Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met to discuss the Lobbying Act. The first witness was Michael Harvey, the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia, who spoke about B.C.'s Lobbyists Transparency Act. He highlighted the importance of transparency, simplicity in the law, and the need for registration by default, where most people who lobby have to register. He also talked about monthly reports for communications with senior public officials and the ability to issue penalties for not following the rules. Committee members asked about the impact on small businesses and the effectiveness of the two-year cooling-off period for former public office holders. Next, representatives from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shared insights on lobbying regulations. Elsa Pilichowski, Nejla Saula, and Pauline Bertrand discussed the OECD's recommendations for transparency and integrity in lobbying. They noted that Canada has a strong framework but could improve in areas like disclosing who ultimately benefits from lobbying and providing more details on grassroots lobbying efforts. The OECD representatives also emphasized the importance of a comprehensive approach to public integrity, including managing conflicts of interest and addressing foreign influence. Committee members questioned the OECD representatives about potential conflicts of interest involving family members of public office holders and ways to strengthen independent oversight. They also discussed the need for a unified anti-corruption strategy in Canada. The OECD representatives suggested that Canada could consider implementing administrative monetary penalties and improving coordination between agencies responsible for public integrity. Overall, the committee explored ways to enhance Canada's Lobbying Act by learning from British Columbia's experience and incorporating international best practices recommended by the OECD. The discussion focused on increasing transparency, ensuring compliance, and addressing emerging challenges in the lobbying landscape. Finally, a Conservative member sought unanimous consent to study the Minister of Finance's connection to a company called Alto, but the Liberals denied consent.

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.