Summary#

Bill 61, the Ontario Artificial Intelligence, Talent and Innovation Strategy Act, 2025, would create a new Ontario law; it does not amend an existing Act. It would require the government to design, implement and maintain a strategy, with the stated goal of making Ontario a national and global leader in artificial intelligence and innovation within 10 years.

• The strategy must include objectives on startup creation and retention, post-secondary incubators, productivity, research and development, talent, safety and privacy, investment, computing infrastructure, Canadian control of AI capacity, student retention and measurable annual progress targets.
• The Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade must establish an advisory committee within 90 days after the Act comes into force. The Minister appoints up to 21 members, including at least one person from each of 11 listed sectors and groups.
• The committee must advise the government, make recommendations, consult with listed groups and publish an annual progress report. It must also publish an initial report within 180 days of being established.
• The Minister must publicly respond to recommendations in a published report within 90 days, table every committee report in the Legislature within 60 days of receiving it (or in the next session if the Legislature is not sitting), and appear annually before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
• The Minister must ensure a Legislative Assembly committee reviews the Act every three years. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may add systems or technologies to the Act’s broad definition of artificial intelligence by regulation.

What it means for you#

• Ontario residents: The bill sets safety, privacy and province-wide economic growth as strategy objectives. It does not create a new personal right, safety rule, privacy rule, service or benefit.
• AI businesses, researchers and post-secondary institutions: The strategy must include objectives about incentives, investment, research, incubators, talent and computing capacity. The bill does not itself provide funding or set up an incentive program.
• Groups named for committee representation: The committee must include at least one member from each listed group or sector, including Indigenous groups, organized labour, students and youth, disability rights groups, civil liberties groups and privacy regulators. The bill does not set out how members are selected beyond appointment by the Minister.
• Ontario government and Minister: The government must maintain the strategy. The Minister has duties to establish the committee, respond to recommendations, table reports and appear annually. The committee can recommend changes, but the bill does not require the government to adopt its recommendations.

Money#

No publicly available information on cost.

• The government must design, implement and maintain a strategy, and the Minister must establish a committee. The bill gives no budget, staffing estimate or funding source.
• The strategy must pursue objectives involving incentives and investment, but the bill does not itself authorize or specify those payments.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not say what programs or actions the strategy must use to meet its objectives, or how progress will be measured beyond requiring annual measurable targets and indicators.
• “Artificial intelligence” is defined broadly and must be read broadly, but the bill does not set a more specific boundary for the term.
• The bill does not set rules for committee members’ terms, how consultations must work, or how the committee’s recommendations are developed.
• It is unclear how the strategy would relate to existing government programs. No details are given about funding, staffing or how the government would decide which recommendations to implement.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that AI policy could be considered alongside talent, research, business growth and computing needs, rather than as a narrow technology issue.
• Requiring a strategy, measurable targets and annual public reports could make the government’s plans and progress easier to assess.
• The committee’s required representation includes business and research interests as well as safety, privacy, disability rights, Indigenous, labour, health-care and student perspectives.
• The three-year review gives the Legislature a recurring opportunity to assess whether the Act is working.

Case against#

• The bill requires objectives and a strategy but does not specify programs, funding or results the government must deliver. Its economic and safety goals may therefore remain broad intentions.
• The government must respond to committee recommendations but is not required to accept them or carry them out.
• The broad definition of artificial intelligence could make the Act’s scope difficult to predict; regulations may add further systems or technologies.
• The bill creates reporting and review duties without estimating their cost or explaining how they will be staffed.