Critics, pollsters warn Canadians are wary of AI, want government to set guardrails

OTTAWA — The federal government is set to launch its new national artificial intelligence strategy soon — but critics say it hasn’t done enough to listen to Canadians and pollsters are warning that a skeptical public wants the government to put rules in place.

“We see more of an inclination to want government to be a regulator of AI, to create the guardrails by which it operates,” said David Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data.

Read more:

• Canada not considering a ban on X over deepfake controversy, AI minister says
• How Canadian agencies are embracing AI tools to defend national security
• Musk’s AI chatbot faces global backlash over sexualized images of women and children

“Because I think there is, if I’m going to describe public opinion on it right now, there’s more concern than there is optimism.”

Artificial Intelligence Minister Evan Solomon has prioritized moving quickly on the updated strategy and launched a consultation process in the fall that the government dubbed a “sprint.”

Solomon appointed an expert group and gave its members 30 days to report back with recommendations. Canadians had the same amount of time to participate in a public consultation.

Critics said that wasn’t enough time and the task force was criticized for being too weighted toward industry representatives and AI proponents. Some of those critics have now launched an online “people’s consultation” on AI.

“This seems like upping the ante on moving fast and breaking things. And so we thought we deserve better, the Canadian public deserves better,” said tech lawyer Cynthia Khoo, one of the professionals who signed an open letter to the government last fall rejecting Ottawa’s approach to public consultation on AI policy.

“If this is the only chance the government is giving us to properly consult, we need to give ourselves an opportunity, and everyone who cares in Canada an opportunity, to actually provide meaningful and thoughtful input on what the future of AI would look like in Canada.”

In that open letter, published in October, lawyers, activists and human rights bodies said the government’s AI strategy consultation process “suggests serious disregard for the Canadian public’s known and wide-ranging concerns about the demonstrated risks and harms of technologies currently classified as AI.”

The letter cited a wide-ranging list of those concerns, which include the environmental impacts of AI, threats to labour rights, impacts on mental health — including AI-triggered psychosis — inaccuracies in the output of generative AI systems, privacy risks and the proliferation of non-consensual intimate deepfakes, among others.

The letter had more than 160 signatories, including academics from universities across the country and groups such as the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The letter announced the launch a “people’s consultation.” That consultation was set to launch Wednesday, with submissions due by March 15.

Its list of suggested questions for the consultation cover such topics as how AI technologies have affected individual lives — but the consultation otherwise allows individuals to comment on whatever they think is important.

The government’s 26-question consultation document includes three questions on safety and public trust in AI technology, while the rest focus on other issues — research and talent, accelerating adoption, commercialization, and scaling up Canada’s AI industry.

Under Prime Minister Mark Carney, the Liberals have shifted the government’s AI policy from a focus on AI harms and regulation to an emphasis on economic benefits and adoption.

But public opinion polling indicates that approach is out of line with how Canadians see AI. In August, a Leger poll found 85 per cent of respondents believe governments should regulate AI tools to ensure their ethical and safe use.

Pollsters say Canadians are more wary than the government of the potential risks of AI.

Alex Kohut, founder of North Poll Strategies, asked about AI in a wide-ranging survey in November. A majority, 60 per cent, said they would prefer the government to be skeptical and do its best to ensure Canadians aren’t harmed or deceived by the technology. Another 40 per cent said they wanted the government to be supportive of AI and to ensure the Canadian economy benefits from it.

With the economy being a high priority for Canadians, “you would think that anything that is tied towards potential economic growth would have a lot of excitement,” Kohut said.

“But it does seem that in this case, there are enough concerns about some of the other aspects of this … that people are seeing and that are very visible right now, that people are leaning a bit more toward being skeptical.”

Kohut also asked respondents what Solomon should prioritize in AI policy. Sixty per cent of respondents said legislation to ensure new AI technology is used ethically and safely should be the top priority, or at least a very high one.

In comparison, thirty-four per cent said finding ways to make government more efficient should be the top or a very high priority. Another 28 per cent cited attracting investment for AI research while 24 per cent said the priority should be removing regulation so the Canadian AI industry can compete with the U.S.

The poll of 1,687 Canadians was conducted online between Nov. 1 and Nov. 7. The polling industry’s professional body, the Canadian Research Insights Council, says online surveys can’t be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.

Kohut also said the government’s public consultation questionnaire was long and included open-ended, required questions — meaning it’s likely some respondents gave up on completing it.

Some may have used AI to fill it out, he said — and with the government using AI to sort through the responses, that could result in “a robot telling a robot what to do for the policy, which is a few levels distinct from actually talking to Canadians.”

“It’s probably something that is going to be responded to by stakeholders, people who are working in the industry and are working on office hours filling out the questionnaire,” he added.

Solomon’s director of communications said public trust is central to the government’s approach and Ottawa recognizes Canadians hold a wide range of views on AI.

“That’s precisely why the engagement process for the updated national AI strategy was designed to be broad and multi-channel,” Peter Wall said in an emailed statement.

In addition to the public questionnaire, “the government sought advice through the independent AI task force, targeted roundtables, informal stakeholder discussions, and ongoing engagement with civil society organizations, researchers, labour representatives, industry, and other partners,” Wall’s statement said.

“This approach was intended to capture both public perspectives and the detailed, technical input required for policy development in a complex and fast-moving area.”

Coletto said Canadians are “living in two realities at the same time” in relation to AI.

“There’s some real optimism about what AI can do, but also some anxiety about how it will be used and who benefits,” he said.

People see the potential benefits of the technology, such as increased efficiency, Coletto said, but “the risks, I think, still outweigh in their minds the positives, and so their natural inclination then is to want to see government not being solely a cheerleader for AI.”

There is some disconnect between the government’s approach and the opinions of Canadians, Coletto said.

“The Carney government has certainly been very bullish on AI, has made it a central part of its economic agenda,” he noted.

Anxiety about the effects AI could have on jobs also creates a political opportunity, he added.

“I’ve argued that this may be a place for the NDP, who has been the party of labour … to be sort of a bulwark, not to stop AI’s adoption, but to protect people’s ability to earn a living,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 21, 2026.

Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian Press