27 octobre 2026

Report continued from volume A.

1800

Private Members’ Public Business

Artificial intelligence / Intelligence artificielle

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should advance measures that promote consumer transparency when artificial intelligence is used in the creation, alteration, or delivery of product representations or advertisements, including AI-generated images, audio, or video.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for the presentation.

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: Let me begin with a simple idea: A magician pulls a rabbit from a hat, and we applaud. Nobody calls the police because we know it’s just a show.

Now put the same magician in a marketplace selling the same trick as a miracle cure. Same hand, same rabbit—and suddenly, it’s a problem. The only thing that changed is whether the audience knew.

Artificial intelligence is the greatest solution that technology ever built. It’s often brilliant, but we need to make sure Ontarians know when they’re watching the show. For generations, that principle of transparency has been at the heart of consumer protection in this province. When you are shown something in order to sell you something, you deserve to know what you are looking at.

Our Consumer Protection Act already prohibits false, misleading or deceptive representations in any medium, but that law was written for a world of print ads, billboards and television spots. The world has moved on.

Artificial intelligence can now create and alter images, voices and video so convincingly that the human eye and ear can no longer tell the difference. A kitchen in a real estate listing can be digitally staged or renovated or, for better or worse, entirely invented. A product photo can show the result the product never delivers. A voice on the phone can sound warm, local and human and be none of those things. A glowing testimonial can come from a customer who doesn’t even exist. This is not a future problem; Ontarians are encountering this today in advertising, in listings and in promotional content that shapes their trust and their purchasing decisions.

Speaker, I want to be clear about what this motion is and is not. It’s not on an attack on artificial intelligence. It’s not a judgment on innovation. Many Ontarians are using these tools in creative and legitimate ways, and I want them to keep doing so. This is also not just about scammers and bad actors, although they exist. It is about something more basic: making sure consumers know when AI has been used in the commercial content put in front of them.

A recent OpenMedia survey on AI in Canada had 89% list AI-generated misinformation, deepfakes and fake content as their top concern; criminal uses of scams, fraud, cyber attacks, stalking were listed at 76%. The public is already telling us what’s weighing on their minds.

At the same time, industry adoption is accelerating. AI is no longer a trend. This technology is moving into the mainstream quick. It is fast becoming the core of how marketing gets done.

This month, Interactive Advertising Bureau released a report in Canada, where it said that over 50% of marketers used generative AI for creative and targeting in 2025.

Another research, again, from the Interactive Advertising Bureau, found that more than 70% of marketers had experienced an AI-related incident in their advertising, like fabricated outputs, bias or off-brand content. As a result, 40% had to pause or pull the ads. Now, to be fair, that particular survey covered 125 American industry executives, so it is a snapshot into the industry’s mindset rather than a census.

But here is the part I want colleagues on all sides of the House to hear: More than 60% of those marketers surveyed support labelling AI-generated ads; only 15% oppose it. So the direction is unmistakeable. People who make these ads understand that transparency protects trust and that trust is what the whole enterprise depends on.

Speaker, it is clear that concerns about AI are not only societal concerns; they are also direct business risks. Because when audiences lose trust, engagement drops and returns decline. The United Nations reached a similar conclusion this past April. In a brief on advertising, artificial intelligence and the global information crisis, the UN warned that with more than $1 trillion spent on advertising worldwide each year, unchecked AI adoption is accelerating risks across the entire information ecosystem.

There is little doubt that all sides are looking for a trust safeguard. This is where this House and we as policy makers step in. Speaker, I have long believed that policy defines reality. This motion is a call on the government to meet the moment with meaningful regulation that the people need.

We in Ontario are not starting from scratch. We already have a strong foundation. Our trustworthy AI framework includes a principle I find hard to improve on: no AI in secret. Bill 194, the Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, puts transparency and accountability around AI use in the public sector into law. Our responsible AI directive requires ministries and agencies to manage risk and maintain oversight. And, as of January 1 this year, Ontario became a leader on a practical, targeted step: Employers with 25 or more employees must now disclose in publicly advertised job postings when AI is used to screen, assess or select applicants. It was a modest, sensible measure. It did not stop anyone from using AI; it simply told people the truth. This is the model I’m pointing to: targeted, proportionate, fair to everyone and applying the same principles to the marketplace.

Let me be precise, because precision matters here: The focus of this motion is businesses operating in Ontario, individuals and professionals engaged in commercial activity in Ontario and commercial representations directed at Ontario consumers. Think of product photos in listings; promotional audio and video; AI voices in sales outreach; images and video in real estate and commercial listings; AI-generated testimonials and endorsements. Let me address the concern I expect to hear: Will this burden small businesses? I would argue the opposite. Clear expectations reduce compliance uncertainty. A small realtor or retailer who is unsure whether an untouched image crosses a line is better served by a clear rule than by guessing and risking a dispute. Clarity protects honest businesses from being undercut by the dishonest ones. This motion strengthens existing protections without creating new burdens for those already doing the right thing.

1810

Speaker, I want to step back for a moment because I think this debate touches something larger than advertising. Pope Leo XIV, in his recent encyclical, spoke about artificial intelligence and offered a reflection I found useful, regardless of one’s faith. He observes that “disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful amplifier in AI.” He argues that “truth is a common good and not the property of those with power or influence.”

On the practical question of governance, he is just as direct. When algorithms shape the decisions that affect people’s lives, he writes, they must “be understandable, contestable and subject to oversight, so that individuals are not reduced to mere profiles.” He reiterates that “AI can be a valuable tool” but at the same time, “it calls for a measured and vigilant approach.” He also describes the ideal role of institutions in this moment to be “capable of regulating without stifling, and protecting without taking over.”

That is exactly the balance this motion seeks: not stifling, not taking over; protecting. When people cannot tell what is real, the damage extends beyond a single bad purchase. Trust erodes itself—trust in advertisers, trust in online commerce and, eventually, trust in what we see and hear with our very own eyes and ears.

Speaker, innovation may change how our businesses advertise and sell. It may alter how our consumers decide what to buy. But it must never change Ontario’s obligation to truth and transparency. In the bold AI marketplace, we have a responsibility to ensure that honesty is not merely a footnote.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for this motion. The motion itself is just to add transparency, to require transparency, so that if somebody is interacting with an AI bot or an AI agent, it has to be done transparently, so that the person knows that that’s what’s happening. They’re not dealing with a real human being—and there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s actually a decent motion.

The member said that the government’s goal is not to stifle, not to control, but it’s also not protecting. Because transparency in itself is not enough. Just because you know that you’re dealing with an agent doesn’t protect you from that agent. Especially when we’re talking about artificial intelligence here, there are three things that people need protection from.

They need AI safety. They need systems to be safe, so that they’re not posing a danger. There are AI agents that are acting as counsellors that have actually counselled young people to commit suicide. We need that kind of protection as well.

We need ecological protection, because these AI data centres that are being built suck up enormous amounts of water and electricity. In many cases in the United States, that’s led to the local residents subsidizing those AI data centres with much higher utility bills.

The most important type of protection that the people need from artificial intelligence is in terms of labour, because they need protection from job losses and also from surveillance in the workplace. We do need protection for the workers. This is not stifling. This is not controlling. This is protecting workers. You have to find that balance between innovation but also making sure that people, residents, consumers and workers are not going to become victims of artificial intelligence.

I’ll give you an example of this government’s approach to workers and to labour: In 2020 they introduced Bill 124, and it illegally capped the wages of public sector workers at 1%. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court ruled that this was an unconstitutional attack on the workers’ rights to be members of unions, and then the government had to backtrack. Many of the health care workers that were impacted by that through the pandemic—some of them have still not received a settlement for the years that their wages were illegally capped at 1%.

So when this government is looking at artificial intelligence, they’re looking at it through this lens where they don’t actually protect workers; they actually attack workers’ rights. Transparently telling workers that they’re going to be losing their jobs because of artificial intelligence isn’t helping them, because a layoff, even if it’s a transparent layoff, is not helping that worker that’s being laid off.

I want to also talk about surveillance. I’ve got a quote from Scientific American here:

“Earlier this year, Burger King announced the rollout of Patty, an AI chatbot embedded in headsets that tracks if cashiers neglect to say please and thank you and chimes in when a soda fountain is running low.

“Advances in AI, cameras, sensors and tracking software have given employers unprecedented power to monitor” what employees are doing. “They now observe the physical location of workers, the length and content of phone calls, keystrokes per minute and even the tone and pitch of conversations with customers.”

What the workers need, and with this intense surveillance—the Scientific American article actually goes on to argue that this isn’t necessarily improving productivity because, if you want to improve productivity, you’ve got to make people feel happy to be in their workplace. They’ve got to feel like they’re doing something that’s good. And if every breath they take, if every keystroke they make, if they’ve got an artificial intelligence voice chiming into their head every time they forget to say “please” or “thank you”—that is not going to improve their mental health, and it is not going to improve their condition, their ability to actually deliver the products and to serve their customers. That’s what this Scientific American article is saying.

But there’s this huge market that is being developed for surveillance in workplaces. Last year, it was a $4-billion market, and it continues to grow because these artificial intelligence firms are saying, “This is a way to improve your productivity,” but really, it’s just giving greater and greater control over every movement that a worker makes. It’s diminishing the spirit and the morale of the workers.

So, I think, with this bill, if the government is going to be introducing motions or bills about artificial intelligence, one of the things that they need to do is to protect workers—they need to protect workers’ jobs so they’re not getting replaced and laid off because of artificial intelligence, and they also need to be protected from intensive surveillance in the workplace that is just dehumanizing.

The government introduced a data playbook—the Data Centre Playbook. The government announced it in the summertime, and they said that they want to attract AI data centre investment—the Premier said he wants to attract data centre investment to Ontario. He says that this plan will create jobs, support economic growth and help keep Canadians’ data in Canada.

The Premier was arguing that expanding data centres is necessary to protect Canada’s digital sovereignty and reduce reliance on the United States, but the actions of this government are doing the exact opposite. All of us in this Legislature, all 124 MPPs in this Legislature, all of our emails are managed by Microsoft Outlook. Microsoft is an American company, and although there are federal laws—there’s PIPEDA, a federal law about privacy and information, which says that if data is stored on Canadian soil, it cannot be accessed by the American government—there’s a contrary law in the United States called the CLOUD Act. The CLOUD Act says that any data that’s held by an American corporation anywhere in the world can be accessed by the American government.

1820

So, potentially, all of the data—every email that every one of us writes in this Legislature—can be accessed by the American government, and there is no transparency requirement. So they can access all of our emails, because they’re held by Microsoft—they’re contracted out to an American company—and we may not even know about it.

So the Premier, last year, introduced legislation to really gut the freedom of information act so that we, the people of Ontario, cannot access his emails and his phone records. So the people of Ontario can’t access these emails and phone records—in fact, that gutting was for all the ministers—but potentially President Trump can monitor all of the emails and the phone records of the Premier and all of the ministers.

So I think when the Premier says that he’s going to be promoting these data centres because it’s necessary to protect Canada’s digital sovereignty and reduce reliance on the United States, he really needs to look at the contracts that his government is signing with American corporations that make us vulnerable to these things.

He says that the new data centres will be—this is, again, part of the government’s data centre playbook—required to pay the full cost of their electricity use and will not receive special financial incentives. It will be interesting to see how that plays out, because in the United States, where these data centres have come in, what’s happened is there are initial people that come in from the data centre companies, from the big tech companies, and they make deals with local politicians, and they make donations to local politicians, and then the local politicians sign these deals and what they don’t realize is the nitty-gritty of those deals. For example, they will say, “Well, we won’t use your electricity,” but then they set up these huge diesel-powered generators that generate tons and tons of pollution, often near population centres. So the population ends up subsidizing it just through the health impacts of being near all that pollution.

The other thing they do is they suck up all kinds of water and they often dry up underground water sources for communities, and then the communities end up paying much higher rates for both their electricity and the water. The people end up doing that.

So the Premier saying that we as Ontarians are not going to have to subsidize these data centres—it’s not enough to say it; we actually need that encapsulated in the legislation so that there are real protections built into those contracts.

The other thing I’ll just mention: The government’s action—and the member mentioned this: The government’s Bill 194, which is Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, and was introduced in November 2024, was their biggest bill on artificial intelligence and it was about artificial intelligence and cyber security in the public sector, but it was really an empty bill. There was nothing in it. There wasn’t even a definition of what “artificial intelligence” is, and there was no categorization of what is an acceptable use of artificial intelligence and what is an unacceptable use of artificial intelligence. The European Union has passed legislation that does categorize artificial intelligence, according to what’s acceptable, what’s not acceptable. For example, having weapons systems managed by artificial intelligence is an unacceptable use, and there are other unacceptable uses that are listed there.

This transparency bill is good in itself, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. It doesn’t provide protections from artificial intelligence for the residents of Ontario, it doesn’t provide safety protections, it doesn’t provide environmental protections and it doesn’t provide labour protections, both in terms of job losses and in terms of intensive surveillance in the workplace.

So, the NDP, we will be supporting this bill, but we’re asking the government to go back to the drawing board and look at some of the recommendations that we’ve made in order to protect workers and to protect the residents of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Mr. Stephen Blais: Good evening. After the Premier’s 21-week break, it’s great to be back. We’ve been gone for so long, Mr. Speaker, that there have been at least seven new ChatGPT models released to the public since the last time the Legislature met.

I support AI transparency. If AI is used to create or alter an advertisement, people should be told. That includes AI-generated images, audio and video. Businesses will find plenty of uses for AI to improve productivity, to reduce costs and, I’m sure, as part of their advertising and marketing. But people buying a product deserve to know whether the ad shows the actual product or something that a computer has created out of thin air. A family shopping for a car or booking a holiday should be able to trust the pictures and the videos in the ad. If those pictures were generated by AI, that should be clear before they spend their money.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a car advertisement showing a vehicle handling an icy two-lane unsafe Ontario road. It holds the lane through the sharp turn and comes to a controlled stop. For someone who drives to work early in the morning before the roads are plowed, that might be appealing. For moms and dads who take their kids to hockey practice early on Saturday, that could be the reason they choose to buy that particular vehicle.

But what if that demonstration never actually happened? What if it was generated by AI and the vehicle was never actually tested in those cold, icy conditions on what are many unsafe Ontario highways? A family could be making one of its biggest purchases based on a demonstration of winter handling that never actually took place. The disclosure of AI-generated images and demonstrations needs to come before the purchase while people can still make a different decision.

Monsieur le Président, imaginez une publicité d’automobile montrant un véhicule qui roule sur une route glacée en Ontario. Il reste dans sa voie pour un virage serré, puis s’immobilise d’une façon contrôlée. Pour quelqu’un qui se rend au travail avant que les routes soient déneigées ou qui conduit ses enfants au hockey par un matin d’hiver, cette démonstration pourrait être une raison de choisir ce véhicule.

Mais qu’est-ce qui se passe si cette démonstration n’avait jamais eu lieu, si elle avait été générée par l’intelligence artificielle et que le véhicule n’avait jamais été testé dans de telles conditions? Une famille pourrait faire l’un de ses achats les plus importants en se fiant à une démonstration de conduite hivernale qui n’a jamais eu lieu.

Les consommateurs doivent être informés avant l’achat lorsque des images ou des démonstrations ont été générées par l’intelligence artificielle, afin qu’ils puissent en tenir compte dans leur décision et choisir un autre véhicule au besoin.

The same goes for a voice that sounds like a real person or a demonstration that appears to show how a product works. Those details can influence purchase decisions. Consumers deserve to know when they have been generated by a computer or if they have been substantially altered.

Consider an advertisement featuring someone describing how a product helped them. A customer might reasonably understand that to be a person talking with actual lived experience. If the person does not exist, the customer should know that. If the voice has been generated to sound like someone endorsing the product, that matters as well. We already do such disclosures for actor portrayals, Mr. Speaker. An advertiser chooses those images and voices because they know it will help sell something. We cannot then pretend that how they were created is irrelevant to the person being asked to buy the product.

The government says that their motion is for Ontario businesses. Well, in my opinion, the government shouldn’t be asking private enterprise to be honest with consumers while holding their own advertising to a lower standard. If the government of Ontario pays for an ad that uses AI, that should be disclosed. People should not have to spot something strange in the background or wait for a news report to learn how that ad was made.

1830

Government advertising can make claims about public services, construction projects and the result of government decisions. When an image is presented as evidence of work, people should be able to rely on it. There is a difference between showing what a proposed project might look like and showing what has actually been built. When an ad says that they’re getting tough on crime by building new jails with images of a new jail, nobody should be left with the impression that that jail is already built and that the government has not misplaced the prisoners that are within it.

The same principle applies, Mr. Speaker, to highways, to pipelines, to housing, to hospitals and to schools. People should be able to distinguish between a plan or a promise for the future or a yet-to-be-proven claim with the result that the government has actually achieved in real life. That distinction matters when residents are judging the government’s record; it matters when they’re choosing to buy a product. A generated image cannot establish that a project has started, is complete or that the service is actually available.

Putting a small AI label on an otherwise misleading advertisement should not make it acceptable. Disclosure does not relieve the advertiser of responsibility for the overall impression the ad creates. If people discover an AI-generated image is passed off as a real photograph or video, there’s good reason to question the advertiser. When that advertiser is the government, it damages confidence in information the public has paid to receive.

Democracy requires the trust and confidence of the governed. The disclosure by the government on their ads should be clear. It should be easy to find. We already require political advertising to identify who authorized it, so people know who is behind the message.

We can also require advertisers to tell people when the images or voices in an ad were AI-generated. The notice should be in the ad itself, where people can see it and hear it. It shouldn’t be buried in tiny print or hidden behind a link people have to follow. For a radio ad, the disclosure needs to be spoken. For a video, people need enough time to read it on the screen or to hear it. A notice that flashes past before anyone can reasonably understand it will serve little to no purpose.

Mr. Speaker, the government will also need to explain what triggers that requirement. Correcting the brightness of a photo is different from generating a crowd of customers or voters who were never actually at an event. Businesses need clear instructions, and consumers need disclosures that tell them something useful about the advertisement.

There also needs to be a record of how the material was produced and who approved it. If an advertisement is misleading, saying that AI was used should not matter on its own. The advertiser is still responsible for the claims that they are making. That should apply when the work is done by an outside agency as well. Hiring a contractor to make an advertisement does not and should not remove the responsibility from the organization that approves it and pays for it to be shown.

An honest business showing its actual product should not be at a disadvantage against the competitor using AI to make its product look better than it is. Clear disclosure would help consumers judge those claims before making a purchase. It would help voters and residents understand the successes or failures of the government.

Passing this motion would express the House’s support for that approach. The government would then need to turn that support into clear requirements that advertisers can follow and that consumers and voters can rely on.

It can start, Mr. Speaker, by doing it for the advertising it already pays for. Ontarians are paying for these ads. They should not have to guess whether the people, places or events shown in them are real. They should know if construction projects are actually happening, if they’ve been approved and if ground has actually been broken.

Le gouvernement peut commencer par dire clairement aux Ontariens et Ontariennes quand il utilise l’intelligence artificielle dans ses propres publicités. Les citoyens, nos voisins et nos amis pourront ainsi en tenir compte pour juger ce qu’ils ont vu et entendu.

Mr. Speaker, I support AI transparency. I encourage the government to apply it to its own advertising to demonstrate honesty and transparency to the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Hon. Vijay Thanigasalam: I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Oakville and the member from Cambridge as well.

I rise today in support of the motion advancing consumer transparency in a changing digital environment put forward by my colleague and friend the incredible member from Mississauga East–Cooksville. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank her for bringing this motion to the floor today as it speaks to something that every person in our province has been experiencing. We know the world around us is changing—the way we shop online, the way we bank online and the way we connect with our friends on social media.

AI is here. It is in our phones, in our workplaces, and it’s in social media ads we scroll through and that all people have been going through each and every day. It is our job to protect consumers, to protect the most vulnerable among us from these AI ads.

Mr. Speaker, we have to have a mechanism to differentiate, either in a video or a photo, any kind of content that’s been created by AI versus humans. It is important that we have a distinguished method, to have a labelling process so that those who are consuming these ads online, they know these ads are being made by AI versus humans. Our job is to reassure our constituents and the people of this province that we are committed to safe and responsible AI adoptions.

Our government’s position has been very clear: no AI in secret. It has to be transparent and accountable to the people, full stop. It’s about making sure consumers know when AI has been used in advertisements, images, audio, voice cloning and commercial products out in the market.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario has been a leader in AI safety and the responsible way to adopt AI. We were the first province in Canada to put forward guardrails on how the government uses AI, through our trustworthy AI framework and through the responsible use of AI directive. In 2024, we backed that up with the introduction and passage of the Enhancing Digital Security and Trust Act, enshrining the law to make sure AI is a safe and transparent process here in the province. This motion builds on that foundation.

I want to also focus on how, in the spirit of this motion, we can provide some best practices for the most vulnerable population: our parents, our grandparents, our seniors who need to stay safe—to make sure that whenever they click on a website, they should know it’s a reputable website; whenever they click on an ad, we make sure that this is a legitimate ad, Mr. Speaker.

I want to give one example in an instance of a relative calling from out of the country, from an unknown number, saying they’re in trouble, asking for money. The seniors have to check, have to have a mechanism with their loved ones to make sure this is not voice cloning that is out in the market right now.

People are going through a lot of trouble because of this, and we should protect our parents from these scams, Mr. Speaker. That’s why I believe this motion is in the right direction. I want to thank the member for bringing this forward, and I am looking forward to working with members across this chamber to strengthen Ontario’s unique role as a leader in AI.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Hon. Stephen Crawford: It’s great to rise in the House in support of this motion by my great colleague the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville.

Artificial intelligence and advanced technologies are transforming absolutely everything, from how we work to how we make decisions to even how we advertise goods and services. These new systems mean new possibilities and greater productivity and solutions to problems that once seemed impossible.

1840

At the same time, however, they can also sound less reassuring to some people out there who may not be trusting of such sweeping changes brought about by technology. To their credit, I would argue that asking difficult questions is a necessary part of responsible innovation. The objective should not be to tell people that they have nothing to be concerned about. It should be to demonstrate that risks are being identified, that safeguards are being established and that people remain firmly in control. If people trust the process and believe the outcome will improve their lives, then I would say we’ve done our job.

The answer is not to resist every new technology, nor is it to adopt technology without considering the consequences. The answer is to build trust. Emerging technologies must be rigorously tested, the risks must be understood and the people responsible for their use must remain accountable.

By bringing conversations like this into the public eye, like the member for Mississauga East–Cooksville has done with this motion, what we are doing is building a strong foundation that will help these promising technologies move forward without compromising safety and consumer awareness.

Speaker, this is a good motion which I can support. It helps responsible innovation succeed. It helps protect Ontario consumers. These are the same principles which work for my ministry. At public and business service delivery and procurement, we lead enterprise-wide technology, data governance and cyber security across the Ontario government. We modernize public services, oversee public sector procurement and establish safeguards for the responsible use of emerging technologies.

What’s more important, however, is how each of these responsibilities across objectives always remains the same: to use innovation to deliver better results while maintaining the trust of the people we serve. Speaker, consumers everywhere should feel confident and informed when making investments and spending decisions. That is exactly why Ontario must continue to embrace innovation and do so responsibly—because innovation and responsibility are not competing objectives.

When strong guardrails are in place and people remain at the centre of our decisions, each strengthens each other. That is how innovation becomes progress and how progress earns trust. Our success will require continued collaboration between government, industry, consumers, researchers and technology leaders.

By working together, I know we can harness the benefits of emerging technologies, all while maintaining public trust, security and safeguards that Ontarians expect and deserve.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: Through you, Speaker, I’m pleased to stand in support of motion 72, brought forward by the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville.

I believe Ontario should be a leader in responsible AI innovation and talent development, which is why I introduced Bill 61, the Ontario Artificial Intelligence, Talent and Innovation Strategy Act. But leadership in AI isn’t just about investment and growth; it’s about earning and maintaining public trust. AI is already transforming every aspect of our lives, so when it’s used unethically, I think all of us—and I think that is why this motion is good, that it’s important that we address it. From scams targeting seniors to fake real estate transactions on online marketplaces to political misinformation, the irresponsible and dangerous use of AI has been inherent in various ways in our lives.

So it’s important that Ontario learn from international best practices and develop a made-in-Ontario approach. We don’t necessarily need to reinvent the wheel. We can look to what other jurisdictions are doing. The European Union’s AI Act, for example, requires a disclosure of AI-generated and manipulated content, particularly deepfakes, to reduce deception and misinformation—specifically requiring the disclosure for AI-generated or manipulated images, audio or video that could appear authentic to the public.

I’m thinking of the recent Toronto mayoral race. One of the mayoral candidates had produced a video so good, people thought it was AI, but it actually wasn’t. So it’s really important that we’re putting these kinds of labels on AI-generated content so that, whether you’re a senior or someone else in our province, you will know right away how that material has been created to inform your own decision-making. Imagine travelling two hours away to find something that isn’t actually what was represented.

That’s why I do think this motion is important, Speaker. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate?

Mr. Brian Riddell: I’m pleased to rise and speak in support of this important motion tabled by the member for Mississauga East–Cooksville.

Artificial intelligence is changing the way we live, we work, we communicate and do business. It’s creating new opportunities for innovation and economic growth, and Ontario is well positioned to be a leader in this rapidly evolving field.

At the same time, as this technology becomes more sophisticated and more widely available, we must also recognize the challenges it presents. For many Ontarians, artificial intelligence seems like something from the future, but the reality is that it’s already part of our everyday life. People encounter AI-generated content when they shop online, scroll through social media, research products or watch advertisements. In many cases, they don’t even realize that that image, video or audio they’re seeing was created or modified using artificial intelligence. That is why this discussion matters.

At its core, this motion is about trust. Consumers make decisions every day based on the information presented to them. They trust that products they are seeing are being represented accurately. They trust that advertisements provide a fair depiction of what’s being offered. And they trust that they can make informed choices for themselves and their families. As artificial intelligence becomes more advanced, maintaining this trust becomes increasingly more important.

Imagine an online advertisement featuring a product image generated entirely by AI. Imagine a promotional video that has been digitally altered in ways that are difficult to detect. Imagine audio that sounds completely authentic even though it was produced by a computer. These technologies are becoming more common, more accessible and more convincing.

That doesn’t mean they are inherently negative. In fact, many businesses use artificial intelligence responsibly to improve efficiency, enhance customer experiences and create new products and services. But consumers should have confidence they are understanding what they are seeing and what they are hearing. That is why this motion focuses on transparency, because transparency empowers consumers. It provides information, supports informed decision-making and builds confidence in the marketplace.

Speaker, I also appreciate that this motion is measured and practical. It does not presume that every use of artificial intelligence is problematic, nor does it propose a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, it calls on the government to monitor developments, assess emerging uses of AI in advertising and product representations and examine possible options to improve transparency. That is exactly the kind of approach we should take when dealing with rapidly changing technology.

Public policy works best when it is informed by evidence, guided by real-world experience and responsive to changing circumstance. This motion helps ensure Ontario remains informed, prepared and focused on protecting consumer confidence while continuing to support innovation. As technology evolves, so must our understanding of the impact on the public.

I am proud to support this motion, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): The member has two minutes to reply.

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: Today I want to begin by sincerely thanking the members for their thoughtful remarks. I also want to thank community organizers, AI leaders and all those who were my sounding board in advancing this motion. Thank you for your support.

Let me wrap up with a simple question: Why act now? Let’s act because the people overwhelmingly want disclosure, and the industry increasingly supports it. But also, let’s act because Ontario has an opportunity to lead. Advancing this motion reinforces our reputation as a forward-looking jurisdiction that adopts new technology confidently and protects its people while doing so. Transparency allows innovation to continue while ensuring Ontarians are protected from potential harms.

1850

Speaker, this motion is a first step, not a final answer. It asks the government to advance measures, to design something proportionate and workable, with input from businesses, consumers and experts. But it sends a clear signal about our direction: that in Ontario, people have the right to know when AI is helping shape what they are shown and sold.

Ontarians already believe it. Responsible businesses already see the value in it, and the foundation is already in place. And so, I urge all members of this House, regardless of party, to support this motion and to help build a marketplace where innovation and honesty move forward together.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

MPP Gualtieri has moved private members’ notice of motion number 72. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): All matters relating to private members’ public business have been completed. We will now move to the late show.

Adjournment Debate

Government accountability

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Pursuant to standing order 36, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

The member for Ottawa South has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Transportation. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

I recognize the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s great to come back to what I would call a legacy late show. It was five months ago—a little bit more—that I asked for this, and I hope it is worth waiting for for all those remaining in the chamber tonight. I’m not sure that’s going to happen.

We might have to go through a bit of a primer about what this story is all about. Mr. Carmine Nigro, a close friend of the Premier, owns a company that bought 35 acres of something called air rights. Air rights are this thing that’s above a building, or on top of a building—it’s literally air. It’s the right to build in the air. The interesting thing is he owns the air but not the land beside it or the land under it, so it’s pretty hard to build anything on it. Anyway, he tried to buy it and eventually ended up buying it.

Here’s the thing: Number one, he’s a close personal friend of the Premier—at the table at the family wedding. He was chair of the LCBO, chair of Ontario Place, appointed to Invest Ontario and he got an MZO in Kawartha Lakes, so he’s doing pretty well. He kind of won the Ford government lottery. But he wasn’t happy with that win. There is a $500-million prize out there. So that $500-million prize—he said, “I’m going to go for it.”

A sitting Premier’s appointee sues the government, through his company, for $500 million for something called air rights that he couldn’t actually build and, from what I understand, never actually paid for. The story gets stranger. It’s “believe it or not,” really, with this story. Why would he sue? Why would he sue for something that he couldn’t build on, really didn’t own? Because he knew there was money there.

So, he sues. He sues and then Metrolinx—which is the company that he’s suing that’s an arm of the government, and it’s taxpayers’ money—says, “Look, you know what, we’ll give you $75 million to go away”—$75 million for air that you can’t build on and you don’t actually own. And what does he say, or what does his company say? “No, I don’t want $75 million. I’m not taking it. It’s worth more than $75 million, these air rights”—it’s not even land; this thing that you couldn’t build on, that he didn’t actually own. “I want more than that.”

So, of course, it goes on and on, and eventually, the government says, “We’ve settled. We’ve settled with Mr. Nigro’s company.”

Reasonably, taxpayers—all of us—say, “Well, how much did you settle for?”

The government is like, “Well, that’s not your business.”

“But it’s our money.”

“Well, it’s not your business. It’s a secret; it’s commercially sensitive.”

Okay, just wait. It’s commercially sensitive why? Because you gave him money for something he couldn’t actually build on and never really owned?

The point is here, every day, more and more Ontarians are falling behind. They can’t afford groceries. They can’t afford their rent. They can’t afford gas. Thousands of people have been cut off at the knees and abandoned by this government who simply went to get support to get training, to get a better job, to make sure their families have a better life. Those people are being abandoned, and the government is giving likely more than $75 million—I think that’s fair to say, I think that’s reasonable, if $75 million was turned down. But the government would say, “We don’t need to tell you. We’re not accountable. Go away. Talk to the hand. It’s not your business.” It’s your money, but “it’s not your business.”

So the simple question is, why won’t the government just disclose that? Why won’t they tell us? What are they trying to hide? Are they trying to hide the colossal cover-up they have in OSAP? Are they trying to hide the money they gave to strip club owners in the Skills Development Fund, or the family dentists? Or the money they gave to Keel Digital Solutions and couldn’t actually tell us when they did the audit or why they did the audit, and now it’s all coming out in court, and the Godfreys aren’t too happy—they’re appointees too, but now they’re talking about the government in not-so-nice terms.

Anyways, it’s great to be back. Thanks for staying for the late show, and I look forward to the response.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Thank you to the member for the question.

The leader of the third party knows nothing about what it takes to build, Speaker. This province has been sent backwards by the previous Liberal government. It took our government to take charge and finally get things moving again in this province. All the previous government did was study, study, study and never deliver on anything and tell people things are coming, but nothing was really coming. It took the leadership of this Premier and this government to make sure that we’re actually moving and working in the interests of the people.

We’re building highways and we’re building subways—the largest transit infrastructure investment in the history of not only this province but in the history of North America.

Time and time again, they’ve stood in the way of what people voted for in Ontario, whether it’s expanding highways, delivering critical public transit projects. They’re against building. While they do nothing, our government is focused on real change, getting shovels in the ground, getting people moving across our province.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’ve shown, and we understand, how crucial it is to build transit infrastructure not only for tomorrow’s economy but for decades to come, Speaker. That’s why we continue to make historic investments in transit, enhancing the quality of life for commuters across the province, delivering better connectivity for all. This includes a $70-billion investment, like I said earlier, in the largest transit expansion in Canadian history—and like I said, in North America as well. It’s more than just about getting people from A to B; it lays a foundation for the integral part of tackling gridlock, slashing travel times and helping support our province’s economic growth and prosperity as we continue to deliver on our mandate to protect Ontario.

Speaker, our government continues to make steadfast progress in the largest subway expansion, but simply put, we’re building for the people of Ontario. We’re building for the future, the next generation of Ontarians, to make sure that they have the infrastructure they need to get to where they need to go faster and more reliably.

Across the province we’re moving forward with projects that will create jobs, strengthen connections between communities and help Ontario remain competitive. This is how we cement our spot in an economic powerhouse, attract investment and build for the future.

In Toronto, the new Ontario Line subway will bring more than 15 new subway stations, putting nearly 230,000 people within walking distance of reliable transit and connecting more residents to jobs, housing and opportunity.

We’re also extending the Eglinton Crosstown West LRT by more than nine kilometres through the Eglinton Crosstown West extension, bringing us one step closer to a rapid transit connection from Scarborough all the way up to Mississauga, Speaker.

Meanwhile, the Yonge North subway extension will bring the TTC’s line 1 further north into York region, improving access to rapid transit for residents of Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill and making it easier to travel throughout the region into downtown Toronto.

Speaker, in the east end, we’re also advancing the Scarborough subway extension, which will add nearly eight kilometres to TTC’s line 2 subway.

These transit investments are about shaping the future of transportation right here in the province. Our government is delivering on innovative infrastructure that will serve our growing communities and meet the needs of our communities for generations to come.

Beyond our subway investments, we’re moving forward to build the Hamilton LRT, a 14-kilometre transit line that will add 17 stops across the city, accommodating almost 50,000 riders each day, Speaker. With each of these projects, our government is cutting commute times for the people of Ontario, reducing congestion on our roadways and keeping people moving across the greater Toronto-Hamilton area and throughout the province.

Every day, more than 120,000 Ontarians rely on our GO trains to get to work, to get to school and their appointments. Our government remains focused on delivering faster, more frequent service to support communities on these important matters. Speaker, our actions speak louder than words. We’re building the largest GO expansion that this province has ever seen. As a part of our investment to build, more than $15 billion have been contributed to that very same GO Expansion Program, and over the past year, we’ve marked several milestones. We’ve recently started major construction of the Grimsby GO, an all-new station on the Lakeshore West line that will save residents up to 30 minutes to get to the nearest GO station. We’ve completed major upgrades at the Bloor GO/UP station to support increased capacity on the Kitchener line and improve local connections to transit. We’ve launched daily round trips between Toronto and Stratford, making it easier for thousands of tourists to access the world-renowned Stratford Festival. And we’ve introduced the first-ever weekend service between Kitchener and downtown Toronto.

Work is under way to expand Durham College Oshawa GO station so students don’t have to worry about getting to and from class.

Speaker, we’re not only expanding GO service across the network; we’re making transit more affordable. Last year, we extended the One Fare program, allowing riders to transfer between GO Transit and the TTC. And we’re doing so much more to ensure that people have fast and reliable transit—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I beg to inform the House that the second late show scheduled for this evening, standing in the name of the member for Ottawa South, has been withdrawn.

There being no further matters to debate, pursuant to standing order 36(c), I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried. This House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1903.