A counterpoint to “The Canadian government is hallucinating over its AI strategy.”,
published by The Hill Times
Recently, four academics argued in The Hill Times that the federal government’s 30-day AI Strategy Task Force is a “hallucination” driven by unwarranted urgency. Their concerns about ethics and potential harms are 100% valid. However, they overlook the fundamental economic and security reality confronting Canada.
The government is not hallucinating. It is responding to clear signals that Canada risks permanent technological and economic irrelevance if we continue treating AI policy like an academic exercise. Perfect, slow-motion consultation is a luxury the country simply cannot afford.
Critics argue that a 30-day sprint limits democratic debate. But time has become sovereign in the AI race. AI is not a highway bill; it is a deeply technical, rapidly evolving domain. Expecting the general public to meaningfully contribute to foundational regulatory design under tight timelines is unrealistic. In early-stage architecture, relying on experts is not technocratic elitism; it’s the only way to build something that actually works.
Meanwhile, global powers are not waiting. The U.S., China, and even mid-sized economies like the U.K. and South Korea are moving aggressively to secure AI leadership. Every month Canada stalls is a month of capital flight, lost jobs, and deeper dependency on foreign technology.
Data sovereignty makes this urgency not just an economic necessity, but an ethical one. Without sovereign cloud, sovereign compute, and sovereign model infrastructure, our most sensitive national, commercial, and personal data will remain on foreign-controlled systems. That is a national security liability orders of magnitude greater than any short-term consultation concern.
The harms of AI bias, misinformation, and job disruption do not argue for slowing down. They demand accelerating regulatory capacity so Canada can shape AI outcomes instead of reacting to them. A sprint does not finalize everything; it establishes the foundational framework that broader public consultation can refine and expand.
This is not a choice between ethics and economics. It is a choice between establishing baseline sovereignty now and refining the details later or delaying until Canada becomes a permanent consumer, not a creator, of critical technologies.
The government’s AI strategy is not reckless. It is a necessary first move to maintain control over Canada’s digital destiny. Instead of criticizing the speed of the sprinter, let’s focus on helping guide them toward the finish line.