Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Maynard, the Treasury Board Secretariat has an action plan, if I'm not mistaken, and there's going to be a modernization. Public Services and Procurement Canada published a table on what has been done regarding access to information. I would like you to tell us about the measures completed to date and the results observed.

[Caroline Maynard]

In 2020, the Access to Information Act was due to be reviewed by the government, and the committee conducted a study in 2022. Various activities were carried out, but that actually wasn't a review of the act itself. There were many measures taken in connection with the access to information system. Personally, I haven't seen any updates to that plan since 2024. In 2025, Treasury Board announced a legislative review. Again, we have been waiting for the review of the act to begin since June 2025.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Of the 47 measures set out in the access to information modernization action plan, have any been completed?

[Caroline Maynard]

You would have to check that with Treasury Board, because the plan really belongs to Treasury Board and is related to the system itself. As far as I know, the plan announces certain changes, but they're really things that were already in motion. There haven't really been any changes to the access to information system in general.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Thériault, we're going to conclude with you. You will have time for a quick question and a quick answer. The floor is yours.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Maynard, there seems to be an increase in the number of requests that don't have a response. The response is empty. Out of all the requests, 26.2% received responses that didn't deliver any information. What I understand is that requests are getting responses, but the responses have nothing of substance.

First, is the government counting those empty responses as requests that have received a response? Second, is it normal to get that kind of response? Third, shouldn't there be consequences when that happens?

[Caroline Maynard]

There are a number of factors involved there.

First, a person can file a complaint if they ever think there should be information and they haven't received anything. However, it can happen that the person made the request to the wrong place, so we'll confirm that. Sometimes, the person hasn't talked to the institution to find out exactly how to make the request. The way the request was made could lead to an irrelevant response. The investigation could reveal that. If the request leads to existing information that the person should have received, I can order its disclosure, but there's currently no penalty in the act. Could an institution be penalized? How would a penalty be applied? That would be rather difficult.

Of course, institutions should have performance measures for the people in charge of access to information and the people who provide the information. It isn't always the access to information unit that didn't find the information, but the people in charge of the program. Those performance measures would make it possible to assess their responses to access to information requests.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault and Commissioner.

Commissioner, I want to thank you for taking the time to be with us today on such short notice.

[Caroline Maynard]

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I know there has been a lot of attention given to the issue of access to information over the last several years, and your being here today has helped us with regard to our study.

We were supposed to have Ms. Weir here today for the second hour. Unfortunately she wasn't available, but we're trying to get her here on Thursday, with the Treasury Board Secretariat and representatives from the Privy Council Office.

Thank you again, Commissioner.

[Caroline Maynard]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to move on to some committee business, so I am going to excuse you and thank you, again, for your time.

There are a couple of things that I need to deal with.

We have two study budgets. One is on this study, for up to $2,500, and you can tell by the refreshments in the back that I don't expect we're going to be spending much money on this study, but it's up to $2,500, so I need approval from the committee for that.

Do I have approval?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The second one is a supplementary study budget, which is the order of reference from the House to add meetings to the review of the Conflict of Interest Act. The supplementary amount it requested is $2,000.

Do I have consensus on that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you so much.

I also understand that the House leaders will be discussing tomorrow the unanimous consent motion that's required for us to proceed to our study of the review of the Lobbying Act, so I'm looking forward to that. Thank you for making that possible.

The other one I need to deal with is a routine motion regarding distribution and access to documents to three associate members per recognized party. This is something that's happening across all committees. It's a routine motion.

I understand that Mr. Cooper has the motion to present to the committee, and I'm going to invite him to read out the motion now.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On this matter of housekeeping business, I move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the usual practices of the committee concerning access to and distribution of documents,

a) up to three associate members of the committee per party be authorized to receive the notices of meetings and notices of motion and be granted access to the digital binder;

b) that the associate members be designated by the offices of the whips of each recognized party and sent to the committee clerk; and

c) that the provisions of this motion expire as of September 25, 2026, unless otherwise ordered.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

I'm going to confirm with the clerk that this is the standardized motion with no changes at all. It is. Okay.

Is there any discussion on that?

Do I have approval from the committee on that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, members.

I don't have any other business.

Ms. Church.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, would you give us a rundown of what you expect in terms of committee business for the next couple of weeks?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

As I mentioned earlier, we're trying to get Ms. Weir from Library and Archives here on Thursday, along with Treasury Board Secretariat and the PCO.

My expectation is that we're going to commence the draft report of the conflict of interest study next Monday. Unless, of course, members are in agreement and amendments are possible—we understand all of that—the plan is to have that study in its draft form for at least two days the week after next. I have no plans to come in on my off time for that, so that'll be the week following the family day week. We're planning on two meetings.

If we are able to get through that, then my plan is to commence the lobbying study as soon as possible.

As far as the AI study is concerned, we're at the max in terms of having the minister in, as we did last week. We've had requests for witnesses, and my offer to them has been to supply briefs, because we can't keep having meetings about that, considering the motion. I forget how many meetings we're allowed. We're allowed up to four, I think, as the motion read, maybe more. We've had more meetings than that.

The plan is that after we get through the draft report on the conflict of interest study, we're going to get into the Lobbying Act.

Does that answer your question?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Good.

Is there any other business? Are there any other questions? Okay.

I'm going to adjourn the meeting.

Thank you, everyone.