Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to begin a review of the Lobbying Act. Nancy Bélanger, the Commissioner of Lobbying, presented 21 recommendations for improving the proposed law. She wants to make lobbying more transparent, strengthen enforcement, and make the system work better. Bélanger explained that her office is responsible for keeping track of lobbyists, educating people about lobbying rules, and making sure people follow the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. She discussed the current rules for when someone needs to register as a lobbyist, noting that the threshold was recently lowered from 32 hours a month to 8 hours a month, but ideally should be zero. She also mentioned that her office has sent four cases to the RCMP for further investigation. Committee members asked Bélanger about various aspects of the Lobbying Act and her recommendations. They discussed the lobbying rules in British Columbia, which she sees as a good model. They also talked about potential loopholes in the proposed law, such as how the rules apply to people who volunteer to lobby or who used to work in government. Committee members and Bélanger agreed on the importance of transparency and ensuring that Canadians know who is trying to influence government decisions. The committee will continue to hear from witnesses as part of its review of the Lobbying Act, and Ms. Bélanger will return at the end of the study.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the state of access to information in Canada. The first panel heard from representatives of the Privy Council Office (PCO), including Matthew Shea, who discussed challenges in meeting access to information requests. Shea noted a rise in the volume and complexity of requests, with a significant portion of complaints coming from a small number of requesters. He also mentioned efforts to transfer historical intelligence records to Library and Archives Canada to reduce the backlog. Committee members questioned Shea about PCO's compliance with the Access to Information Act. Some members expressed concern over delays and the number of complaints against PCO. Shea explained that the complexity of files and the need for interdepartmental consultations contributed to delays. He also highlighted the use of technology, like AI, to improve efficiency. Members also discussed the use of encrypted messaging services and the importance of documenting decisions. The second panel included representatives from Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). Leslie Weir from LAC discussed the challenges of providing access to historical government records, especially with a large volume of paper documents. Dominic Rochon from TBS emphasized the importance of access to information for government transparency and accountability. He also mentioned the upcoming review of the Access to Information Act and the government's commitment to improving the system. Committee members questioned Rochon about the TBS's commitment to access to information and the use of disappearing message functions on government devices. Rochon defended the use of automatic delete features as good record management, as long as important information is documented elsewhere. The committee also discussed the Information Commissioner's powers and the need to balance transparency with protecting sensitive information. The committee will begin consideration of the draft report on the Conflict of Interest Act after next week.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the state of access to information in Canada. The main focus was on how government departments manage information, especially with new technology like Microsoft Teams, and how well the Privy Council Office (PCO) is handling access to information requests. The Information Commissioner of Canada, Caroline Maynard, spoke about the importance of proper record-keeping and the challenges her office faces in ensuring government transparency. She highlighted that while some departments have improved their response to information requests, the PCO has struggled with delays and backlogs. Caroline Maynard emphasized that government institutions need clear rules and training on managing digital records, including those created through instant messaging. She also noted that the PCO is facing challenges with old, paper-based records, some dating back decades. Maynard discussed her power to issue orders to government departments to comply with access to information requests, noting that while most departments comply, the PCO's performance is a concern. She also mentioned that the Treasury Board is considering reviewing her order-making powers, which she strongly opposes, as it would weaken the access to information system. Committee members raised concerns about the disappearance of records and the impact on accountability, especially in light of recent scandals like ArriveCAN. They questioned Maynard on the use of artificial intelligence to improve access to information and the need for government institutions to be more proactive in disclosing information. Maynard suggested that all exemptions in the current law should be reviewed and analyzed to ensure that it limits access to information as little as possible. Several committee members asked about the Privy Council Office's (PCO) poor performance on access to information requests. Maynard confirmed that the PCO has a growing backlog and has been slow to respond to orders from her office. She also noted that the PCO has, on occasion, exaggerated claims of harm to avoid releasing documents. Maynard met with the Clerk of the Privy Council to discuss these issues, but there has been no tangible improvement since that meeting. The committee approved study budgets for the study on the state of access to information in Canada and a supplementary study budget for the review of the Conflict of Interest Act. The committee also discussed plans for future meetings, including a review of the Lobbying Act.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) and how to regulate it. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, Evan Solomon, spoke about the government's plan for AI, focusing on building trust, safety, and responsibility. He outlined a strategy based on "AI for all," with pillars to build a strong AI foundation, empower talent and research, and protect Canadians from harm. The plan includes investing in infrastructure, skills training, and data protection. Committee members questioned the Minister on various issues. One concern was the accuracy and cost of the Canada Revenue Agency's AI chatbot, "Charlie." There were questions about how the government will ensure transparency and accountability in AI systems, especially regarding data retention and audit trails. Some members raised concerns about the use of AI in government consultations and the potential for bias. The Minister defended the use of AI to analyze public feedback, emphasizing the need for efficiency and transparency. Another point of discussion was the government's investment in AI data centers. Some committee members questioned whether taxpayer money was being used effectively to support Canadian companies. The Minister defended the investments, highlighting the importance of Canadian sovereignty and supporting Canadian AI champions. The committee also discussed the need to protect children from deepfakes and sexually exploitive content generated by AI, with the Minister referencing proposed laws to address these issues. The committee also discussed a motion regarding access to information in Canada, specifically concerning the deletion of instant messages and emails within the public service. An amendment was proposed to remove certain wording and add a request for a government response to the study's findings, but it was ultimately rejected. The original motion was then passed, initiating a two-meeting study on the state of access to information in Canada. The committee agreed to invite several key figures to speak, including the Information Commissioner of Canada and officials from the Privy Council Office and Treasury Board Secretariat.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) met to discuss the challenges and regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). Experts spoke about the potential dangers of AI, including the risk of human extinction if AI development isn't carefully managed. They suggested that AI companies should be regulated more like pharmaceutical companies, with safety standards and testing before releasing AI products. The committee also heard from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada about the importance of protecting personal information in the age of AI, and the need for stronger privacy laws. David Krueger, a machine learning professor, warned that AI companies are trying to build superintelligent AI systems that could replace humans, but we don't know how to control them. He suggested that stopping the development of advanced AI computer chips could slow down AI development. Anthony Aguirre, from the Future of Life Institute, said that AI could soon do AI research and development by itself, rapidly improving itself and progressing far beyond human capabilities. He recommended that Canada support the creation of AI tools that empower rather than replace humans, and prohibit the development of superintelligence until it can be shown to be safe. Max Tegmark, a professor at MIT, argued that there is less regulation on AI than on sandwiches, and that AI companies should be held to safety standards. He suggested that Canada could lead the way by setting safety standards for AI products, like clinical trials for AI companions for kids. He also warned about the risks of AI being used to create bioweapons or overthrow governments. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Philippe Dufresne, discussed the importance of modernizing Canada's privacy laws to address the challenges posed by AI. He recommended recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, implementing privacy by design, and conducting privacy impact assessments for high-impact data processing. He also mentioned ongoing investigations into social media platform X and OpenAI, and the need for stronger enforcement powers for his office. The committee discussed potential next steps, including amending privacy laws to give the Privacy Commissioner more power to enforce regulations and protect Canadians' personal information. They also talked about the possibility of international agreements to regulate AI development and prevent a dangerous AI arms race.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics met to discuss the challenges and regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The meeting featured several expert witnesses who shared their perspectives on the risks and potential benefits of AI. Wyatt Tessari L'Allié from AI Governance and Safety Canada emphasized the need for Canada to prioritize AI safety, spearhead global talks on AI governance, and build resilience against potential AI-related disruptions. He suggested that AI development, especially the pursuit of smarter-than-human AI, poses a significant threat that requires immediate attention and a coordinated response. He recommended a national conversation on AI to inform and consult Canadians. During the meeting, committee members questioned the witnesses about specific AI-related risks, such as the impact of AI chatbots on youth mental health, the spread of deepfakes, and the potential for AI to be used for malicious purposes. Michael Barrett raised concerns about AI-driven manipulation and the need for updated criminal laws to address deepfakes. Abdelhaq Sari discussed the importance of digital sovereignty and the need to reduce vulnerability associated with AI dependence. Luc Thériault questioned the possibility of stopping the development of systems more powerful than our defenses. Other witnesses, including Steven Adler, a former OpenAI safety researcher, and Andrea Miotti, CEO of ControlAI, highlighted the potential for AI to be used for cyberattacks and other malicious purposes. They emphasized the need for international agreements and regulations to ensure that AI systems are developed and used safely. Etienne Brisson from The Human Line Project shared personal experiences of AI-induced psychosis and emphasized the importance of user education and mental health support. The committee explored potential regulatory measures, such as AI labeling, pre-launch risk assessments, and the establishment of a duty of care for AI platforms. The committee members agreed on the importance of taking action to address the challenges posed by AI and to ensure that AI is developed and used in a responsible and ethical manner.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss a letter from Brookfield in response to questions raised about potential conflicts of interest with the Prime Minister. Conservative committee members expressed disappointment with the letter, arguing it lacked transparency and called on the Prime Minister to waive confidentiality on his holdings to clear up any concerns. They also raised concerns about a proposed law in the budget that could allow ministers to exempt entities from laws, potentially benefiting companies like Brookfield. Liberal committee members defended the ethics laws, calling them the "gold standard" and accused the Conservatives of playing political games. They highlighted testimony from the Ethics Commissioner and other witnesses who stated that the ethics screen and blind trust are working effectively. They argued that the Prime Minister has properly divested his assets and that the committee should focus on improving the Conflict of Interest Act rather than pursuing unsubstantiated claims. The committee also discussed future studies. A motion was passed to study the use of AI in algorithmic pricing in Canada, focusing on the costs to consumers. Another motion was put forward to request the Minister of Artificial Intelligence to appear before the committee, as he had not yet done so despite multiple invitations. The committee agreed to send a formal letter to the minister requesting his appearance by February 6, 2026.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the Conflict of Interest Act. The Commissioner of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Konrad von Finckenstein, along with Lyne Robinson-Dalpé and Michael Aquilino, presented recommendations for improving the act's efficiency. These included allowing the lobbying commissioner to temporarily step in if there's no Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, adding "apparent" conflicts to the general duty of public office holders, and allowing exemptions for assets posing no conflict risk, like exchange-traded funds. They also suggested allowing public officers to participate in matters affecting friends and relatives if the interests are the same as a broad class, letting the commissioner approve outside activities that don't conflict with official duties, and raising maximum administrative monetary penalties. Committee members raised concerns about a proposed law (Bill C-15) that would allow ministers to exempt companies from federal laws, potentially creating conflicts of interest. Commissioner von Finckenstein responded that ministers would still be subject to the Conflict of Interest Act and would have to recuse themselves from decisions where a conflict exists. There was also discussion about the ethics screen used to prevent conflicts of interest for the Prime Minister, specifically regarding assets in a blind trust and interactions with Brookfield, a company with which the Prime Minister has ties. Some committee members questioned the completeness of the list of Brookfield companies included in the ethics screen. Commissioner von Finckenstein clarified that his office provides advice on the ethics screen but does not make decisions. He also stated that the Canadian system for managing conflicts of interest is considered a "gold standard" internationally. The committee discussed the possibility of including "apparent conflicts of interest" in the Conflict of Interest Act to maintain public trust. The Commissioner stated that he already has the power to investigate on his own initiative if he has reason to believe there has been a contravention of the act. The committee did not make any decisions during the meeting, but the discussion will likely inform future amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the challenges of regulating artificial intelligence (AI). The committee wanted to learn how to protect Canadians while still allowing businesses to innovate and compete. Witnesses shared their expertise on AI's impact on small businesses, market governance, and economic sovereignty. Frédéric Gonzalo, a digital marketing consultant, highlighted the need for clear and simple AI guidelines for small businesses, focusing on privacy, consent, and digital literacy. He suggested a tiered regulatory approach, with stricter rules for high-risk AI uses and simpler rules for everyday uses. Vasiliki Bednar, from the Canadian SHIELD Institute, emphasized that AI regulation should address real-world applications, like algorithmic pricing and AI-generated content, rather than just data collection. She warned against over-promising AI's benefits without proper governance. Matthew da Mota, also from the SHIELD Institute, raised concerns about AI's impact on research, knowledge control, and the spread of misinformation. Committee members questioned the witnesses on topics such as AI biases, the impact on jobs, and the role of international cooperation. Witnesses discussed the balance between regulation and innovation, with some suggesting graduated regulations for different-sized businesses. There was also discussion about the need for more transparency and accountability in AI systems, as well as the potential for AI to be used for malicious purposes. The committee expressed disappointment that the responsible minister had not appeared despite multiple invitations. The committee plans to continue its study of AI regulation and encouraged the minister to appear in the future.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the challenges and regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The first panel of witnesses, Connor Leahy and Gabriel Alfour from Conjecture Ltd., warned about the potential extinction risk from superintelligent AI, which they defined as AI more capable than humans in all cognitive tasks. They recommended that Canada recognize superintelligence as a national and global security threat, negotiate an international agreement to prohibit its development, and prevent its development within Canada. They likened the current AI development race to the early days of social media, where rapid development outpaced government regulation, and to the development of nuclear technology, where international agreements were necessary to ensure safety. The second witness, Carole Piovesan from INQ Law, discussed different models of AI governance around the world, including the deregulatory approach in the United States, the tailored sectoral approach in the United Kingdom and Singapore, and the prescriptive approach in the EU AI Act. She recommended that Canada continue building a regulatory guidance approach for safe AI, improve diversity in representation and perspectives in AI policy, and conduct an environmental scan to understand where Canadian laws may have gaps in accounting for AI. She also emphasized the importance of international coordination to establish norms and mechanisms to defend against rogue nations developing AI weapons. Committee members questioned the witnesses about the timeline for superintelligent AI development, safeguards against malicious AI uses, and the balance between promoting economic benefits and regulating AI. They also discussed the role of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute (CAISI) and the need for international agreements to prevent an AI arms race. The witnesses emphasized the importance of prioritizing safety and human well-being over commercialization and the need for a targeted approach to AI regulation that addresses specific risks while allowing for innovation.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the challenges and regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The committee heard from two witnesses: Antoine Guilmain, a cybersecurity and data protection expert, and Malo Bourgon, the CEO of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Guilmain advised caution in creating new laws for AI, suggesting that existing laws should be adapted first and that regulations should not burden small businesses. Bourgon warned about the dangers of advanced AI, specifically artificial superintelligence, and called for international cooperation to manage its development.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the Conflict of Interest Act, focusing on Brookfield Corporation's operations and its relationship with Prime Minister Carney. Justin Beber, Brookfield's Chief Operating Officer, testified before the committee. Committee members questioned Beber about Brookfield's tax practices, its global investments, and potential conflicts of interest arising from Prime Minister Carney's prior role at Brookfield and his continued financial links to the company through stock options and deferred share units. During the meeting, committee members from different parties raised concerns about potential tax avoidance by Brookfield, the location of its investment funds in tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, and the influence Prime Minister Carney's past association with Brookfield might have on government policies. Beber defended Brookfield's tax practices, stating the company complies with all applicable tax laws and regulations in the jurisdictions where it operates. He also emphasized that Brookfield does not direct or manage government engagement or advocacy efforts by its portfolio companies. Conservative members pressed Beber on the details of Prime Minister Carney's compensation from Brookfield, including the value of his stock options and deferred share units, and how these might be affected by government decisions. Liberal members defended Prime Minister Carney, highlighting the ethics screens in place and emphasizing that he recuses himself from any decisions that could create a conflict of interest. They also pointed out that Brookfield is a major Canadian employer and taxpayer. Several committee members requested additional information from Brookfield, including lists of investments in specific funds, the identities of investors (LPs), and details of Brookfield's tax payments over the past few years. The Chair indicated that these requests would be formally communicated to Brookfield, with a deadline for response. The committee also approved a budget of $27,500 for an upcoming study on artificial intelligence.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the Conflict of Interest Act, specifically focusing on how it applies to the Prime Minister. The key witness was Marc-André Blanchard, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, who explained his role in administering the ethics screen designed to prevent conflicts of interest. He emphasized that the screen, developed with the Ethics Commissioner, is a rigorous and proactive measure to ensure the Prime Minister doesn't make decisions that could benefit him personally, especially given his past business ties. Blanchard also referenced a similar situation with a former Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Harper, to show this type of arrangement is not new. Committee members questioned Blanchard extensively about the effectiveness and transparency of the ethics screen, particularly regarding the Prime Minister's investments and communications with companies like Brookfield.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the Conflict of Interest Act, focusing on how it applies to the Prime Minister. Michael Sabia, the Clerk of the Privy Council, explained the processes in place to manage potential conflicts of interest, including the use of a blind trust and an ethics screen. The committee wanted to know if these measures were strong enough to ensure the Prime Minister wasn't making decisions that could benefit him personally, given his past business connections. Committee members questioned Sabia about the details of the ethics screen, how it was applied, and whether the Prime Minister should have divested his assets to avoid any appearance of conflict. Sabia explained that the ethics screen is a rigorous system designed to prevent the Prime Minister from being involved in decisions that could benefit companies in which he has a financial interest. He emphasized that the public service is deeply involved in this process, providing non-partisan advice. Sabia also mentioned that he consults with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure everything is done correctly. He defended the current system, saying it was as good as or better than those in the private sector, and that it was important not to create barriers that would prevent talented people from serving in government. Some committee members expressed concern that the Prime Minister's connections to Brookfield Corporation, a large global company, created a potential conflict of interest. They questioned whether the ethics screen was strong enough to prevent the Prime Minister from making decisions that could benefit Brookfield. Sabia said that the screen had been applied six times, and that the Prime Minister was not involved in decisions where there was a potential conflict. He also said that he had sold his own shares in Brookfield to avoid any appearance of conflict. Several committee members asked Sabia for more details about how the ethics screen works and how decisions are made. Sabia agreed to provide the committee with additional information in writing, including details about the instances where the screen had been triggered. The committee also scheduled future meetings with the Prime Minister's chief of staff and a representative from Brookfield Corporation to continue their review of the Conflict of Interest Act. The committee will use the information gathered to consider possible changes to the Conflict of Interest Act, particularly regarding the rules for the Prime Minister. The goal is to ensure that the Prime Minister is acting in the best interests of the country and that Canadians have confidence in their government.