Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I want to welcome you to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 5, the committee is commencing its study of the state of access to information in Canada.

I apologize for the delay. We just had votes.

I would like to welcome our witness for today.

From the Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada, we have Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner of Canada.

Ms. Maynard, you have up to five minutes to address the committee with an opening statement.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you for the opportunity to once again appear before this committee to talk about access to information.

I understand that the committee wishes to focus on two areas today: the use of instant messaging and information management within the public service, as well as the performance of the Privy Council Office, PCO, in the area of access to information.

I would like to first clarify some information management responsibilities.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat establishes information management policies for the federal public service. Library and Archives Canada, however, is responsible for establishing the retention and disposition authorities that govern how federal institutions must manage, preserve, and ultimately dispose of their records. Each government institution must then set its own information management practices, including those governing transitory records.

That being said, some aspects of records management do become relevant to my investigations the moment an access request is made to institutions subject to the Access to Information Act. I would like to point out that there is no obligation to create records under the act. The act only applies once a record exists in any form. This includes transitory records.

Retention policies vary according to the type of record and can range from days to decades. Retention policies are a good and necessary thing for proper information management, but they must be accompanied by training and founded on some basic principles. Some of these principles are spelled out in the message I sent to institutions last week and provided to this committee ahead of time. I hope you have had the opportunity to review this message. It affirms that records created using digital collaborative tools, such as Microsoft Teams, must be managed in a manner that upholds the right of access to information.

Before I turn to the second topic I wish to discuss with you today, let me start off by saying that the order-making power is a key tool at my disposal. Orders enable me to conclude complaints that we have been unable to resolve by other means. I would like to highlight some statistics on orders in the handout I provided to this committee. Those statistics reveal an important trend.

While the Department of National Defence and Library and Archives Canada have received the most orders so far since 2019, in the case of both institutions, the number of orders I have been required to issue is declining. Unfortunately, the data shows the opposite trend with respect to the Privy Council Office.

The example of the Department of National Defence and Library and Archives Canada shows how institutions can improve their performance when they address the issues that have resulted in orders.

Timeliness tends to be the greatest challenge to transparency at PCO and has resulted in a high number of orders to respond to late requests. Good information management practices include transferring records of archival value to Library and Archives Canada in a timely manner. However, PCO continues to struggle with a high volume of requests related to records that are between 35 and 69 years old.

PCO's central role in the implementation of the government's priorities makes timely access to its information even more vital. Improving access to information at PCO presents an ideal opportunity to lead by example.

I will be happy to answer any questions on these or other topics members would like to address with me today. However, I cannot talk about any investigations as they are confidential.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner. I do appreciate your making yourself available today on such short notice. I want you to know that. On behalf of the committee, I want to say thank you for that.

We're going to Mr. Barrett for six minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

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

During the ArriveCAN scandal, we heard variations from public servants of “we can't find the records”. When records disappear, this stops being an administrative issue and becomes an accountability issue.

What we're looking at now is this question about business value versus what's transitory. Do you think that approach works, yes or no?

[Caroline Maynard]

Yes.

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

Do you worry that when employees are being asked to flag what is a business value within 15 days, there's a risk the records won't be found—won't be easily found—which will lead more often to results in access to information requests that say no record exists? In fact, perhaps not through malice but just simply through the act of trying to keep records, is it going to make it harder for accountability to be brought to bear?

[Caroline Maynard]

This is why I said that retention policies and proper information management policies are a good thing, but they have to be accompanied by training, with strict directives. As you just pointed out, access without a record.... If there's no record, there's no access.

At the end of the day, we do, and I do, support proper management of information. The use of Teams to make important decisions should not be allowed or encouraged. There are ways to do that. It would be the same thing as saying that we cannot have meetings anymore or oral discussions. Those happen, but you have to have somebody, at the end of the meeting, taking minutes and explaining what was discussed and what decisions were made and how—based on what?

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

Is there a greater risk to the integrity of the system and Canadians' confidence in their institutions?

Look, at the start of the ArriveCAN scandal, we were told that there was absolutely nothing to see there. It turns out that it was the tip of the iceberg on massive contracting problems, and ultimately, in some cases, criminal charges were pursued. We have civil action being taken to recover the money, but we were only able to do that by piecing together records.

I haven't been presented with a compelling reason for why these chats need to disappear after 15 days, but I can see a pretty serious downside with not having access to records if a decision is made, a direction is given or a discussion is had that later would have value in terms of having that accountability.

[Caroline Maynard]

Just so you know, as I was saying earlier, when there's an access request, there has to be a mechanism to stop the deletion of any records. Those records, whether they are transitory or not, if they are responsive to the access request, should be treated and processed.

Whether people are using Teams for reasons other than how it's supposed to be used, like a quick conversation or not business-related activities, this is a matter where the head of the institution needs to be very clear on how these messages have to be used, managed and properly saved.

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

What would your recommendation be as a minimum retention period for Teams chats that include decisions or direction?

[Caroline Maynard]

I think this is something where you need to talk to Library and Archives. They're the ones responsible for setting some of the rules.

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

Yes.

[Caroline Maynard]

Again, it really depends on the types of activities that are being used for these types of communication.

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

What metric do you track that proves bad records management is hurting requesters? Are you able to tell us how that metric has changed over the past year?

[Caroline Maynard]

The fact that we are now using electronic documents.... There are back-and-forth emails. Even inboxes should be cleaned by people. There shouldn't be five people keeping full communication on one email. There should be somebody responsible, at the end of the day, for saving those emails in a proper folder or repository. They shouldn't be kept in everyone's inbox.

That's one of the biggest issues that we have.

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

I have just under a minute left.

You have binding order powers, which I think are critical for any commissioner. This is crucial. Are institutions complying on time and more often with you now, and how often are you seeing that your orders are ignored without going to court?

[Caroline Maynard]

It has happened a couple of times. I think we have eight mandamus that were presented in court to force an order to be respected. In the last year, I had to do it only once. I think the message has gone through. People are not ignoring my orders anymore.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Next is Mr. Sari for six minutes.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Maynard, thank you very much for being here.

I would like to divide our six-minute exchange into two parts, since this is a fairly complex subject.

First, I would like to hear much more about your recommendations, which concern two elements: timeliness, on the one hand, and broader access to information, on the other. I'll give you one minute to explain them to me, and then I'll have some questions.

[Caroline Maynard]

Are you referring to my recommendations for changes to the Access to Information Act?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Yes, that's right.

[Caroline Maynard]

Institutions are struggling to meet the 30-day deadline for responding to access to information requests. Delays are often related to internal consultations and consultations with other institutions. So one of our office's recommendations to the committee over the past three years is to legislate on internal government consultations. There should be a maximum time limit; currently, it's random, and institutions take far too long to respond to consultation requests. That's one of our recommendations.

The other recommendation is to increase the number of institutions subject to the Access to Information Act. These include ministers' offices, the Prime Minister's Office, and institutions that work on behalf of the government and receive public funds to provide services to Canadians. All of these institutions should be subject to the act.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Don't you think that expanding the act to cover those institutions could also create additional deadlines or increase the number of requests when there is already an inability to respond to existing ones?

[Caroline Maynard]

Every institution must have an access to information unit in place. Institutions are responsible for allocating the necessary and adequate resources to respond to access requests forwarded to them. Every department, every institution, every agency should have these people. It's a quasi-constitutional right, so I think Canadians should have access to this kind of information, which belongs to them.