Fighting Information Disorder in a Time of Upheaval
October 15, 2026
Ottawa, ON
(Check against delivery)
Good afternoon.
It is a pleasure to be here at the invitation of the International Institute of Communications.
As Information Commissioner of Canada, my role intersects in some very important ways with the work done by the IIC.
That’s why I was more than happy to offer you my perspective in a moment of profound transformation.
I first took on this role in 2018 after a long career as a lawyer and government executive.
When I accepted this job, I thought I had signed up to investigate complaints related to requests from the public for records under the control of government institutions.
I also understood that an important part of my mandate was “upholding the right of access,” as provided for under the Access to Information Act.
But I could not foresee the threats to that right that would emerge over the course of my time as Commissioner.
I could certainly not have imagined that I would one day be called upon to speak out on the alarming trend that is the subject of this address.
I am referring to the emergence of an ecosystem of misleading, false, or harmful information that disrupts the public’s ability to understand issues and make informed decisions.
A phenomenon otherwise known as “information disorder.”
The emergence of information disorder
Around the world, democratic institutions are confronting a convergence of disruptive forces.
Artificial intelligence is reshaping how information is created and distributed.
It does this by enabling content to be produced and shared at unprecedented speed and scale.
The advancements in AI make it increasingly difficult to distinguish information that is authentic, accurate and trustworthy.
Social media platforms continue to accelerate the speed at which narratives spread across societies around the world, turbo-charging the spread of false information and increasing division.
Trust in public institutions is under strain.
Geopolitical instability has intensified competition over information itself.
Competing interests seek to influence what the public sees, shape their opinions, and control public debate.
Citizens increasingly find themselves navigating an environment in which it can be difficult to distinguish fact from fiction and where appearances can be mistaken for reality.
While the technologies may be new, the underlying challenge is not:
Democracies have always depended upon citizens who have access to accurate and reliable information.
What is different today is the scale, speed and sophistication with which misleading or false information can circulate.
Increasingly, I see this reality reflected in my investigations.
I often encounter complaints from individuals who are convinced that redactions are motivated by improper considerations rather than the lawful applications of statutory exemptions.
Others insist that government institutions are withholding records they believe must exist, based on information obtained from unreliable sources.
In such an environment, transparency is not merely a matter of good governance.
It is a democratic necessity.
As Information Commissioner of Canada, I view the right of access to information not only as a quasi-constitutional right, but as one of the strongest institutional tools available to governments seeking to strengthen public trust and counter false and misleading narratives.
Not because access rights can eliminate information disorder. They cannot.
But because an open government provides something indispensable in an age of uncertainty:
Reliable and verifiable facts.
Timely access to accurate government information allows citizens, journalists, researchers and parliamentarians to scrutinize decisions, challenge assumptions and hold institutions accountable.
Transparency helps create the conditions in which the facts can compete. It provides a reliable reference point against which claims, rumours and speculation can be tested.
Information Disorder and the Crisis of Trust
When discussing information disorder, much attention is devoted to the supply side of the problem: malicious actors, manipulation campaigns, deepfakes and algorithmic amplification.
These concerns are real.
However, another factor deserves equal attention.
Misleading narratives thrive in environments where trusted information is absent, inaccessible or delayed.
When people lack access to credible information from authoritative sources, speculation fills the gap.
They may turn to unreliable, even deliberately misleading sources.
When official explanations arrive months or years after decisions are made, alternative narratives gain momentum.
And when institutions appear reluctant to share information, citizens naturally begin to question what is being withheld and why.
Throughout my tenure, I have emphasized the close relationship between transparency and public trust.
Access to information is not a service provided at the discretion of government.
Canadians are entitled to know how public decisions are made; how public funds are spent and how power is exercised.
Our challenge today is not simply to preserve access rights.
It is ensuring that they remain meaningful in a rapidly changing information environment.
The Right to Know in the Digital Era
When Canada's Access to Information Act came into force in 1983, it was considered a model of progressive legislation.
The world in which it was created, however, bears little resemblance to the world we inhabit today.
Government records are no longer stored primarily in filing cabinets.
Key decisions are often discussed and made through messaging platforms, collaborative applications and digital channels.
Vast quantities of information are generated every day.
Data moves instantly across systems and jurisdictions.
Yet many of our information management practices and legislative frameworks remain rooted in an earlier era.
Over the course of my mandate, I have repeatedly told parliamentary committees that Canada's access system must evolve to reflect how information is actually created, shared and preserved in the twenty-first century.
Important decisions cannot simply disappear into unrecorded conversations or fragmented digital channels.
Public institutions must ensure that records are properly captured, managed and retained.
This is not merely an administrative concern.
The right of access depends on the existence of reliable records.
Without proper records, accountability becomes difficult and public confidence suffers.
Transparency as an Antidote to Misinformation
It has become increasingly clear to me that transparency must not be viewed solely as a response mechanism.
It must also be a preventative strategy that seeks to ensure information vacuums do not emerge in the first place
Too often, government institutions view access to information as something that occurs only after a decision has been made.
A request arrives. Records are identified. They are reviewed for possible exemptions. A response is eventually provided.
While this process remains essential, it is not sufficient.
In an era of information disorder, transparency must be integrated much earlier.
I have often said that the best access request is the one that never needed to be made because the information was already available.
Proactive disclosure reduces uncertainty, strengthens trust and helps prevent misinformation from taking root.
Citizens should not have to fight for routine information.
The Government already has a legal requirement for proactive publication.
Under Part Two of the Access to Information Act, contracts over ten thousand dollars, reports tabled in parliament and certain briefing materials must be proactively disclosed.
However, this is not enough.
Government institutions should voluntarily publish high-demand information whenever possible, particularly records that are repeatedly requested through the access system.
When governments know that information will inevitably become the subject of public interest or access requests, there is often considerable value in releasing it promptly and with appropriate context.
When major public initiatives are launched, transparency should be considered from the outset.
When significant policy decisions are made, the rationale should be clearly communicated.
When public funds are spent, disclosure should be expected.
Artificial Intelligence and Authenticity
No discussion of information disorder would be complete without addressing artificial intelligence.
AI holds enormous potential.
It can improve productivity, enhance service delivery and support evidence-based decision making.
But it also introduces new risks.
The ability to generate convincing text, images, audio and video at scale has fundamentally altered the information landscape.
For the first time, citizens may routinely encounter content that appears authentic yet is entirely fabricated.
This reality places even greater importance on access to trustworthy public information.
In the AI era, access to information serves an additional purpose: it provides trusted points of reference against which citizens can question what they see online.
Public institutions, therefore, have an important role to play in safeguarding the integrity of the information environment.
The Need for a Culture of Openness
Legislation matters.
Technology matters.
Resources matter.
But culture matters too.
Laws can establish obligations. Technology can improve systems. Resources can increase capacity. Yet none of these can substitute for a genuine commitment to openness.
Throughout my appearances before Parliament, I have consistently maintained that transparency must be embraced as an institutional value, supported by leadership and reflected throughout the public service.
Rules can require disclosure but only leadership can make openness the default.
Leaders set expectations.
They determine whether transparency is embraced as a value or treated as an obligation to be minimized.
A culture of openness recognizes that government information ultimately belongs to the public.
It views disclosure as the default rather than the exception.
And it understands that transparency is not a threat to effective government.
It is a prerequisite for public confidence.
At a time when trust is fragile, that distinction matters enormously.
A Global Challenge
The issues I have described are not unique to Canada.
Across democratic societies, information commissioners, regulators, journalists, civil society organizations and governments are confronting the same fundamental question:
How do we preserve trust in public institutions?
That is why opportunities such as this one are so valuable.
The solutions will not come from a single institution or jurisdiction.
They will emerge through collaboration among governments, regulators, industry, academia and citizens.
Conclusion
Let me conclude with a call to action.
Information disorder is often framed as a battle against falsehood.
That is certainly part of the challenge
But an equally important task is ensuring that truth remains accessible.
The most effective response to uncertainty is not secrecy.
It is credible, timely and trustworthy information.
For those of us in government, this means creating, preserving and making available the records that allow citizens to understand public decisions.
For those of us working in communications, regulation, journalism, academia and civil society, it means continuing to strengthen the information environment upon which democracies depend.
Transparency will not eliminate misinformation, nor can access laws alone overcome information disorder.
But transparency remains one of our strongest defences against it.
When governments create and preserve records, citizens are better equipped to understand decisions, hold institutions accountable and make informed choices.
In that environment, misinformation has less room to take hold.
We live in a time of upheaval.
Yet the democratic principles that guide us remain remarkably constant:
Openness.
Accountability.
Transparency.
And the belief that citizens have a right to know.
Those principles are not relics of another era. They are among our strongest tools for navigating the challenges of the digital age.
Thank you.