How the AI Ethical Futures Lab is giving voice to the communities left out of Canada's AI strategy


On a Thursday evening in late March, a diverse group gathered at Aperture Coffee in Vancouver's Chinatown. Artists, technologists, educators, philosophers, and concerned citizens, all drawn together by a shared conviction: the conversation about Canada's AI future shouldn't be dominated by industry voices alone.

This was the AI Ethical Futures Lab's contribution to the People's AI Consultation, a civil society response to what 160+ organizations called a "mad rush to a largely predetermined conclusion."



The Problem: A Consultation That Missed the Point

In October 2025, the Canadian government announced a 30-day "national sprint" on AI strategy. The task force was industry-dominated. The survey questions contained embedded assumptions. And when 11,000+ submissions arrived, the government analyzed them using four commercial LLMs, with no transparency on methodology, prompts, or data handling.

The result? A report containing "conflicting recommendations reflecting sharply different visions" with no clear implementation priorities.

As legal scholar Teresa Scassa put it: this was a predetermined conclusion dressed up as public engagement.


Enter the AI Ethical Futures Lab

The AEFL is part of the BC + AI Ecosystem, a grassroots community building human-centered AI spaces across British Columbia. Unlike conferences dominated by vendor pitches, AEFL creates space for genuine dialogue about where we want AI to take us.

"This is one of those little things that fruits on the tree that have blossomed here," explained one organizer. "it's not a fancy production. It's a dialogue-driven exploration."

The lab had already been tracking Canada's AI policy moves, writing open letters, and demanding a seat at the table. The People's AI Consultation gave them a framework to channel community voices upward.


What Emerged: Five Themes from the Room

Jesi Carson, a design researcher with 15 years of experience in participatory democracy, facilitated the evening. Groups of five or six worked through three activities: sharing lived experiences, clustering concerns, and crafting statements.

1. The 95% Problem