Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commissioner.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you.
In 2024, you submitted an off-cycle proposal to the minister to request $400,000 in permanent funding to maintain current resource levels. What happened with your request?
Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
It didn't go anywhere.
Conservative
Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
The ministers did not respond, no.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Okay.
Shifting back to your orders for the right to go to the Federal Court for a review for those departments and institutions that apply for a review, the standard at the Federal Court is of a de novo nature. Your predecessor, Suzanne Legault, stated that there was “no incentive for institutions to provide sufficient reasons to establish that information warrants not being disclosed during investigations”, and for those reasons recommended removing the de novo standard. Do you agree?
Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
It's a very tough question, because there are positives and negatives to both judicial review and de novo review.
I would be happy to provide you with some submissions on that in writing, if you want.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
There will be another round. We can come back to it or we can take the submissions, Mr. Cooper.
Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
Because it's complex.
Conservative
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
First of all, I want to thank you, Ms. Maynard. You are really welcome at this committee, because this topic is really fascinating and interesting, especially to me. I myself have had experience with access to information requests to several levels of government, on both the provincial and the municipal sides.
As a preamble, I will say that the amount of information processed by government devices is increasing exponentially. In addition, the number of access to information requests is starting to increase at the same time as the amount of information to be processed, communicated and authorized is becoming very large, particularly with the collaborative tools we use on our devices. I would really like to hear your opinion: Is this the main reason for non-compliance with the Access to Information Act?
It takes a while to receive and process a request and then respond to it, and the 30‑day deadline is not always met. I've experienced it several times in my life. It's not unwillingness on the part of the person handling the request. Rather, it's the process itself that is becoming increasingly complicated, particularly when there are redactions, which is often.
Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
Currently, the Access to Information Act provides that the institution has 30 days to request an extension. The problem is that, quite often, 30 days is not enough time for access to information units to get enough information to determine how many additional hours will be required, given, as you say, the number of pages.
Often, units within a department do not even respond to the access to information unit within 30 days. It is therefore very difficult for them to make appropriate and reasonable requests for extensions, and that is often what leads to complaints to the Office of the Information Commissioner. The number of pages and documents is certainly an issue, but it's hard to know whether the Access to Information Act or the mismanagement of those documents is at fault.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
In terms of mismanagement, like any other government, we want to be efficient. I'll go back to my colleague's question about the use of technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, which isn't often mentioned in your reports and recommendations. Should we focus much more on that to improve things? Since 2010, the amount of information has increased exponentially, as well as the information shared about any decision-making process. While there used to be hundreds of thousands of pages on a decision-making process, today we're talking about millions of pages.
Should your office be recommending AI?
Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
What I understand about artificial intelligence is that you can't use it as a tool if you haven't properly managed the information in the first place. As I said earlier, this tool can be used to eliminate duplication or to find information. However, if we have so much information and it's so poorly managed that we don't even know where it is, AI won't be much use to us.
First, we have to properly manage the information, and then we can use artificial intelligence.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I'll go back to your letter of May 13, 2025, to Treasury Board. Can you briefly explain why it is urgent to review the Access to Information Act?
Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
My letter was simply to remind the President of the Treasury Board that the Access to Information Act provides for a legislative review every five years and that it has to take place this year.
I was also reminding him that the process should take place as soon as possible. We've conducted a lot of consultations and received reports from a number of experts. We're well aware of the issues with the act and the system.
I hope that the legislative review process will be carried out quickly and lead to concrete results.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Did the experts who took part in the review process also include information technology experts?
You can answer with a yes or no.
Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
I don't know if they were consulted specifically.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Sari.
Madame Maynard, I know you've been very consistent in the requests for review. For as long as I've been here, anyway, I've heard you say that often.
Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When an elected official has to play their role, that is, hold the executive branch accountable, the Access to Information Act is one of the main tools. It was implemented for a reason.
However, what I'm hearing is that there are flaws in how information is processed. There's misclassification, and there are undue delays, so the act should be amended.
Tell me what your preferences would be then. What should be changed? Maybe you could give us an order of priority. It's okay if you mix up two or three priorities, but what should change? What do you think should be looked at? I'm sure you have thoughts on that.
Information Commissioner, Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada
Yes. In 2020, I tabled submissions on various elements, such as expanding the act's application to include ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office, because they aren't currently subject to the act. None of the information from those offices is accessible. I've also suggested expanding it to private entities that work for the government on behalf of the government. Taxpayer money is being used to deliver services to Canadians, and the information should also be made accessible.
At this time, my office doesn't review cabinet confidences. The Office of the Information Commissioner can't see them. I don't think they should be excluded from the act either, because an exemption, an exclusion, is often applied to certain documents. No one, whether it be me or a judge, can currently see the documents and ensure that the act is applied properly. I'm not saying that the documents should be accessible, but there should be a process for reviewing those documents to ensure that the act is applied as it should be.
Restrictions should also be set on consultations between institutions. Currently, institutions have 30 days to provide a response, but there is no prescribed deadline for the institutions that are consulted internally. That leads to a lot of delays in enforcing the act.
Apart from the exemptions, the exclusions, a number of elements should be reviewed.
September 15th, 2025 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Commissioner and Mr. Thériault.
We will now begin the third round of questions.
Mr. Hardy, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Gabriel Hardy Conservative Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, thank you for being with us today. If I understand correctly, your directives are binding. Departments are required to follow your directives to give everyone access to information.