Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 15th, 2025

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

My question is about a possible review of the act.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Okay.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Should such a review focus on parts of the act or should it focus on the whole? I'm repeating the same question I asked at the beginning, because we're hearing talk of urgency on the one hand and a lack of urgency on the other.

Should a potential review of the act be expanded or targeted?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

If we could make ad hoc changes like the ones I recommended, I would be very happy, but I don't think that would be enough in the long term. More could be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Sari.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Commissioner, I'll go back to the conflict of interest screen. You thought it was a good idea to set up one, because the situation was unique. We can agree that this is the ultimate expression of an appearance of conflict of interest. This is an individual who comes from the private sector and wants to become not only a minister, but the prime minister, the one who makes all the decisions and oversees the direction of the state. If he were just a minister, it would be different.

However, you aren't the one who implements this screen. You aren't the one who is continually in contact with these two individuals in cabinet. Don't you think the screen should be implemented by someone outside of cabinet?

Also, before giving these people the opportunity to implement this screen, did you check whether they themselves had a conflict of interest?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

If we had an outside person, we would have a lot of problems with—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I thought that the conflict of interest screen was also managed by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, not just by people close to the Prime Minister who report to him and are hired by him.

Did you also check their own potential conflicts of interest before giving them the responsibility to implement the conflict of interest screen?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

At that point, I would be in a conflict of interest myself. I can't be both judge and stakeholder. If my office is involved in administering the screen, I have to make a decision if there's a conflict of interest.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

How does your screen work? I have a problem with this so-called conflict of interest screen. I don't understand how it can reassure the public as a whole. The way the measure is worded and the mechanics of it seem to me to be completely inadequate.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

That's your opinion.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That's not my opinion. I'm just not getting answers to my questions, Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

That concludes our questioning.

I have a couple of questions that relate to the specifics of the reporting mechanism, Commissioner. Does a public office holder have to declare either deferred stock options, stock units or any future bonuses tied to any of the previous companies that they were affiliated with? Would that be part of their ethics disclosure?

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

Yes, it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Here's the question that I have, Commissioner, and it's along the lines of what Mr. Thériault was asking. When these screens are set up, wouldn't that cause a reasonable person to conclude that the public office holder is, in fact, benefiting from those deferred stock options, units and future bonuses, despite the fact that the blind trust is being set up? Now, if that public office holder, for example, were a prime minister whose major policy platforms were housing, infrastructure, EV mandates and all that stuff, wouldn't that cause a reasonable person to conclude that they are, in fact, benefiting—blind trusts and screens notwithstanding—as a result of the major policy decisions that are being made in this country? Wouldn't that cause a reasonable, thinking person to conclude that there is, in fact, a conflict, and that the person is benefiting as a result of these decisions?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

You have just enunciated the major argument as to why people don't like the idea of an apparent conflict of interest, because it is possible to view things that way or in other ways. You can also put it the other way around, saying, “He has earned those deferred benefits already. He's getting them in the future from one of the largest companies in the country, so how can he personally be...? Where is the conflict of interest? There is no way that the decision will have an impact on the deferred money that he's getting in the future.” That's why, when you talk to a panel about a conflict of interest, you have to take the balance of how people see it. Is it possible to give the apparent conflict of interest...or is it really just that, unfortunately, it looks like that, but effectively, there is nothing that influences the personal interest of the person involved? There are appearances of conflict of interest, as I meant in the decision that was read out. As Mr. Oliphant suggested, you ask, “How does a reasonable person outside, knowing the situation fully well, regard that?” This “fully well” is key: You have to understand how a deferred benefit works, how it was earned, etc.

I don't know how to answer your question, Mr. Chair. It's the best I can do.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner. I really appreciate the time you spent with us today.

Ms. Rushworth, thank you for being here.

Ms. Dalpé, I understand that this may be your last appearance before this committee, in advance of your retirement, so I want to wish you well, great health and great happiness in that retirement.

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes. We have the Information Commissioner coming up next.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting back to order.

At this time, I'd like to welcome our witness for our second hour today. From the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, we have Caroline Maynard, who is the Information Commissioner.

It's been a while, Ms. Maynard. We want to welcome you back to Ethics.

You have up to five minutes for your opening statement. Go ahead, please.

[Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting me today.

I have had the honour to serve as Canada’s Information Commissioner since 2018, and I always welcome the opportunity to speak to this committee. For returning members, some of what I will cover in my opening remarks may already be familiar.

Canada’s access to information legislation gives Canadians the right to know how their government operates. The Supreme Court of Canada has described this right as “quasiconstitutional”.

Every year, Canadians exercise their right of access by submitting over 200,000 requests for records under the control of government institutions. These requests often touch on topics at the heart of our democracy: How tax dollars are being spent, how programs and services are administered, how government contracts are awarded and to whom, and what measures are being taken to strengthen our economy, to name just a few.

As outlined in the background materials I have provided, my role is to enforce the Access to Information Act using the full range of tools and powers at my disposal. For the past seven years, I have investigated thousands of complaints related to access requests. I have issued orders to institutions since I was given that power in 2019, and I have pursued litigation to enforce the law and uphold Canadians' right of access.

When the act came into force in 1983, it was considered groundbreaking, but over the decades, governments have failed to keep it up to date. Neither the act nor the system that supports it reflects the realities of how information is created, shared and used in today's world.

Let me give you a picture of what that means in practice. In many institutions, responding to access requests requires searching through thousands of electronic records that have not been properly managed or going through boxes or cabinets of documents that have not been adequately archived. All too often, manual redactions, duplicate removal and other labour-intensive processes relying on outdated technologies impede the efficiency of these searches.

These performance deficiencies, combined with a persistent culture of secrecy, often result in institutions failing to meet their obligations under the act. We now have both an act and a system that are unfit to meet the information needs of Canadians.

Last June, the government launched a legislative review as required by the act. I hope it moves swiftly and results in meaningful changes to both the act and the system that supports it. I truly look forward to playing an active role in this review and any other reviews Parliament chooses to undertake, with the hope that they will result in a full and comprehensive overhaul of the act. Canadians deserve an access law worthy of this great country.

At a time of growing misinformation and public skepticism, Canada must be a leader in transparency and accountability for the sake of our democracy. This also means that the access to information and privacy function must be properly resourced within each institution to uphold this legal obligation.

As the government carries out a comprehensive expenditure review to ensure that public spending is responsible, cost‐effective and delivers real results for Canadians, institutions must carefully assess the risks that come with any reduction in access to information capacity. Access to information is not a service. It is a right, enshrined in law.

Next week marks right to know week—a time each year when we shine a spotlight on Canadians’ right of access. It is the perfect opportunity to remind ourselves that modernizing the Access to Information Act to increase transparency is one of the most powerful ways to strengthen the trust between citizens and their government and to protect our democracy.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

We'll start with Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Barrett, because of the time, I'm going to keep it at six minutes. We went a little over the last time, so we're not going to do that this time, okay?

Thank you.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Commissioner, it's a pleasure to have you back here.

Before I get into some of my questions about your work, I'd like to ask you for your thoughts about ours. Our committee issued a report last year, and I wonder if you have any comments you'd like to share with us about it.

[Caroline Maynard]

As you saw in the submission I made, I agreed with most of the recommendations made by this committee after your review. I think that the government needs to review those reports made by your committee and my submissions, including what they receive from the public during the consultations. I'm hoping that they will start from there and not start from scratch.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you very much.

In your 2024-25 annual report, you wrote that some “institutions...neither [implemented your legally binding] orders nor...[went to] Federal Court”, “breaking the law” and forcing you to seek writs of mandamus.

Are you finding that certain federal institutions have broken the law by ignoring your orders? Can you confirm whether the Department of National Defence is the worst offender?

[Caroline Maynard]

I have issued eight mandamus applications because of eight orders that were not contested in court. It is the institution's right to not comply with an order as long as they challenge it in court. When they refuse to do so, I'm forced to take action myself. Out of those eight writs of mandamus, I think that the Department of National Defence has received about six. I have to say, though, that the good news is that the Department of National Defence is doing much better. I don't know if it's because of these mandamus applications, but this year we've received the lowest number of complaints against National Defence. It's not even in my top five institutions that are not meeting the act this year.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

So, they are breaking the law less.