The committee’s work this session has moved across three broad files: financial fraud and scams, artificial intelligence and data sovereignty, and, most recently, spectrum policy and rural cellular coverage under Bill C-268. A recurring thread across all three is frustration with fragmented jurisdiction and siloed information sharing. Fraud witnesses from banks, telecoms, payments, platforms, securities regulators and seniors’ advocates repeatedly called for cross-sector data sharing, a central coordinating body, and clearer obligations for each part of the ecosystem, with Australia’s sector-specific framework held up as a model. On AI, witnesses from industry, law, cultural organizations and civil society pressed for sovereign infrastructure, modernized privacy law, transparency around training data, and protection of creators’ works, while disagreeing over whether Canada needs a broad new AI statute or targeted, use-based rules. The spectrum meetings returned to similar themes of coordination and accountability, with CRTC and ISED officials describing data collection, funding programs and deployment requirements, and rural witnesses describing gaps that persist despite those efforts.

The constituencies heard from have been varied but consistent in their concerns. Rural and northern communities feature prominently: a Quebec mayor described 911 failures, first responders unable to communicate, and electronic monitoring bracelets rendered useless without signal, while the CRTC cited dead zones in Pincher Creek, Chelsea and Whitehorse, and members raised Beauce and other underserved areas. Financial sector witnesses included the Canadian Bankers Association, Desjardins, Interac, Payments Canada, Wealthsimple and the BC Securities Commission; telecom and platform voices included the Canadian Telecommunications Association, Telus, the CRTC, Google Canada and Meta; and fraud prevention was also addressed by the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, Plurilock and Australian counterparts from the banking and financial crimes exchanges. On AI, the committee heard from large technology firms such as Oracle and Google, domestic innovators like Photonic, Hypertec, Mission Control and UrbanLogiq, cultural and creator groups including SOCAN, Copibec and the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, and policy voices from the Munk School, INQ Law, ControlAI and the Council of Canadian Innovators. Government witnesses included Minister Joly and departmental officials on estimates, Minister Solomon on the AI strategy, and ISED and CRTC officials on spectrum.

Witnesses agreed on several points and diverged on others. There was broad agreement that fraud is an ecosystem problem requiring shared responsibility rather than a bank-only or platform-only liability model, and that speed of information sharing matters for recovering funds. Most fraud witnesses supported stronger platform verification of financial advertisers, safe harbour protections for good-faith intelligence sharing, and more resources for law enforcement, though Meta disputed characterizations of its revenue from scam ads and resisted liability-shifting proposals, and Google Canada argued against reimbursing victims. On AI, witnesses broadly agreed on the need for sovereign infrastructure, transparency and protection of Canadian intellectual property, but split over whether new AI-specific legislation would chill innovation or is necessary, and over whether a text and data mining exception should be rejected outright. On spectrum, officials and the CRTC largely agreed the bill reinforces existing work and that a two-year review cycle would be manageable, while members disagreed over whether that cycle is too onerous for departments and companies; witnesses also distinguished network access from reliability, and noted that the hardest-to-reach coverage remains the most difficult and costly.

What has changed over time is the committee’s focus rather than the underlying tensions. Earlier meetings centred on fraud and AI, with witnesses offering recommendations and members pressing on accountability, and the committee adopted motions on forced labour in supply chains and on a study of mid-sized business growth and retention. The AI meetings evolved from broad strategy discussions toward specific concerns about procurement, data integration, quantum and physical AI, and environmental impacts, culminating in the minister’s information session on the “AI for all” strategy and the two accompanying bills. The most recent meetings shifted to Bill C-268, where the committee moved from hearing evidence to clause-by-clause consideration, adopting an amendment to shorten the review cycle from five years to two over objections that it would be too burdensome. Across the session, the through-line has been a persistent gap between stated national objectives—near-universal coverage, fraud reduction, AI leadership—and the lived experience of rural residents, fraud victims and creators, with witnesses repeatedly asked who is responsible and what consequences follow when gaps persist.