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

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We'll turn to Ms. DeRidder for five minutes, please.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of technical questions. With the development of AI, and considering data ownership with the mindset of cybersecurity, do you think Canada should be considering Canadian software as well as a Canadian cloud for storage of particular House business?

[Eric Janse]

I think the storage is part of the agreement.

[Christopher Henry]

Thank you for the question.

Yes. When it comes to data protections and looking at what may also be considered data sovereignty in this question and how we could examine that further, certainly our current state with our current supplier, from the Copilot and Microsoft perspective, is that we have agreements and data residency assurances through our contractual obligations with Microsoft from a data storage perspective. What that means for members and their staff is that your OneDrive, your SharePoint sites and any aspects of your work within the Microsoft suite enjoy the protections of Canadian data residency.

You mentioned Canadian software companies. Microsoft is not technically a Canadian-headquartered and -owned company. As such, one exploration we are considering as part of ongoing proofs of concept, to further examine how we can support members in ensuring that we're looking at all aspects of protection of their information and its use, is that we are exploring some other Canadian companies around the AI field. Those have not yet materialized an offering yet, but they are in the works from a planning perspective. We can examine further what it would look like if we were to offer more protections, not just residency but what I'll call independence and perhaps some aspects of control of the information.

These are areas we want to examine and explore further. The other side to examine as well involves the capabilities, because certainly with some of these might come some trade-offs when it comes to the features and what they might offer.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for that. It's good to know that Canadian options are being explored, because we know that with data residency it's very important that it be Canadian-owned and Canadian-headquartered on Canadian soil.

You mentioned an agreement with Microsoft. Inside that agreement, does it protect us from the U.S. CLOUD Act?

[Christopher Henry]

Thank you for the question.

While I'm not an expert by any means on the legalities of the U.S. CLOUD Act, from a purely technical perspective, when it comes to the House of Commons' use of Microsoft as a technology and the data we use within the platform, so any of its applications, we have assurances in our contractual agreements for Microsoft to contact the Speaker and the law clerk and the various officials we've put in all of our terms and conditions of our contracts with our suppliers. That does offer a good level of protection.

As we examine aspects of risk of the CLOUD Act further, there are aspects that we are starting to notice. We see where there could be some legal aspects that could ask for access to the information, through court orders south of the border, where we may not be able to fully intervene, let's say, before those orders happen. There's always jurisprudence and aspects for us to examine those areas as they become known, but there are risks with the CLOUD Act around that.

To round out the answer, we don't know everything, certainly, about the aspects of the legalities, but part of our exploration in other solutions, such as a Canadian AI technology company, is that we could certainly examine how the aspects of the CLOUD Act would perhaps be minimized in our use of the technology through other vendors.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you for your transparency about the U.S. CLOUD Act.

Kitchener is Canada's innovation capital, I will proudly declare, so we have some options right in my hometown and they're working on solutions as we speak.

Am I out of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

No, but be very quick.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay.

AI is changing very rapidly. Where do you see AI helping with workflows and remaining as a tool in your tool box to help increase efficiency? What are some of the key areas in the House where we can implement it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Answer very quickly.

[Eric Janse]

I think Natalie mentioned a few earlier.

I don't know if you want to repeat...or if there are any others that we have further down that we envision looking at.

[Natalie Foster]

At the moment, I think general productivity is another area where we can see some gains. That's the summarization of public documents, potentially the summarization of meetings, and initial drafts of certain documents as well. However, I do think that maintaining the accountability and the human loop is very important to anything that we would go forward with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Caley, you have five minutes, please.

[Braeden Caley, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Thank you very much Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses today. It's good to see several of you again.

To switch gears just a tiny bit, I thought it could be useful to hear a little bit about the accountability side of things and a bit more about the public's interaction with the House of Commons.

Before asking that, I'll compliment you on the work that's been done on this so far. In general, the House of Commons tech infrastructure.... As a new MP, it's been neat to see how it's more creative and seemingly more embracing of new tools than a lot of other government entities in the country. Accountability-wise, I think there's a lot of potential here, and I may have time to get to things we should worry about as well.

Think about a certain democratization of the capability to analyze, of analysis, that might have been in the domain of think tanks or only well-funded news bureaus in the past. Now, with public tools, a member of the public would be able to compile their own questions and answers about the long arc of a political party's positions, statements or votes on matters.

From what you've seen, what excites you, either in what's been possible so far or in other international examples, about any potential for improvement to the accountability that could come—or ease of accessibility to the House by the public—because of this new technology and how fast it's accelerating?

[Eric Janse]

That's a very good question. We could probably spend half an hour on it.

Very quickly.... I think the AI tools give access, or easier access, to all the information that's out there. That, I think, is already a beneficial advantage for Canadians in general, especially those who are following parliamentary proceedings closely. I know as well—because there are information management experts who help committees and members and the like—that the Library of Parliament is exploring how AI can be used to help it do its work for you better and more quickly.

Do you have something to add, Natalie?

[Natalie Foster]

Obviously, you've alluded to transparency and accountability being fundamental to the democratic process. I do think that as the House of Commons, as an institution, it is our duty to ensure that the data we create, disseminate and build here.... You can think about data around votes, proceedings and what's said, the spoken word, in the House and in committees. We do feel that we have a responsibility to ensure that information is made available to the public through open data as much as possible so that they can leverage it to be a better-informed citizenry and to be able to use that information in the way they see fit.

I see that as a possible future for us: to continue to go down that vein so that our information is more easily accessible to the public in the variety of ways they'd like to access it.

I don't know if you want to add anything to that.

[Christopher Henry]

Just to build on that, I will say that we currently are getting a lot of requests on our public websites, which are currently the main panes of glass for organizations, as you mentioned, to get our data. As Natalie mentioned, open parliaments, open data concepts, and standards around that are not new. However, more than ever, in the AI age, there's a need to democratize that data so that companies and stakeholders alike can repurpose and use that information with fewer barriers than they have today.

[Braeden Caley, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Are there particular barriers right now that you're sifting through as those requests increase?

[Christopher Henry]

Certainly, yes. It's a balance between.... When there are, let's say, AI crawlers, if you will, accessing our websites, that can impede the performance of and access to those websites for the purpose they are designed for. It's a catch-22 where we're trying to be open and available for all stakeholder needs while ensuring that at least the one window of glass on our information that we currently share is available at the same time. Certainly, something in our road maps to look at, as Natalie mentioned, is having more access to the data itself instead of to a presentation layer of the data to be harvested.

[Braeden Caley, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Both are important now.

This next question is a bit more technical and picks up on questions from a few colleagues.

Is the pilot of Copilot the same instance or same initiative as within the public service, or are these developing in parallel to each other? Are there any best practices from both being developed in parallel—if I'm reading the head shaking correctly—that are being taken so far?

[Christopher Henry]

I'll start, and then if Natalie would like to add anything....

Through the Parliament of Canada Act and our institutional independence, yes, I can assure you that the Copilot pilot instance is within the House of Commons Microsoft agreement and our contractual separation from the other departments and agencies.

That being said, we collaborate extensively with our colleagues across the departmental areas, and legislative areas around the world, to ensure that we learn from each other how best to administer these tools and configure them in a way that is mindful of the risks and, of course, benefits for our clients.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll now go to Madame Normandin.

Before I do, cognizant of the time, I think what I will do is give four minutes, six minutes and six minutes to the next three questioners. That will take us to....

I'm getting a look. Is that fine? Okay. I think that puts us in a good spot to get to switching the panel.

Madame Normandin, you have four minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Foster, I'd like to come back to how you mentioned that zero non-public information can be entered into artificial intelligence tools. I would like to hear your comments on what that means for House employees. For example, I understand that there's a formal ban on using artificial intelligence to draft bills, translate bills or transcribe an in camera committee meeting, for example. Is that correct? If so, how can we ensure that it's properly enforced?

[Natalie Foster]

We have guidelines for our employees as well. There are similarities with the guidelines for members. No, people can't enter private information into public tools.

That said, when it comes to writing the Hansard, as well as committee evidence, we're talking about a protected tool in our infrastructure. In that case, we have permission to enter testimony or the Hansard into those systems, even in camera, because it's protected; it's within our infrastructure.

Translation always goes through our partner, the translation bureau. Artificial intelligence tools are not used to translate the Hansard, evidence, official publications or documents you receive in committee, for example. We always work with that partner.

When it comes to bills, we do have a team of law clerks and lawyers who support you in that work. They're the ones working on the bills, and no information is entered into public tools.

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

Since we're hearing from the interpreters and the translation bureau in a little while, I would like to hear your comments on one thing: Are there certain aspects of the House's work for which artificial intelligence is used?

One thing that comes to mind, for example, is the closed captioning used on ParlVU. Is artificial intelligence already being used? If it isn't—or even if it is—is there any intention to use it down the line? How would that work?