PAST Candidate for City Council - Rideau Rockcliffe
peterkarwacki.overbrook@gmail.com
AI tools are used for drafting, research assistance, charts, references, and music; facts and positions are mine.
Waiting on the Robots? Four Layers That Decide What Happens Next
#604 Waiting on the Robots? Four Layers That Decide What Happens Next
Resistance to AI follows incentives, and incentives can be redesigned.
One of my recent posts was a song about waiting for the robots to take me away. It’s a joke, but the feeling behind it is real. I hear it from neighbours, friends and family: AI is coming, it’s smarter and faster than we are, and there’s nothing to do but wait.
I don’t think that’s true. Here’s how I see it.
My prediction
People will resist the development of superintelligence, except for the versions that help themselves. We already see it. Ask someone about “AI” and they worry. Ask about the assistant they use every day and they love it. The abstract thing is scary, but the personal thing is useful.
That isn’t hypocrisy. It’s how people have always behaved, because the way the world works hasn’t changed. I think four layers explain most of it.
Layer 1: Physics
Everything starts with limits: energy, materials, time. A superintelligence still needs electricity, chips, cooling and land. Those can be measured, and anything measurable can be questioned. Local examples: grid capacity issues, waste water infrastructure, or the new Canada Labs facility on Blair
Layer 2: Incentives
Inside those limits, people respond to rewards and costs. Want to predict what a company, a council or a neighbour will do? Don’t read the headline, ask who gains and who pays. Fear says nobody can predict this technology. Incentives say we can predict a lot of it.
Layer 3: Power
When incentives collide, whoever controls the scarce thing sets the terms: the budget, the agenda, the data, the permit. Local example:developers who actually decide, and who is not in the room.
Layer 4: Institutions
Rules, budgets and procedures outlast the people who wrote them. They lock in whatever balance of power existed at the time. That’s why the unglamorous stuff, like zoning, procurement and public consultation, matters more than most people think.
Why this should make you less afraid
Technology enters at layer 1, but it gets shaped at layers 2, 3 and 4. Those layers are made of people, and people can be organized, persuaded and held to account. The machine isn’t deciding our future. Humans with incentives and power are deciding it, through institutions, in public view if we choose to look.
What you can do
Measure the limits. Ask for the numbers on power, water and cost.
Align the rewards. Ask who benefits, who pays, and whether that can change.
Organize at choke points. Find who decides and show up.
Use the slow levers. Zoning, budgets and procurement rules are where outcomes get locked in, and they’re open to input early.
In upcoming posts I’ll apply these four layers to decisions facing Ottawa. For now, if you find yourself waiting on the robots, ask which layer you can push on today.
Kayaky
Why the Future of AI Follows the Same Four Layers as Everything Else
A model for being less afraid and more useful.
Most of the fear about superintelligence has the same shape: something enormous is coming, it will do what it does, and the rest of us will watch. That feeling of powerlessness is understandable. It is also, I think, mistaken about where the leverage actually is.
My thesis is simple. People will resist the development of superintelligence, except for the versions that help themselves. That isn’t cynicism. It is how people have behaved with every powerful technology, and it points to something we can use.
The model: four layers
Outcomes in human affairs, including outcomes involving AI, are shaped by four layers. They run from the most fixed to the most changeable.
Physics. What is possible: energy, compute, materials, time. Not negotiable. A technology that needs a power plant needs a power plant.
Human incentives. What people want and respond to: security, status, money, belonging, advantage. Stable across generations. Incentives can be redirected, but not wished away.
Power dynamics. Who holds leverage over whom: owners, regulators, voters, employees, rivals. These shift, but slowly, and rarely because someone asked politely.
Institutions. The rules, organizations, and habits that channel the three layers above: laws, procurement rules, courts, standards, oversight bodies. This is the layer people actually design.
What “people don’t change” really means
I don’t mean that society never changes. Institutions, norms, and technologies change constantly. I mean that human motivations are stable, while the structures that channel them are not. People in 1926 and people in 2026 want broadly the same things: safety, advantage for themselves and their families, a say in what happens to them.
That is why the thesis holds. People will welcome AI that helps them and resist AI that threatens them, and each group will fight to shape the rules accordingly. The outcome depends less on what AI “wants” and more on who designs the channels, and for whose benefit.
Why this should make us less fearful
Fear tends to attach to the first two layers. “It will do whatever it wants” is a claim about physics and incentives, and no ordinary person has leverage there. But the model says that outcomes are decided higher up, in the layers where people have always had a say, however imperfectly.
The question isn’t “what will AI do to us?” It is “who writes the rules, and who is in the room?”
What each layer asks of us
Physics: Learn the constraints. Energy, compute, and supply chains limit what is possible and who can do it. Knowing them separates real risks from science fiction.
Incentives: Ask who benefits from each version of AI. Follow the incentive and you can usually predict the behavior.
Power: Notice who has leverage and who doesn’t. Build leverage where it is missing: through coalitions, informed voters, and public pressure.
Institutions: Show up. Rules about how AI is bought, used, audited, and explained are being written now, mostly in places that look boring.
An example close to home
Consider a city deciding whether to use an AI system to prioritize service requests. The technology (layer one) is the least interesting part. The real questions sit above it. Who benefits if the system works (incentives)? Who controls the data and the vendor relationship (power)? Is there a public procurement process, an audit requirement, a way for residents to challenge a decision (institutions)? The same technology produces a very different city depending on how those answers come out.
The takeaway
People won’t change, so the model asks us to stop hoping they will and start designing for who they are. Fear says the outcome is already decided. The four layers say the decisive layer is the one we can still shape, and the work is local, specific, and mostly unglamorous.
Related: my song “Waiting on the Robots” (post #594).
Ottawa has no case I could find where a big institutional owner handed back a mostly full, recently built tower, as Brookfield did with the Beaudry. There are several smaller cases that share the same debt problem.
ReStays tower (hotel, retail and condos). This is the closest parallel. The tower emerged from receivership after a $65 million loan default, and CLV Group bought it in a court-ordered sale that leaves the lender with a shortfall. The receiver estimated about $59.2 million was still owed to CMLS Financial. As with Beaudry, the lender took the loss and a new owner took the building.
The seven-storey building was placed into receivership on September 17, 2026, on application by lender Addenda Capital. The loan matured in December 2024 and was extended several times, most recently to September 7, 2026, to give the owner time to refinance. About $25.64 million of principal remained outstanding in March.
The case differs from Beaudry's: Addenda says the owner began converting the building to rental housing around October 2025 without its consent. The refinancing wall is still the common thread.
Evoke tower, 1546 Scott Street.
This was a planned 25-storey, 230-unit project. It was placed under receivership in 2024 after a lender's application. It was never built.
Onassa lots.
Developer Onassa, which owned 26 vacant residential lots, was placed into receivership in June 2026 over unpaid secured debt. This is a land case, not a tower.
Beaudry in Los Angeles is an unusual case because it is about 95% occupied yet still being given up, which points to the debt rather than demand.
The Ottawa cases are smaller and mostly involve local developers rather than a global manager like Brookfield.
Quieter handbacks MAY not havebeen reported.
what the receivers plan for 495 Richmond.
495 Richmond Road: The Office Conversion That Hit a Wall
495 Richmond Road: The Office Conversion That Hit a Wall
By Peter Karwacki
Ottawa has been held up as a leader in turning empty office space into housing. CBRE’s Q4 2025 report put the city second in Canada for conversion projects, behind Calgary. One of those projects, in Westboro, is now in court.
The plan
In November 2025, Regional Group filed a site plan control application (D07-12-25-0146) to convert the seven-storey office building at 495 Richmond Road into 143 residential units. The building sits between Broadview and Golden avenues. It was fully vacant, and the application proposed no change to the footprint. It looked like the kind of project conversion advocates point to: an underused building near the river, a transit corridor and Westboro’s main street.
What happened
An October 9 Storeys report, drawing on Ontario Superior Court filings, shows the project in a very different place. The owner is DOV Capital, which bought the building from Artis REIT in 2019 for $39 million. Its lender, Addenda Capital, put the property into receivership on September 17. According to the filings, the conversion began without the lender’s consent.
The timeline from those filings:
The original $30.9 million mortgage matured in December 2024. It was extended several times, finally to September 7, 2026, to give the owner time to refinance.
DOV missed interest payments in June, July and August 2026.
Addenda demanded roughly $25.8 million on June 12.
A consultant inspecting the building found the interior “substantially altered and demolished,” with mainly the concrete structure and envelope left.
The consultant also found that the demolition contractor and other trades had not been fully paid.
Addenda’s concern is that its collateral was an office building and is now a partly gutted construction site. It also says it asked repeatedly for financial information, including CMHC underwriting and the redevelopment and financing plan, and did not get enough to judge whether the project was viable.
Who is who
Regional Group filed the city application, but the court filings do not show it holding an ownership interest. It is described as a manager of the property. The owner is DOV Capital. That distinction matters when we ask who was responsible for what.
Questions worth asking
I’m raising these as questions. The public record I’ve found doesn’t answer them.
What approvals were in place when demolition started? The city file showed as “File Pending” in January 2026. What permits, if any, covered the interior work?
Was the CMHC financing real? The lender says it never saw underwriting details. Was there a financing commitment behind this conversion?
What happens to the building now? It is likely headed for a court-supervised sale. A buyer might use the demolition work already done, but it’s unclear whether the building could go back to office use.
What does this say about conversions generally? Avison Young counts six Ottawa conversions totalling nearly 750,000 sq ft, with more pending. Some projects elsewhere are stalling or reverting to office use. Conversions take careful financing, and 495 Richmond looks like a case where the physical work got ahead of the money and the approvals.
Why it matters
Conversions are an important tool for housing supply, and they get public attention and policy support. That makes projects that stall worth following. A gutted, vacant building on Richmond Road helps nobody, and 143 units that don’t get built are 143 units the city is still short.
I’ll keep following the receivership and the site plan file, and will update this post when there’s a sale process or a city decision.
References
Chai, Howard. “How An Ottawa Office Conversion Ended Up In Receivership.” Storeys, October 9, 2026. https://storeys.com/495-richmond-road-ottawa-receivership/Source for the receivership, the loan timeline, the missed payments, the $25.8M demand, the consultant’s findings, and Regional Group’s role.
OttWatch. Development application D07-12-25-0146. https://ottwatch.ca/devapp/D07-12-25-0146Source for the application dates (“File Pending” as of January 19, 2026).
What would it take to register a federal party? A thought experiment
· @Peter J Karwacki
Registering a federal party in Canada takes 250 electors, a leader, three officers, a chief agent, an auditor and a statement of purpose, and keeping it takes a good deal more. To see how it works, I drafted a registration package for an imaginary party, the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party. It is a concept for this blog. It is not registered, and no real people are named in it.
The idea
Here is the statement of purpose as I drafted it:
The fundamental purposes of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party are to particippate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election, and, through that participation, to promote good government in Canada by advancing the use of artificial intelligence within government and in executive decision-making, so that public decisions rest on rational, evidence-based analysis, and by supporting the regulation of artificial intelligence and guardrails on its use.
In plain terms: use AI inside government so that decisions are better supported by evidence, and back regulation and guardrails on AI itself. Detailed policy would live in a separate platform document, not in the registration.
What Elections Canada requires
According to Elections Canada’s Political Financing Handbook, registration is a three-step process.
Apply. The party appoints a leader before filing. It also names at least three officers besides the leader, a chief agent and a CPA auditor, each with signed consent. The application adds names, addresses and signed declarations from at least 250 electors, a statement of fundamental purpose, a records office address and a published privacy policy.
Become eligible. Elections Canada checks that the name can’t be confused with another party’s and doesn’t include the word “independent”, verifies the members, and confirms the roles are filled.
Become registered. This happens only once a general election or by-election is called. The party needs at least one candidate with a confirmed nomination, and its application must have been made at least 60 days before the call.
The order matters. A party can sit on paper as an eligible party for years without ever appearing on a ballot.
Why the purpose statement carries weight
The law requires a party to have, as one of its fundamental purposes, participating in public affairs by endorsing members as candidates and supporting their election. That is why the electoral purpose comes first in the statement and the AI focus follows. A group that mainly wanted to advocate or research, with elections as an afterthought, would be on shaky ground: the leader must declare the party’s purpose every June 30, and a court can order deregistration if the purpose isn’t genuine.
Staying registered is the harder part
The paperwork doesn’t end at registration. A party files annual confirmations by June 30, reports changes within 30 days, and submits fresh declarations of 250 members every third year (the next is due June 30, 2028). Once registered, it also files annual financial returns with an auditor’s report. The Act allows no extensions, and missing a deadline can cost a party its status.
The registry shows how real that risk is. Elections Canada currently lists 14 registered parties, and its deregistered list includes the Libertarian Party of Canada (March 31, 2026) and the Marijuana Party (October 31, 2025).
Why bother with the exercise
The package makes one thing clear: a party is an organization first and an idea second. For an idea like AI-supported decision-making, the interesting questions come after registration. Who reviews an automated recommendation before a minister acts on it? What gets published so the public can check the reasoning? Those are platform questions, and this thought experiment deliberately leaves them open.
Per Elections Canada's Political Financing Handbook (March 2026), registering a federal party is a three-step process.
Step 1: Apply for registration
The party files an Application to Register a Political Party. It must include:
The party's full name, and optionally a logo and short-form name.
The leader's contact information and a copy of the resolution appointing them.
Contact details and signed consent from at least three party officers (besides the leader), a chief agent and an auditor.
Names, addresses and signed membership declarations from at least 250 electors who support the application.
A statement of the party's fundamental purpose.
The address of the party's records office.
A personal-information privacy policy, plus the web address where it is published.
Step 2: Become an "eligible party"
Elections Canada reviews the application. The party becomes eligible if:
Its name, short form, abbreviation or logo isn't confusingly similar to another eligible or registered party's.
Its name doesn't include the word "independent".
Elections Canada verifies the 250 members. The handbook suggests submitting more than 250, since some declarations may not hold up.
It has at least three officers besides the leader, plus a chief agent and an auditor.
Its privacy policy is published on its website and meets the requirements.
All required information has been provided and is accurate.
Step 3: Become a registered party
An eligible party is registered during a general election or by-election if both of these are true:
At least one of its candidates has a confirmed nomination.
Its complete application was made at least 60 days before the election was called. If it applies later, it stays eligible and can register at the next election.
For a general election, an eligible party with no confirmed candidates loses its eligibility.
Who can hold the key roles
Leader and officers: Canadian citizens aged 18 or older who live or have lived in Canada.
Chief agent: The same, or a corporation. Candidates, undischarged bankrupts and the party's auditor can't serve.
Auditor: A CPA, or a partnership of CPAs. Candidates, officers, chief agents and registered agents can't serve.
Keeping the status
Eligible and registered parties both have ongoing obligations:
By June 30 each year, a confirmation of registry information, a leader's declaration of the party's fundamental purpose, and a privacy officer's compliance statement.
Changes to registry information or new appointments reported within 30 days.
A statement and list of candidate-endorsing representatives within 10 days of a general election being called.
Fresh names, addresses and declarations of 250 members every third year (next due June 30, 2028).
For registered parties, annual financial returns and an election expenses return after each general election, each with an auditor's report.
Registered parties face involuntary deregistration for reasons including failing to endorse a candidate in a general election or missing reporting deadlines. It also applies if a court orders it, for example after certain convictions or a finding that the party doesn't genuinely aim to endorse candidates.
For the actual forms, see Elections Canada's Tools for Political Parties section.
Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party – Draft Registration Package
Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party
Draft Registration Package · prepared November 6, 2026 · items in [BRACKETS] are for you to fill in
Draft text for each item in Elections Canada’s Application to Register a Political Party, based on the Political Financing Handbook (EC 20231, March 2026). The official forms govern: copy this content onto them, and use Elections Canada’s prescribed membership declaration rather than the template in section 6. This is not legal advice; confirm anything uncertain with Elections Canada before filing.
1. Pre-filing checklist
Requirement
Who / what
Done
Party leader appointed (before applying)
[LEADER NAME]
☐
Leader resolution, co-signed by officers
Section 4
☐
At least 3 officers besides the leader, with signed consents
[OFFICER 1–3]
☐
Chief agent with signed consent
[NAME or corporation]
☐
Auditor (CPA or all-CPA partnership) with signed consent
[NAME / FIRM]
☐
At least 250 elector membership declarations (aim higher)
Section 6
☐
Statement of fundamental purpose
Section 3
☐
Records office address
[ADDRESS]
☐
Privacy policy published on party website, exact URL given
Section 7
☐
Name, short form, logo checked for confusion with existing parties
Section 2.1
☐
Eligibility. Leader and officers: Canadian citizens aged 18+ who live or have lived in Canada. Chief agent: the same, or a corporation; candidates, undischarged bankrupts, election officers and the auditor cannot serve. Auditor: a CPA or all-CPA partnership; candidates, officers, the chief agent and registered agents cannot serve.
2. Application content (Step 1)
2.1 Party name
Full name: Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party
Short form (optional): [e.g., AI Party or CAIP; Elections Canada may set a maximum length]
Logo (optional): [attach if desired]
French name: [decide whether to register one, e.g., Parti canadien de l’intelligence artificielle, and confirm with Elections Canada how it is entered]
The name must not be confusable with another eligible or registered party’s name, short form, abbreviation or logo, and must not include “independent” (it doesn’t). None of the 14 currently registered parties looks like an obvious conflict, but Elections Canada decides.
2.2 Party leader
[LEADER FULL NAME] · [MAILING ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL] · attach the certified leader resolution (section 4).
Auditor: [NAME / FIRM, CPA], [ADDRESS], [CONTACT]; consent attached. Ask whether your province requires a public accounting licence.
2.5 Records office, privacy policy and members
Office: [STREET, CITY, PROVINCE, POSTAL CODE] · [PHONE] · [EMAIL] · [WEBSITE] Privacy policy URL: [EXACT WEB PAGE URL] (text in section 7) Members: names, addresses and signed declarations of [NUMBER, at least 250] electors (section 6).
3. Statement of fundamental purpose
The fundamental purpose of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election.
Keep the statement to this legal definition. Describe what the party cares about in a separate mission or platform document. The leader must also declare the purpose each year by June 30.
4. Resolution appointing the party leader
CANADIAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PARTY Resolution Appointing the Party Leader
WHEREAS the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party (the “Party”) intends to apply for registration under the Canada Elections Act, and a leader must be appointed before applying;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
[LEADER FULL NAME], a Canadian citizen of at least 18 years of age who lives or has lived in Canada, is appointed Party Leader, effective [DATE].
The Party Leader is authorized to certify the Party’s registration documents and sign the annual confirmation of registry information.
Passed on [DATE] at [CITY, PROVINCE].
Leader: ____________________ [LEADER FULL NAME] · Date: [DATE]
If the leader later changes, a new resolution certified by the new leader and another officer must be filed within 30 days.
5. Consents to act
Use the consent section of the official form. Draft wording:
5.1 Party officer
I, [NAME], of [ADDRESS], consent to act as an officer of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party. I am a Canadian citizen, at least 18 years of age, and live or have lived in Canada.
Signature: ____________________ Date: [DATE]
5.2 Chief agent
I, [NAME / CORPORATION], of [ADDRESS], consent to act as chief agent of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party. I am not a candidate, election officer or member of a returning officer’s staff, an undischarged bankrupt, or the Party’s auditor, and I have full capacity to contract in my province or territory. [Individual: I am a Canadian citizen of at least 18 who lives or has lived in Canada. Corporation: incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province.]
Signature: ____________________ Date: [DATE]
5.3 Auditor
I, [NAME / FIRM], of [ADDRESS], consent to act as auditor of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party. I am a member in good standing of a provincially accredited accounting body (CPA) [partnership: and so is every partner], and I am not a candidate, official agent, election officer, returning officer staff member, or an officer, chief agent or registered agent of the Party.
Signature: ____________________ Date: [DATE]
6. Membership declarations (250 minimum)
Use Elections Canada’s prescribed form; this wording is for planning only.
I, [FULL NAME], of [RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS], am an elector. I am a member of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party and I support its application for registration as a political party.
Signature: ____________________ Date: [DATE]
#
Full name
Address
Signed
Verified elector
1
☐
☐
2
☐
☐
…
Submit more than 250: some declarations may fail verification.
Collect only the personal information the form requires and handle it under the privacy policy.
Fresh declarations of 250 members are due every third year (next: June 30, 2028).
7. Privacy policy (draft)
Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party – Privacy Policy Effective [DATE]. Published at [URL].
1. Who we are. The Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party (the “Party”) is a federal political party. Our records office is at [ADDRESS].
2. What we collect. The personal information you give us when you join, volunteer, donate or contact us: name, address, email, telephone number and, where required, confirmation that you are an elector. Donor information is collected as political financing rules require.
3. Why. To maintain membership records, meet our obligations to Elections Canada, communicate with members and supporters, process contributions and issue receipts, and organize party activities. We collect no more than we need.
4. Sharing. We do not sell or rent personal information. We share it only with Elections Canada as the law requires, with bound service providers who help us operate, or where otherwise required by law.
5. Safeguards. Information is kept in [SYSTEM / LOCATION], with access limited to authorized officers, agents and volunteers who need it, using [SECURITY MEASURES].
6. Retention. Only as long as needed for these purposes and legal record-keeping. [RETENTION PERIODS]
7. Your choices. You may ask to see, correct or stop our use of your information by contacting our Privacy Officer.
8. Privacy Officer. [NAME], [EMAIL], [PHONE].
9. Changes. We will post changes at the address above and update the effective date.
Before publishing, check Elections Canada’s guidance on what a party privacy policy must contain. The privacy officer must sign a compliance statement each June 30.
Confirm registry information; list designated representatives who endorse candidates
Every third year
250 members’ names, addresses and declarations (next June 30, 2028)
To become registered
Apply at least 60 days before an election is called and have at least one confirmed candidate
After registration
Statement of assets and liabilities with auditor’s report within 6 months; annual financial returns; expenses return after each general election
A late application isn’t fatal: an eligible party that misses the 60-day cutoff stays eligible and can register at the next general election or by-election. Missing a reporting deadline, however, can cost eligible status, and the Act allows no extensions.
9. Open items
Choose the short form; decide on a logo and French name.
Confirm the leader, three officers, chief agent and auditor; collect signed consents.
Launch the website and publish the privacy policy at a stable URL.
Collect well over 250 elector declarations on the prescribed form.
Ask Elections Canada to confirm the name raises no confusion concerns before filing.
Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party: Policy Framework
Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party: Policy Framework
Better public decisions through evidence, accountability, and sensible guardrails on AI.
Statement of purpose
The fundamental purposes of the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Party are to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election, and, through that participation, to promote good government in Canada by advancing the use of artificial intelligence within government and in executive decision-making, so that public decisions rest on rational, evidence-based analysis, and by supporting the regulation of artificial intelligence and guardrails on its use.
Guiding principle
AI should inform public decisions, and elected people remain accountable for them. Using AI in government and regulating AI are one commitment: public decisions should be evidence-based, transparent, and answerable to the public.
Evidence-based decision-making in government
Major executive decisions are backed by analysis that can be inspected, reproduced, and challenged.
Decision-support requirement. Significant policy, budget, and procurement decisions come with a structured analysis covering options, assumptions, data sources, projected outcomes, and uncertainty. AI tools can help produce it.
Published rationale. The analysis behind a major decision is made public when the decision is announced, along with where and why the decision-maker departed from it.
Outcome tracking. AI-assisted review of whether programs delivered what they promised, reported publicly on a regular schedule.
Lighter administrative load. AI used for routine work such as case triage, document processing, and service wait-time forecasting, with the savings reported openly.
Accountable use of AI within government
Using AI in government must never dilute responsibility.
Human accountability. A named official is responsible for every decision, whatever tools informed it. "The system recommended it" is never a defence.
Human review of high-impact decisions. Decisions affecting rights, benefits, immigration status, or enforcement require meaningful human review and a right of appeal.
Transparency register. A public registry of every AI system the government uses: its purpose, vendor, data, known limitations, and responsible official.
Explainability. People affected by an AI-assisted decision can obtain a plain-language explanation of how it was reached.
Independent audit. Regular testing of government AI systems for accuracy, bias, and drift, with the results published.
Regulation and guardrails
Clear, enforceable rules on AI use across society.
Federal AI legislation. A comprehensive statute with risk-tiered obligations: stricter requirements for high-impact uses, lighter ones for low-risk uses.
Prohibited uses. Examples include social scoring, covert mass surveillance, and AI impersonation used for fraud or election manipulation.
Democratic integrity. Disclosure rules for AI-generated political content and deepfakes during elections.
Independent oversight. A regulator with investigation, audit, and penalty powers, reporting to Parliament.
Privacy and data governance. Limits on collecting and using personal data to train and deploy AI, backed by enforceable individual rights.
Liability. Clear responsibility for harms caused by AI systems, shared appropriately among developers, deployers, and operators.
Public trust and capacity
Citizens and public servants should be able to understand and shape how AI is used.
Public-service training so staff can evaluate, question, and override AI outputs.
Open data and open methods wherever security and privacy allow.
Citizen input. Public consultation before AI is introduced into services that affect large numbers of people.
Procurement standards that avoid vendor lock-in and guarantee the government can audit the systems it buys.
The party's own commitments
Candidates and officers disclose when AI tools materially contribute to policy positions or public communications.
The party's own use of AI follows the standards it advocates: human accountability, transparency, and privacy protection.
Policy positions are reviewed periodically against new evidence and revised in public.
Questions this framework has to answer
Does evidence replace politics? No. Evidence informs choices, but values decide what to prioritize. Elected representatives set the goals; AI helps assess how to reach them and whether they were reached.
What about bias and opacity? Analysis that looks rational can still rest on flawed data. The audit, explainability, and human-review requirements exist for this reason.
How far does the party's scope extend? The purpose statement keeps the focus on government and regulation. Issues such as jobs, copyright, and education are for later consideration.
Draft policy framework for discussion.
How Parties Set Policy: Traditional and AI Party Compared
How Parties Set Policy: Traditional and AI Party Compared
One question, two processes: how should a party decide what to do about emergency room wait times?
The test question: How should we reduce emergency room wait times?
How a traditional party typically sets policy
Processes vary by party, but a common pattern looks like this.
Grassroots input. Riding associations submit resolutions, and a convention or policy conference debates and votes on them.
Leadership filtering. The leader's office and a platform committee decide which resolutions become election commitments. Convention votes are often treated as advisory.
Research and polling. Staff, think tanks, and pollsters test which positions resonate with voters and donors.
Caucus and coalition management. Positions are shaped to hold together regional, ideological, and interest-group support.
Costing and release. Party staff cost the platform, announce it, and defend it through the campaign.
Revision. Positions change mainly after an election loss or a shift in public mood.
On the ER question, this usually produces a convention resolution, a leadership decision on a headline promise such as a funding figure or a hiring pledge, and polling to refine the message.
How the AI party would set policy
Define the objective. Members set the goal and its limits, for example "reduce median ER wait times by a stated amount without lowering quality of care." This step is deliberately human, because it is a values choice.
Evidence review. AI tools help gather and summarize research, comparable jurisdictions, and available data, with sources listed.
Option modelling. Several approaches, such as staffing, triage redesign, primary care access, and discharge flow, are analyzed with assumptions, costs, projected outcomes, and uncertainty ranges stated openly.
Public analysis. The full analysis is published before any position is adopted, so experts and the public can challenge assumptions and flag errors.
Human decision. Members and candidates choose among the options and publish their rationale, including where they departed from the analysis.
Measurable commitments. Each policy states what success looks like and when it will be reviewed.
Scheduled revision. Positions are rechecked against new evidence on a set timetable, and changes are announced openly.
Side by side
Traditional party
AI party
Where policy starts
Member resolutions, leadership priorities, polling
A stated objective, then an evidence review
Who shapes the options
Caucus, staff, advisers, interest groups
Analysis open to public challenge
Role of data
Mostly to test messaging
Core input, with sources and assumptions shown
Who decides
Leadership, with member input of varying weight
Members and candidates, with a published rationale
The traditional model has real strengths. Party members debating values and trade-offs in person is what gives policy democratic legitimacy, and compromise is how diverse regions and interests get represented.
The AI party's approach works best as a discipline layered on top of that. It improves how options are analyzed and how decisions are explained, but it does not replace the political judgment about priorities. This fits the party's guiding principle: AI informs public decisions, and elected people remain accountable for them.
The Case for Showing Up: Why Citizens Should Attend Council and Present Delegations
1. Council decides things that affect daily life, usually with little public input
Zoning, transit routes, road safety, budgets, parks, and housing approvals are decided at council and committee tables. Most of these decisions are made with very few residents in the room. A councillor who hears from three people on an issue treats that as a signal, and one who hears from none treats it as a mandate to follow staff recommendations.
2. A delegation creates a public record
Written submissions and emails can be skimmed or lost. A delegation is delivered on the record, usually recorded or livestreamed, and entered into the meeting's minutes. Councillors have to hear it and, ideally, respond. That record can be cited later in debates, in media coverage, at the Ontario Land Tribunal, or in the next election.
3. Lived experience fills gaps in staff reports
Staff reports are built on data, policy, and legal frameworks, and they often miss what a decision feels like on the ground. A resident can say that the "safe" crossing is in fact a route kids avoid, or that the consultation happened at a time no working parent could attend. That kind of testimony is often what exposes a gap in the analysis.
4. Councillors are more responsive to people they can see
Email is easy to dismiss in volume. A person at the podium, speaking calmly and specifically, is harder to ignore, and councillors know their constituents are watching the video. Delegations also change what other residents think is possible: when one person speaks, others realize the issue is shared.
5. Accountability depends on people actually watching
Councils are scrutinized by a thin layer of local media and a few dedicated observers. Regular attendance builds institutional memory about who voted how, which promises were made, and which staff recommendations got changed. That knowledge is what lets citizens hold decision-makers to their own words.
6. Small, early input has outsized influence
Decisions are shaped long before the final vote, at committee, in staff reports, and in amendments. A delegation at committee stage, when options are still open, can change a motion. By the time an item reaches full council, minds are often made up. Showing up early is the most effective use of a citizen's time.
7. It builds civic capacity
People who present once usually learn how the process works: where agendas are posted, how to register, how motions get amended. They become resources for neighbours, community associations, and future campaigns. A community with several experienced delegators is much harder to ignore than one that only complains online.
8. It is democratic participation between elections
Voting every four years is a thin form of accountability. Delegations let residents participate on specific issues, informed by current facts, without waiting for the next ballot. They also keep the public's relationship with government from being mediated only by lobbyists, developers, and organized interests, who attend reliably.
Practical points to make citizens' case persuasive
Be specific: Name the agenda item, the problem, and the exact change you want (an amendment, a deferral, a study).
Keep it short: Delegation time is typically a few minutes. One clear ask beats a broad critique.
Bring evidence: A local data point, photo, or personal example carries more weight than general opinion.
Coordinate: Several brief delegations on one theme are stronger than one long one. Co-ordinating with neighbours or associations multiplies impact.
Follow up: Email councillors afterward, thank those who engaged, and track how they voted.
Fair counterpoints worth acknowledging
Skeptics argue that delegations often feel performative, that councillors may have decided already, that meeting times and processes favour retirees and the well-resourced, and that the loudest voices are not necessarily representative. These are real limits. The response from advocates is not that delegations always win, but that they cost little, create a record, and shift outcomes at the margin more often than people expect. Proponents also push for reforms such as evening or remote participation, plain-language agendas, and earlier notice, so that attendance is more accessible.
Procedures including how to register, time limits, and whether remote delegations are allowed.
Recent mayoral candidate Alex Lawson asked about the purpose od delegations saying, "council is aware of the issues".
I told him, " if you go, I'll go"
Delegation rules at the City of Ottawa
Delegation rules at the City of Ottawa
Based on the City’s participation page and the Procedure By-law (No. 2022-410). Checked November 5, 2026.
At a glance
Where
Standing committees, Transit Commission, sub-committees and advisory committees. Not City Council.
Time limit
5 minutes, unless the committee grants more.
Register by phone
Before 4:00 PM on the business day before the meeting.
Register by email
No later than 1 hour before the meeting starts.
Slides
Send to the Committee Coordinator by 4:00 PM on the last business day before.
Written comments
4:00 PM on the business day before. They reach Council until it considers the item.
All deadlines apply unless the agenda for that meeting says otherwise.
Where you can speak
Committees only, not Council. The City’s page says presentations can be made only at standing and advisory committee meetings, and that public delegations are not in order at Council meetings. The by-law says oral submissions are made to Committees and Commissions, not to Council (s. 71).
Written comments reach Council. Written submissions are accepted until the matter is considered by City Council, and can go to the Committee or Council coordinator for distribution to Members.
One exception. Council sitting as Committee of the Whole may receive oral submissions by resolution, with prior notice at a regular meeting or in the draft agenda (s. 52(2)). This is unusual.
Registration and deadlines
Phone: register with the Committee Coordinator before 4:00 PM on the business day before the meeting.
Email: register no later than one hour before the meeting’s start time.
Agenda overrides: these deadlines apply unless the agenda says otherwise. Always check the specific agenda.
What to provide: your name, telephone number, and email address if available. The Coordinator needs this to send you the Zoom information.
By-law basis: delegates register with the Office of the City Clerk according to the timelines on the agenda (s. 83(5)(a)).
Format and time limit
Time: no one may speak longer than five minutes without leave of the Committee (s. 83(5)). The committee can therefore grant more time.
Hybrid participation: you can speak in person or by Zoom. No computer or camera is required, since you can join by calling a toll-free number.
Slides: if you want to show a visual presentation such as PowerPoint, you must register and send the materials to the Committee Coordinator by 4:00 PM on the last business day before the meeting. The Coordinator shares your slides from their screen.
Advisory committee representatives: one person (the Chair, Vice-Chair or a designated member) may speak for up to five minutes on any one item on the committee’s behalf (s. 83(5)(b)).
Written comments
You can email the Committee Coordinator, or phone to have your comments transcribed.
The deadline is 4:00 PM on the business day before the meeting, unless the agenda says otherwise.
The Committee gives written and oral comments equal consideration.
Late comments go to all Members of Council before Council’s final consideration of the item.
Public record and conduct
Written or verbal submissions become part of the public record. That includes your name but excludes personal contact information.
The Mayor can expel a person for improper conduct, meaning conduct that obstructs the deliberations or proper action of Council (s. 12). The Chair has the same duty to maintain order at committee (s. 78(9)).
Recording by members of the public is subject to the Mayor’s or Chair’s approval or direction (s. 97).
In Council Chambers: placards and signs, megaphones, noisemakers and beverages are prohibited, and bags are inspected at security.
Tactical point
The consent agenda applies only when no speaker is registered (s. 84(1)). Items that pass on consent are adopted without debate. A registered delegate means the item gets discussed.
Items needing a statutory public hearing can’t be adopted on consent unless no speakers are registered and the Chair has invited submissions (s. 84(6)).
Caveats
The by-law text may be out of date. The City’s online version is a consolidation current to October 1, 2023. Councils typically review procedure by-laws each term, and a new term of Council begins this month, so confirm nothing has changed.
The City’s participation page has some pandemic-era wording and may lag current practice. For any meeting, the agenda and its “Notices and meeting information for meeting participants” document are the controlling instructions.
For a particular item, contact the Committee Coordinator listed on the agenda.
Other bodies have their own rules. The Ottawa Police Service Board and the Ottawa Public Library Board, for example, set theirs separately.
The $50-Million Drop in a $10-Billion Bucket: Why the Gilgan Announcement Feels Like a Leacock Satire
It was supposed to be a day of unbridled celebration for Ottawa philanthropy. Standing alongside Premier Doug Ford, the Peter Gilgan Foundation triumphantly announced a historic $50-million donation to The Ottawa Hospital—the largest single philanthropic gift in the city's history. In exchange, the hospital's future state-of-the-art emergency, trauma, and ICU facility on Carling Avenue will officially bear the name the Peter Gilgan Critical Care Tower.
On paper, it looks like a staggering victory. The The Ottawa Hospital Foundation's Campaign to Create Tomorrow immediately watched its total haul rocket to $464 million, putting them within striking distance of their $500-million goal.
There is just one glaring, multi-billion-dollar problem: the project's math has completely unraveled.
The Evolution of a Price Tag
Only days before Gilgan’s historic generosity grabbed the headlines, Ontario Infrastructure Minister David Piccini dropped a bombshell during a Queens Park committee meeting. The provincial government’s investment alone has skyrocketed to "just shy of $10 billion".
To put that into context, the entire hospital project was originally expected to cost $2.8 billion. Over the last few years, due to what the province calls supply chain crunches, general inflation, and an "evolving scope" of community healthcare needs, the budget quietly quadrupled behind closed doors.
This massive budget surge turns an otherwise magnificent $50-million charity win into a stark mathematical reality check, bringing us face-to-face with the province's strict 90/10 hospital funding formula.
The "Local Share" Moving Target
In Ontario, the province funds 90% of a major hospital build, while the local municipality and community are legally obligated to raise the remaining 10% local share.
The Old Math: Against a $2.8-billion project, the community needed to scratch together roughly $700 million. Between the Foundation's $500-million target and a $150-million pledge from Ottawa City Council, the numbers almost made sense.
The New Math: Against a $10-billion provincial stake, the local community's 10% burden suddenly balloons to nearly $1 billion.
Suddenly, even with Peter Gilgan’s record-shattering $50 million safely in the bank, Ottawa is staring down a massive, looming local shortfall.
Pure Leacock Comedy
This bizarre disconnect reads like it was lifted directly out of Chapter 5 of Stephen Leacock's classic Canadian satire, Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town. In Leacock's "Whirlwind Campaign in Mariposa," the townspeople whip themselves into a frenzy of high-energy, corporate-style fundraising lunches to wipe out a nagging church debt. They cheer, they make grand announcements, and they declare absolute victory—only to realize later that the money they raised barely covered the cost of the fundraising lunches themselves.
While Gilgan's real-world money obviously won't be spent on literal lunches, the structural irony is identical. We are watching a masterclass in civic cognitive dissonance: the city is aggressively celebrating reaching the finish line of a $500-million fundraising goal, while the actual goalpost has been silently moved hundreds of millions of dollars down the field.
The Finger-Pointing Begins
Predictably, the political blame game has immediately filled the void. The Ministry of Health has already released statements subtly chiding the City of Ottawa, pointing out that Ottawa's financial contribution to its hospital is just "a fraction" of what much smaller Ontario municipalities (like Oakville, Mississauga, or Windsor) cough up for their local builds. Meanwhile, local MPPs and municipal leaders are pushing back, noting that Ottawa’s infrastructure budget is already stretched to its absolute limit.
Peter Gilgan deserves immense credit—his foundation’s money will build world-class, vital trauma infrastructure that Ottawa desperately needs. But as the corporate hype clears, the cold, hard ledger remains. Ottawa's "Campaign to Create Tomorrow" is about to discover that "tomorrow" carries a much higher price tag than anyone is willing to publicly admit.
