Indépendant & RIFE (Réseau International Francophone des Entrepreneurs)

The first Global Dialogue on AI Governance would succeed if it becomes the moment the international community shifts from debating principles to building genuine collective intelligence — where governments, civil society, industry and youth stop working in silos and start co-creating concrete, measurable pathways for AI that truly advance human dignity. Success would require four tangible outcomes: • Firm, time-bound commitments to safe, secure and trustworthy AI grounded in international human rights law, supported by effective oversight and clear implementation metrics. • Concrete capacity-building and open innovation mechanisms, including dedicated funding for open-source tools, data and models that empower the Global South and smaller actors. • Real progress on interoperability of governance approaches that respect cultural, linguistic and ethical diversity while avoiding harmful regulatory fragmentation. • Robust, universal protection of human rights applied equally to every person, with independent monitoring to prevent algorithmic discrimination. Drawing from my experience bridging sectors through the RIFE and facilitating extreme outdoor expeditions with youth, I see the Dialogue's greatest untapped potential in creating spaces for deep listening and "side-by-side" collaboration. When differences are turned into shared understanding rather than confrontation, trust emerges — and with it, the ability to move from aspiration to measurable momentum. If the Geneva session achieves this, the first Global Dialogue will not only be remembered as a success — it will be seen as the inflection point where AI governance became profoundly human-centred and truly inclusive.

• Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• Open-source software, open data and open AI models

My selection of four priorities reflects Canada's and Québec's strong commitment to responsible and inclusive AI, while contributing to a truly global vision of equity and cooperation. I chose Safe, secure and trustworthy AI as the essential foundation to prevent harm and build public confidence. Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI is particularly important from a Canadian and Québec perspective. As a bilingual and multicultural society, we recognize that AI must respect linguistic diversity and cultural contexts to avoid deepening inequalities - an approach we draw from the Montréal Declaration for Responsible AI and wish to promote worldwide through concrete policy guidance. Protection and promotion of human rights is non-negotiable. Human rights must apply equally to every person, regardless of sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic conditions, disability, or any other status. AI systems should never perpetuate discrimination; instead, they must advance substantive equality for all human beings everywhere, bridging divides between English- and French-speaking communities as well as between the Global North and South. Open-source software, open data and open AI models enables democratic innovation and equitable access, empowering smaller actors and developing countries to participate fully and contribute meaningfully to global standards. If a fifth option had been available, I would have selected Transparency, accountability, and human oversight, as it is essential to uphold these values in practice and ensure effective implementation. These priorities support a Global Dialogue that fosters international unity, responsible innovation, and universal respect for human dignity through AI - moving from shared principles to measurable, inclusive outcomes.

Yes, two important cross-cutting issues are not fully captured by the listed themes and would benefit from dedicated attention in the Global Dialogue. First, the application of AI in military and security domains, including lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) and dual-use technologies. While the Dialogue focuses primarily on civilian AI, the rapid integration of AI into armed conflicts raises profound risks to international humanitarian law, human rights, and global stability. I recommend establishing a dedicated working group under the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, with regular reporting mechanisms and clear pathways for policy recommendations, to ensure meaningful human control, accountability, and compliance with international law. Second, the environmental sustainability of AI - including massive energy consumption, water usage, and electronic waste from large-scale training and inference - intersects directly with climate justice and the Sustainable Development Goals. This issue disproportionately affects the Global South and should be treated as a core governance priority, with specific metrics, international cooperation targets, and explicit linkages to existing climate mechanisms. From a Canadian and Québec perspective, we also emphasize the need for robust protections against all forms of algorithmic discrimination. Human rights must be equal and universal for every person, regardless of sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic conditions, disability, or any other status, so that no one is left behind or disadvantaged by biased systems. Integrating these emerging issues with concrete mechanisms would allow the Dialogue to maintain a holistic, inclusive, and forward-looking approach that truly advances equality, peace, and human dignity worldwide.

In Canada and Québec, governance gaps in the selected thematic areas create both real challenges and a unique opportunity for Canada to offer concrete leadership to the Global Dialogue. Safe, secure and trustworthy AI lacks comprehensive federal legislation following the failure of AIDA, resulting in a fragmented regulatory landscape. While Québec's Law 25 provides stronger protections for automated decisions, the opportunity lies in developing risk-based, harmonized standards that Canada can champion as a model for multilateral interoperability and public trust. Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI are particularly acute in our bilingual and multicultural society. AI systems often underperform for French and minority languages, amplifying biases. Québec's vibrant ecosystem — anchored by Mila and the Montréal Declaration for Responsible AI — positions Canada to model inclusive governance that respects linguistic and cultural diversity, an approach we can share with the Francophonie and the Global South. Protection and promotion of human rights is undermined by persistent algorithmic discrimination. Canada must champion substantive equality everywhere, bridging English- and French-speaking communities while advancing global equity between the Global North and South. Open-source software, open data and open AI models hold strong potential for democratic innovation, yet gaps in sovereign data infrastructure limit equitable access for smaller actors and developing countries. These gaps risk deepening digital divides and eroding trust. However, by combining Québec's regulatory leadership, Canada's bilingual expertise, and our proven experience in multi-stakeholder facilitation through the RIFE, we can transform these challenges into strengths — helping the Global Dialogue design interoperable, inclusive and rights-based frameworks that deliver measurable progress and leave no one behind.

The AI Dialogue can play a pivotal role by transforming high-level principles into concrete international cooperation — acting as a truly inclusive multilateral platform that bridges divides between major powers, the Global South, civil society, academia and industry. From a Canadian and Québec perspective, it should promote interoperability among diverse regulatory approaches while upholding universal human rights applied equally to every person and fully respecting linguistic and cultural diversity, particularly French-speaking and minority voices. To deliver real impact, the Dialogue could: • Develop shared principles for safe, secure and trustworthy AI, supported by clear implementation roadmaps and monitoring mechanisms that respect cultural and linguistic contexts. • Advance open-source collaboration and capacity-building through dedicated funding and technical support for developing countries. • Facilitate knowledge exchange on social, ethical and human rights implications, building on initiatives like the Montréal Declaration. • Create structured linkages with the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI to ensure meaningful human oversight and evidence-based recommendations. Drawing from my experience bridging sectors through the RIFE and facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogues, I see the Dialogue's greatest strength in its ability to foster deep listening and authentic collaboration across differences. By building genuine relationships and collective intelligence, it can turn principles into measurable outcomes, prevent regulatory fragmentation, and bring English- and French-speaking communities — as well as developed and developing nations — closer together, ultimately strengthening global trust in AI governance.

The AI Dialogue should build upon established initiatives such as the G7 Hiroshima AI Process, the OECD Global Partnership on AI, UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, and ITU's AI for Good program. Networks like the RIFE, on whose board I serve, demonstrate how inclusive, cross-sector collaboration can deliver real impact. Founded from a humanitarian conviction at age 18, the RIFE was built on the conviction that global challenges are solved not in silos, but through collective intelligence — learning from existing solutions, adapting them, and scaling them together rather than reinventing the wheel. This approach has been shaped by my early leadership journey, including the Terry Fox Humanitarian Award, the Western Garfield leadership scholarship, and years facilitating extreme outdoor expeditions with youth. It was further strengthened through multi-stakeholder forums such as C2 Montréal and Idea City, where bridging civil society, governments, industry and entrepreneurs proved essential. Through the RIFE, we have connected Francophone leaders, contributed to youth declarations at the United Nations in Geneva, and participated in Francophonie summits. The AI Dialogue can add significant value by scaling this networked, human-centred model globally: linking high-level governance frameworks with grassroots initiatives through clear follow-up mechanisms and direct ties to the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. This would accelerate open innovation, respect cultural and linguistic diversity, advance universal human rights, and deliver measurable progress on interoperability and equitable access for all nations.

Different stakeholders bring indispensable value to the AI Dialogue through their expertise, lived realities and regional perspectives — making the process legitimate, inclusive and capable of delivering truly actionable outcomes. Governments must drive policy alignment and interoperability. Civil society and human rights organisations should champion universal rights and expose discrimination risks. Academia and technical experts, notably from Mila in Montréal, can deliver evidence-based insights on safety, ethics and open innovation. The private sector must share best practices on trustworthy AI while committing to real transparency. Youth, Indigenous communities and Global South voices deserve structured roles to address capacity gaps and cultural-linguistic realities. From my experience representing civil society at COP15 in Montréal, co-organising Francophonie events, facilitating forums like C2 Montréal and Idea City, and leading extreme outdoor expeditions with youth, I recommend a hybrid format: high-level plenaries for consensus combined with smaller, interactive thematic working groups. To build genuine trust, I propose embedding "Bridging Dialogues" early in the programme — expertly facilitated sessions that move participants from confrontation to "side-by-side" collaboration through deep listening and light shared-challenge activities (such as team-based escape rooms or collaborative VR scenarios on AI-society tensions). These should feature clear ground rules, strong simultaneous translation including robust French support, and professional facilitation to lower barriers and create authentic human connections. Canada and Québec's proven track record in bilingual, inclusive multilateralism positions us well to help design such formats. By ensuring equitable participation, accessibility and direct follow-up linkages to the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, the Dialogue can transform diverse inputs into concrete, measurable progress — turning AI governance from a technical exercise into a profoundly human endeavour that rebuilds trust, bridges divides, and leaves no one behind.

Voices that remain critically underrepresented in global AI governance include those from the Global South, small island developing states, Indigenous communities, linguistic minorities (especially French-speaking and Indigenous languages), persons with disabilities — whether physical, intellectual or mental health-related —, women, gender-diverse groups, neurodivergent individuals, visible minorities, immigrants, people experiencing homelessness, and those with lower formal education who struggle to claim their rights. These voices are too often silenced by power structures and homogeneous tech circles that prioritize control over understanding. The result is not just biased algorithms, but a deeper fracture: systems that reflect the fears and privileges of the few rather than the realities and dignity of the many. I have spent my life listening to the overlooked. From a turbulent childhood marked by family disruption and injustice, to direct engagement with homeless individuals and people living with mental health challenges, to defending students in vocational schools who did not know how to navigate their own rights — I learned that true justice demands more than advocacy. It requires the courage to forgive, the wisdom to understand that those who try to crush others often act from their own fear, and the leadership to keep listening even when facing resistance. As a neurodivergent person, I naturally see situations from a macro perspective and push dialogue forward across divides. This is why I propose embedding "Bridging Dialogues" from day one of the AI Dialogue: small, expertly facilitated sessions that combine deep listening with light shared-challenge activities, such as collaborative VR scenarios exploring AI's societal tensions. Supported by robust multilingual translation, these spaces would lower defences, build authentic trust, and ensure the most marginalised experiences shape the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. Only when the quietest voices — carrying the heaviest burdens of injustice, inequality and environmental fragility — are not just heard but truly felt, will AI governance serve humanity rather than fracture it further. The Dialogue has the historic opportunity to make that transformation real. I stand ready to help bring it to life.

Innovative engagement formats can profoundly elevate the AI Dialogue by creating the relational conditions necessary for honest, constructive and lasting cooperation on complex governance issues. From facilitating extreme outdoor expeditions with youth and numerous high-level international events, I have learned one consistent truth: the most meaningful connections rarely happen in formal plenaries. They emerge during informal dinners, shared meals, reflective walks, and especially the "off-events" I have often organized myself. It is through these moments of side-by-side collaboration under mild shared challenge that façades drop, vulnerability appears, and people engage as humans rather than as representatives of positions. This is exactly how the RIFE was born — from off-events that turned diverse actors into a genuine community. To replicate this dynamic from day one in Geneva, I propose integrating light shared-challenge activities early in the programme: • Bridging Dialogues: small, expertly facilitated groups designed to foster deep listening and mutual vulnerability across cultural, linguistic, political and ideological differences. • Team-based escape rooms or collaborative VR experiences on the first morning, using a short "AI-society crisis" scenario where participants must collectively solve urgent problems caused by uncontrolled AI deployment (bias amplification, loss of human oversight, societal disruption). This creates a safe moment of shared challenge that accelerates trust-building and helps participants feel the human stakes of AI governance. • Hybrid thematic hubs blending structured policy discussions with informal "side-by-side" moments such as shared meals or joint problem-solving exercises. • Ongoing relational platforms between sessions, supported by skilled facilitators, with clear deliverables and direct linkages to the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. By deliberately designing the event to cultivate both intellectual rigour and authentic human connection from the outset, the AI Dialogue can move beyond surface-level exchanges toward deeper trust, greater honesty, and a genuine willingness to find common ground. Stronger relationships are not a nice-to-have — they are the invisible architecture upon which lasting, equitable global AI governance will be built.

Effective AI governance will not be defined by principles written in Geneva, but by whether we have the courage to confront AI's dual nature before it outpaces our humanity. As an AI strategist immersed in a rich ecosystem of scientists, entrepreneurs, policymakers, creatives, philosophers, neuroscientists and medical experts, I see both its immense promise and its terrifying risks with clarity. AI evolves faster and more autonomously than the GAFA era ever did. It can help eradicate famine, reduce inequality and advance human rights by tapping into humanity's collective knowledge. Yet today we already witness its weaponization: in ongoing conflicts, through tools like ChatGPT and DeepSeek repurposed for disinformation and surveillance, and - critically - in the deepening crisis of nanoconductors and microchips. This concentration of power, increasingly monopolized by a few nations such as the United States and China, risks creating massive new inequalities and enabling dangerous forms of governance that prioritize control over human dignity. From my board role at the RIFE and years of multi-stakeholder facilitation, three under-discussed yet highly effective approaches stand out: Québec's Law 25 for enforceable accountability in automated decisions, the Montréal Declaration for citizen co-creation and linguistic justice, and Mila's ecosystem for sovereign open-source AI that empowers the Global South and Francophonie. These practices treat governance as a living contract between people and systems. My own journey - shaped by early humanitarian engagement, personal experiences of injustice, and a neurodivergent macro perspective - has taught me to listen deeply across divides, even when facing resistance, and to understand that those who try to crush others often act from their own fear. Today, I help organizations and artists govern AI responsibly so they can create greater societal value. The Global Dialogue has a historic opportunity: to move AI governance from technical regulation toward a profoundly human project - one where technology serves dignity, equality and our shared future rather than deepening fractures or enabling new forms of harm. Bringing my diverse network, my insatiable curiosity and my unwavering commitment to amplifying the quietest voices, I would be deeply honoured to join this gathering in Geneva. We must act with both urgency and wisdom. I stand ready to help ensure that AI becomes one of the greatest tools we have ever created to bring humanity closer together - not just in words, but in truth.