CCI Appearance Before the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women (FEWO)

Daniel Perry, Director of Federal Affairs at the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI), appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women (FEWO) on October 27, alongside Skaidra Puodžiūnas, Senior Director of Policy and Advocacy.

The appearance addressed artificial intelligence governance, accountability and the role of Canadian technology companies in ensuring that these technologies serve women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ communities.

Below are the opening remarks delivered by Mr. Perry:

Thank you, Chair.
And Good morning, committee members.

My name is Daniel Perry. I'm the Director of Federal Affairs at the Council of Canadian
Innovators. I am joined by my colleague, Skaidra Puodziunas, our Senior Director of Policy
and Advocacy.

The Council of Canadian Innovators is Canada's business council for the 21st-century
economy. We represent more than 180 Canadian-headquartered, high-growth technology
companies operating across a number of sectors, including artificial intelligence, digital
infrastructure, big data and defence.

This committee's study comes at a moment when building Canadian has never mattered
more. The global economy is no longer neutral or rules-based. Leading economies are
using industrial strategy to secure control over critical technologies, value chains and
standards. AI sits at the centre of that shift as a foundational layer of economic growth and
national security.

The government's AI strategy assumes that adoption follows trust. But according to
Statistics Canada, business use of AI has tripled since 2024, while measured public trust in
AI has stayed flat or declined. Canada's challenge is structural. Canadian firms have been
slow to adopt new technology for decades, and trust was never the reason. Canada's
adoption and governance challenge has always been about the barriers growing
companies face in reaching scale. The most important thing government can do is help
those companies scale here and while growing globally.

Canada already has important protections in place, from privacy law to cyber incident
reporting. Where new rules are needed, they should be built on a clear understanding of
the gaps those protections leave, and be proportional to the risk. Our recent submission on
AI transparency sets out three principles to guide that work.

First, assign responsibility based on who controls what. Developers should explain the
system they build. Deployers should explain how it is used, on what data and with what
human review. Obligations should scale with risk. An AI tool that makes payments on
someone's behalf warrants greater oversight than one used to draft internal documents.

Our member BorderPass is a good example. It pairs AI with licensed lawyers who oversee
the work, and files roughly 12,000 immigration applications a year with a small in-house
legal team. That is accountability and scale working together.

Second, help Canadians recognize when AI is being used to deceive them. Labelling should
focus on content and interactions that could materially mislead people about what is
authentic or whether they are dealing with a real person.

Third, keep requirements targeted. Firms should disclose their own AI use. Recognizing
global standards like C2PA content credentials may serve Canadians better than new
binding rules, and can keep pace in ways legislation alone cannot. Investing in this
verification layer, the tools that test for harmful bias and confirm what is real, is among the
most meaningful contributions Canada can make to the global AI ecosystem.

Fourth, build on the institutions we already have. New AI rules should fill genuine gaps
rather than duplicate what already works. On Bill C-36, we welcome its right to deletion,
including for deepfakes, but are concerned that combining privacy enforcement and online
harms in one commission could create conflicting priorities.

Finally, procurement is an underused lever. Public procurement makes up 14% of our GDP.
When government buys Canadian, it validates our technology abroad and helps firms scale
here.

When Canadian firms own their intellectual property and data, they remain accountable to
Canadian law. If Canada is not leading, we will live with AI decisions made by countries
that are, and those decisions will not be made with Canadian women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+
communities in mind.

Building Canadian means building companies that own their technology and answer to
Canadians. That is how we ensure AI is safe and effective for all Canadians.

With that, thank you. Skaidra and I look forward to your questions.

--

Interested in the latest ideas and policies shaping Canada’s most ambitious companies? Subscribe to the CCI newswire for the analysis, advocacy, and policy research strengthening Canada’s innovation economy.