What would be the role of Parliament and its accountability requirements if AI can operate outside human control? How could backbench MPs possibly hold ministers to account if AI can undermine human influence in striking decisions? How will Parliament and government establish the difference between AI’s benefits and the problematic loss of human influence in shaping policies and delivering programs?
AI is nothing without data. The defence procurement mandate must answer the real sovereignty question of whether the systems powering this country’s most critical national capabilities will remain governed by Canadian interests, protected under Canadian standards and be resilient when pressure comes.
Will we simply hope that our raw materials will sustain our prosperity? Or do we need to become aggressively proactive in building a new knowledge-based economy? The latter will take much greater effort than has been deployed so far.
Carney’s Liberals have left a lot to be defined through the undemocratic regulatory process. The plan is to be vague when shoving it down our throats via Parliament.
Boosting skilled trades is critical to many of the Carney government’s plans to reinvent our economy. Carney has said that, by 2033, Canada will need more than 1.4 million new trades workers ‘to build homes, expand transit and develop energy infrastructure across the country.’
Governance capacity and workforce preparedness, not compute spending, will determine whether Canada captures AI’s economic promise.
Industry, universities and all levels of government should continue to explore and support collaborative AI technologies that put people first.
Combining these tools with a growing research and talent base that can support AI model development that reflects Canadian social values would allow for an approach that AI adoption that was unique.
Canada’s approach to privacy and AI should be deliberate rather than reactionary. What is needed is thoughtful evolution.
If you are wondering whether a degree in software engineering is still worth pursuing, the answer is yes—not because the field is unchanged, but because it is changing profoundly.
The government’s plan to build sovereign AI infrastructure continues to funnel money into foreign-controlled models. Open-source AI remains the missing pillar.
Agriculture is one of Canada’s most innovative sectors. Our national AI policy should reflect that.
In a preview of what’s to come, the Liberal government unveiled six ‘pillars’ of its forthcoming AI strategy in the April 28 spring economic update.
If Canada wants to lead in AI, on our own terms, with our own data, and for our own people, we should be leaning into where it already works: in the fields, barns, and processing plants that feed the country.
With continued public-private collaboration and a commitment to evolving its AI strategy, Canada can deliver meaningful results. The question is no longer whether governments should adopt AI, but whether they can do so quickly, responsibly, and at scale for Canadians.
Personal data should not be weaponized to squeeze more money out of people who are already stretched thin.
Despite the defeat of their motion to ban surveillance pricing, the NDP has kicked over a dormant hornet’s nest of affordability issues.
Historically, Canada is ‘too risk-averse, and we’re too slow at contracting,’ says Alex Salt of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
Made‑in‑Canada AI models, trained on our diverse, population‑level data, can speed treatment, protect privacy, and deliver better outcomes for patients nationwide.
Sovereign AI requires more than infrastructure. It depends on data and talent to translate capacity into real-world impact.
Young politicos shifting into consulting could see fewer opportunities to build credibility because of AI, says Christian von Donat, a vice-president at Impact Public Affairs.
With a new national AI strategy forthcoming, the question is whether this government will use that opportunity to ask what role we want AI to play in mental health care—or whether it will settle for summoning tech executives to Ottawa and expressing disappointment.
The AI tools are designed to be used defensively to uphold secrecy positions, and to possibly contain the federal information commissioner’s efforts at ordering more timely releases.
Members of the Senate Social Affairs and Human Rights committees say they aren’t waiting on government bills before pursuing accountability, enforcement powers, and clearer safety standards for the rapidly evolving technology.
