1:19 p.m.
Hello advisors. When the invitation to sign an open letter to the
Minister of AI (Nov. 2025?), we chose not to sign this letter as some of
the wording was considered problematic, specifically it seemed to
preclude possible benefits that AI might have to offer. However, the
same group has now developed an extensive consultation tool seeking
input on the issue of AI implementation to which we could offer our
collective wisdom. The e-mail currently being circulated is reproduced
below with lots of links to various parts of this project. However, just
to simplify, here is a link to the guide and submisison templete which
gives you an idea of what this entails.
Basic Consultation Guide with Submission Template
<https://www.peoplesaiconsultation.ca/basic-consultation-guide-with-submis...
I think we could offer some useful input. *Let me know if you are
interested in participating. *Deadline for submissions is Mar. 15. As I
am probably going to be away from Mar. 3-11, I would need to get this
ball rolling very soon.
Marita
see forwarded e-mail below
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Cynthia Khoo <cynthia(a)citizenlab.ca>
*Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2026 8:00 AM
*Subject:* Re: People’s Consultation on AI Launches Today!
Hello all,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 1:04 PM Cynthia Khoo <cynthia(a)citizenlab.ca
<mailto:cynthia@citizenlab.ca>> wrote:
Dear signatories of the Open Letter
<https://bccla.org/policy-submission/open-letter-to-the-minister-of-artifi...
the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation
opposing the “National Sprint” consultation on AI strategy:
*/The People's Consultation on AI officially launches today! /*
Submissions will be accepted until _March 15, 2026_. Please share
with your networks and encourage those in your communities to
participate and submit comments! We would highlight in particular
the Basic Consultation Guide with Submission Template
<https://www.peoplesaiconsultation.ca/basic-consultation-guide-with-submis...;,
and more interactive Local Facilitation Guide
<https://www.peoplesaiconsultation.ca/local-facilitation-guide/>;, as
participation options for those who are /not /already well-versed in
AI issues or necessarily work on them, but who are impacted and have
thoughts on the matter, as well as to generate more local
discussion, build community capacity, and broaden public
conversation and awareness.
*Website (EN):* https://www.peoplesaiconsultation.ca/
<https://www.peoplesaiconsultation.ca/>
*Website (FR): *https://www.consultationpopulairesurlia.ca/
<https://www.consultationpopulairesurlia.ca/>
*Press Release:* CCLA
<https://ccla.org/press-release/civil-society-innitiative-announces-public...
| BCCLA
<https://bccla.org/2026/01/civil-society-launches-peoples-consultation-on-...
| PCAI Website <https://www.peoplesaiconsultation.ca/news-updates/>
*Media Coverage:* "Critics, pollsters warn Canadians are wary of AI,
want government to set guardrails" (Canadian Press):
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2026/01/21/critics-pollsters-warn-canadians...
<https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2026/01/21/critics-pollsters-warn-canadians...
Many people were involved in making this initiative a reality,
through a tremendous collective effort. We're also grateful to all
of you who have supported along the way, whether through signing or
sharing the letter, expressions of interest and offers to help, or
spreading the word to your networks.
To post more widely, feel free to adapt from or expand on the
suggested templates below:
AI technologies are becoming embedded into every aspect of how
we live our lives. But how is it being regulated? The government
is only listening to industry voices. Have your say: [LINK]
Canadians deserve to have a say over if, how, and to what extent
AI is part of our future. That's why [I'm/we're] participating
in the People's Consultation on AI, and [I/we] strongly
encourage you and those in your community to as well.
Submissions are due March 15: [LINK]
The federal government refused to give the public and
independent experts time to participate in their rushed and
industry-biased "national sprint" on AI. That's why civil
society set up the People's Consultation on AI, in protest and
as a meaningful alternative. Participate before March 15: [LINK]
Best,
Cynthia (and on behalf of the PCAI ad hoc working group)
p.s. If you would like not to receive any further emails on the
PCAI, let us know and we will remove you from future emails. *If you
had indicated on signing the letter that you are _not_ participating
in the PCAI, we will leave you off any future emails automatically,
unless you request otherwise. *
--
*Cynthia Khoo*
*Senior Fellow | Citizen Lab*
cynthia(a)citizenlab.ca <mailto:cynthia@citizenlab.ca> | @cyn-k
<https://bsky.app/profile/cyn-k.bsky.social>
citizenlab.ca <http://citizenlab.ca/>
Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy
University of Toronto
315 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON M5S 0A7
2:35 p.m.
Hi Marita,
Thanks for sending this.
Given the tone of the original letter, I'd be extremely hesitant to
participate further with this org unless there's some confidence that "the
People's Consultation" is really approaching the issue with an open
perspective. I've seen previous examples of this tactic in which *any*
submission to their effort just adds submittors to the list of signatories,
asserting endorsement of whatever their next attempt produces; indeed it
may be no different from the original version that some TC members found
problematic.
Frankly, one could use their template to simply craft a TC response
directly to ISED, and bypass the gatekeeper altogether. I don't have the
cycles to do this single-handedly but would be fine participating in a
group effort should the interest exist. Personally I would love to see an
approach that advocates for the leveraging of Canada's own considerable
expertise in AI with the need for digital sovereignty, attention to
accuracy, lower barriers to access, and the use of open source models to
maximize transparency. OTOH, I won't be part of anything that wraps
technical issues in culture-war tropes.
(In particular, the open letter's demand for excessive guardrails is at
best misguided and at worst laughable. I'm working with local versions of
AI models on my own computer as we speak, and it's clear to me that as fast
as guardrails can be applied to AI models there are others able to disable
them. For a quick example, it's easy to download versions of Chinese models
such as DeepSeek which undo all the embedded CCP censorship and give frank
answers to embarrassing questions.)
- Evan
On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 1:20 PM Marita Moll <mmoll(a)ca.inter.net> wrote:
Hello advisors. When the invitation to sign an open letter to the
Minister
of AI (Nov. 2025?), we chose not to sign this letter as some of the wording
was considered problematic, specifically it seemed to preclude possible
benefits that AI might have to offer. However, the same group has now
developed an extensive consultation tool seeking input on the issue of AI
implementation to which we could offer our collective wisdom. The e-mail
currently being circulated is reproduced below with lots of links to
various parts of this project. However, just to simplify, here is a link to
the guide and submisison templete which gives you an idea of what this
entails.
Basic Consultation Guide with Submission Template
<https://www.peoplesaiconsultation.ca/basic-consultation-guide-with-submis...
I think we could offer some useful input. *Let me know if you are
interested in participating. *Deadline for submissions is Mar. 15. As I
am probably going to be away from Mar. 3-11, I would need to get this ball
rolling very soon.
Marita
see forwarded e-mail below
12:39 p.m.
New subject: [Advisors] Re: Consultation on AI we could contribute to -- Deadline Mar. 15
Hello advisors. Sorry for dropping this for a couple of weeks. I just
looked at it again and still think it would a worthwhile exercise. There
is a good set of questions to consider. We already have a couple of
responses on record for some of the questions they are asking -- from
Garth and from Evan. I don't think there is any harm in crafting a
response which we could send into the process if we can get a few people
on a zoom call. Whether such a response moves any dials in the process
that is underway doesn't matter that much to me. All the responses will
be visible on their website, so our comments would remain intact in that
way. We can also put the responses on our website. And Evan's suggestion
of sending something directly to ISED could also happen.
Let's try to find a time to have a one hour call and see what we can
come up with.
Marita
On 2026-02-02 2:35 p.m., Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Marita,
Thanks for sending this.
Given the tone of the original letter, I'd be extremely hesitant to
participate further with this org unless there's some confidence that
"the People's Consultation" is really approaching the issue with an
open perspective. I've seen previous examples of this tactic in which
*any* submission to their effort just adds submittors to the list of
signatories, asserting endorsement of whatever their next attempt
produces; indeed it may be no different from the original version that
some TC members found problematic.
Frankly, one could use their template to simply craft a TC response
directly to ISED, and bypass the gatekeeper altogether. I don't have
the cycles to do this single-handedly but would be fine participating
in a group effort should the interest exist. Personally I would love
to see an approach that advocates for the leveraging of Canada's own
considerable expertise in AI with the need for digital sovereignty,
attention to accuracy, lower barriers to access, and the use of open
source models to maximize transparency. OTOH, I won't be part of
anything that wraps technical issues in culture-war tropes.
(In particular, the open letter's demand for excessive guardrails is
at best misguided and at worst laughable. I'm working with local
versions of AI models on my own computer as we speak, and it's clear
to me that as fast as guardrails can be applied to AI models there are
others able to disable them. For a quick example, it's easy to
download versions of Chinese models such as DeepSeek which undo all
the embedded CCP censorship and give frank answers to embarrassing
questions.)
- Evan
On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 1:20 PM Marita Moll <mmoll(a)ca.inter.net
<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
Hello advisors. When the invitation to sign an open letter to the
Minister of AI (Nov. 2025?), we chose not to sign this letter as
some of the wording was considered problematic, specifically it
seemed to preclude possible benefits that AI might have to offer.
However, the same group has now developed an extensive
consultation tool seeking input on the issue of AI implementation
to which we could offer our collective wisdom. The e-mail
currently being circulated is reproduced below with lots of links
to various parts of this project. However, just to simplify, here
is a link to the guide and submisison templete which gives you an
idea of what this entails.
Basic Consultation Guide with Submission Template
<https://www.peoplesaiconsultation.ca/basic-consultation-guide-with-submis...
I think we could offer some useful input. *Let me know if you are
interested in participating. *Deadline for submissions is Mar. 15.
As I am probably going to be away from Mar. 3-11, I would need to
get this ball rolling very soon.
Marita
see forwarded e-mail below
_______________________________________________
Advisors mailing list -- advisors(a)tc.ca
To unsubscribe send an email to advisors-leave(a)tc.ca
29
days inactive
37
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Marita Moll