MPs disagree on whether AI should be used to help craft House of Commons remarks

The Story

Canadian members of Parliament are divided over whether, and how, artificial intelligence should be used in connection with statements made in the House of Commons, with debate centring on both the scope of potential use and the risks of relying on AI tools.

A report from The Economist this week said as much as 20 per cent of what is said on the floor of the House of Commons was flagged as AI-generated by an AI detector tool called Pangram. The figure has intensified scrutiny among MPs who want to ensure they are delivering remarks that reflect their own views and that accurately represent the people they represent.

Liberal MP Greg Fergus said he does not believe AI detector tools are a good fit for members whose role is to represent their constituents. His concern reflects a wider worry among some MPs that tools associated with AI-generated language could distort accountability in parliamentary debate.

Conservative MP Sandra Cobena said she believes AI is already being used by everyone and argued that if it is employed, it should be handled with care. Her remarks point to a view that the practical reality of AI availability should be met with safeguards rather than outright prohibition.

Another Conservative MP, Luc Berthold, agreed that AI use is likely widespread but said he doubts such tools can capture the emotion he wants to convey in his speeches. He suggested that even if AI can assist with drafting or information processing, it may not replicate the tone and human emphasis MPs aim to project on the floor.

The current disagreement comes as lawmakers weigh the potential benefits of AI for research against the political and representational implications of using tools that can generate, shape, or detect language. For Canadian voters, the debate raises questions about transparency, authorship, and whether AI-supported remarks enhance or undermine the expectations of accountability in Parliament.