didn't hear anybody talking about them, are the issues around adoption, government as a model user, bias in AI, and skills. I'll try to…

Full testimony ↗

Industry and Technology

Summary

Witnesses · 6

Bills mentioned