Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2026

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to you three for being here today and also for bringing your staff along with you. There are a lot of familiar faces in the audience here. Thank you for providing the strategy to us. I think that will be helpful to know.

I want to pick up where you finished on using AI in Hansard production. I didn't know that was happening. It's probably a good sign that there hasn't been any sort of noticeable change in the process. I'm wondering when you started using it for the first run-through of Hansard. Have you seen any risks? Have you received general feedback, positive or negative, on that?

[Eric Janse]

Natalie, who's responsible for the Hansard department, can speak to that.

[Natalie Foster]

Once upon a time, I was.

It's been in place for about a year. It was launched in May of last year. It was a bit of a bumpy start in the sense that we wanted to make sure our teams understood the technology and were trained, so they weren't required to use it while we were figuring out those first few steps. We've maintained the same processes in terms of the review of the work, ensuring there are human editors at multiple levels reviewing the information before it goes to members through blues or is published for the public.

We've heard from the team that it's been a help ergonomically. People used to do the typing and sometimes sustained injuries from that repetitive movement. That has been removed because that technology does the first pass, and they can focus on the higher-value work of editing and proofing. In general, there's also been a request from our teams for more training for a better understanding of the technology and where it could go and the impacts that it could have on them and their teams.

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

In terms of the level of accuracy, you haven't seen a difference.

[Natalie Foster]

There is a fairly high level of accuracy because it is trained on the historical records of Hansard. It's trained on members' names, members' constituency names and that sort of thing. There are still errors, and our technical colleagues are always involved in helping to further refine and train the model. This model is hosted on our premises. It's something that is within our infrastructure, so that data doesn't leave our systems.

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

That's interesting. Are there any examples other than Hansard?

[Natalie Foster]

It applies to Hansard and to committee evidence as well.

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

It's used for committee evidence too. That's interesting.

We've talked about the guardrails and the risks in terms of my previous colleague's question. Do you see a lot of general positives overall that members could take from using this, say, in our constituency offices? We obviously deal with a lot of private and sensitive information, so it's not just here in the House of Commons. A lot of that could be extended to our riding offices.

[Eric Janse]

It's a very good question. You're right that members have different roles, and the use of AI needs to be adapted or adjusted given the different roles.

To your point, constituency work is exactly that; it involves a lot of private information. I think, for that part, the proof of concept that's being undertaken allows the AI tool to access information that is confidential, but it doesn't allow the information out to the public. That, we hope, would be of particular benefit to members for all the casework that you do.

[Natalie Foster]

Our members' guidelines are very specific that you should not be putting personal or identifiable information into public tools. That's very important. There are other measures indicated in the guidelines that members should be following, but that's why we're working through the proof of concept for an internal tool where that data could have greater protections, where it could stay on our premises and where you would be assured that you could use that for productivity purposes.

With the question of AI, there are two sides. There's innovation, and there's risk. Members need to determine where they're comfortable and where they need our support to help make those determinations.

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I have two minutes, but this is probably my last question.

With reference to The Economist's article that you mentioned, Mr. Janse, are there flags that we should watch for, like giving speeches in the House of Commons using AI? We've seen what I would call some ridiculous examples of AI being used by parliamentarians around the world when giving speeches that include things like a disclaimer.

Have you explored that, perhaps, in some of the work that the committee has already done? Are there some suggestions that you would have for this committee as we undertake the study?

[Eric Janse]

Ultimately, members are still responsible for the speeches that they deliver, regardless of how they are drafted.

As per the guidelines, our advice would be to triple-check everything before you put it in your speech. You're right; we've all heard stories, even in court cases, of people providing information or precedents that, in fact, did not exist, etc. That is obviously something you want to avoid.

In terms of specific advice, Natalie, do you want to speak to that?

[Natalie Foster]

It's definitely something we're looking to explore further. We're currently looking at that, for example, within the committee context. We know that the public submits a large volume of correspondence and briefs, so we will have a proposal for the Liaison Committee to consider how they might want to look at disclosure for the public, in particular.

In terms of members, I really do think it falls upon your personal responsibility and accountability to determine what's appropriate for you, your caucus and the electorate in order to decide how you may want to engage, or not, with those disclosures. We'd be happy to support those discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, thank you for being here. I really appreciate it.

First, I would like to hear what you have to say about the pilot project you are conducting with Copilot. I understand that Copilot is part of the Office suite we're already working with, but I'd like to know what criteria you used to decide to take on Copilot as an artificial intelligence tool as part of your pilot project.

[Natalie Foster]

Thank you for the question. I can start by answering and then turn it over to my colleague Mr. Henry.

First, I just want to emphasize that this is a proof of concept, so this is just a start. We're running tests. We want to test use cases. We want to test the information security parameters. Since the Microsoft tool was already in our system, we found it easy to try it as the first testing tool. That doesn't mean it's the tool we will prioritize in the long term.

I will now turn it over to Mr. Henry so that he can tell you a bit about the security parameters.

[Christopher Henry]

Thank you.

Indeed, as Ms. Foster said, it's really because we're already using Microsoft applications, so it's something we can add to our applications. The general idea with the Copilot protections is that it's also part of the administration of our Microsoft platform. That means we can manage certain things with the Copilot parameters. That's one advantage of this proof of concept.

As Ms. Foster said, it's really just to make an assessment and learn how this technology is being used in our work here.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Outside of the project, members are free to use any platform. Have any risks been identified regarding the use of other platforms that could lead to a recommendation against the members using them?

[Natalie Foster]

I will talk about the strategic side, and then Mr. Henry can talk about the technological side.

We have a colour-coded list of tools on Source. Red means that the tool is not recommended. Black means that it's blocked. The other tools are in yellow. That means that they can be used, but that it's important to keep guidelines and responsibilities in mind, especially when it comes to the types of data that will be entered into these tools, because the data is not protected by our systems.

That's changing a bit. That's what we're trying to change with a proof of concept of a generative tool so that we can provide you with a service that is protected so that your data doesn't leave our system.

We have done an initial review of the tools on that list that are available to you internally to ensure that it's acceptable to enter data into them, but only public data.

Mr. Henry, do you want to add anything?

[Christopher Henry]

The problem is that each person has to know all the data they are entering into these tools and check whether it's acceptable under the guidelines. However, we sort of want to avoid having guidelines that force users to make a decision with each use. The general idea behind the proof of concept is to have an element of control that we can add to protect users and data.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

In fact, I understand that the guidelines are recommendations. It isn't something that can be imposed on members. However, I would like to hear your thoughts on two aspects.

First, despite everything, is there any form of oversight of how members use various artificial intelligence tools?

[Natalie Foster]

I can start.

Yes, we have a cybersecurity team that regularly checks—every month, every few weeks—what tools are being used on our infrastructure. This doesn't target anyone; it's really general data. I think the team is exploring other options to dig deeper. However, we have monthly reports that list the tools being used on our system, and we can immediately look for solutions or potentially block tools that are unsuitable for use on our system.

I think we also want the opinion of the committee and members in general to know what should or should not be allowed and whether we should take a much stricter approach or keep a more permissive approach.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

That's actually kind of my next question.

Has there been any discussion on imposing a regulatory framework rather than just having guidelines?

If so, would that look like, for example, guidelines but with an actual regulatory framework for certain more sensitive aspects? Is that part of the discussion?

[Eric Janse]

That's sort of part of the consultations with the parties, because it's certain that we would want to have agreement from all the parties before we impose anything.

Ms. Foster could talk about the consultations that have taken place so far.

[Natalie Foster]

We hold consultations twice, mainly with the whips and research offices of the parties, to find out your opinions, your requests and your needs. That's where our Copilot proof of concept comes from.

However, I think we have to study the issue carefully to determine how far we want to go. I know that there are other parliaments around the world where, if a tool hasn't been verified by the cybersecurity team, you aren't allowed to use it. It's about cybersecurity and data security. There are other parliaments that take a guidelines-based approach, a more open approach.

We're really trying to find out what you want. I think there is indeed a matter of security. Our cybersecurity teams will tell us when a situation is unacceptable, and we will then take action, that's for sure. However, apart from that, we're also looking for what you want in terms of support from the House of Commons administration.