Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 12th, 2026

[Matthew Shea]

There are a few things in there. In terms of the comment or question about the 30 days, it's important, because 30 days is the legislative deadline to either respond or indicate a need for an extension. Often, we need an extension given the complexity of the files.

You asked for three reasons that are contributing to the challenges we have. Off the top of my head, it is the complexity of the requests we have and the fact that they can often intersect with cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege, national security and other things. As David mentioned earlier, we need to consult a large number of people.

The other piece is the open-endedness of the requests we receive. I mentioned earlier that somebody can ask for every email from an individual in a year. We have one requester who, I think, had 125 different requests from one person in the same fiscal year or calendar year. That is something we find difficult to keep up with.

I will again say, throughout this, that there is nothing wrong with somebody putting those requests in, but we must be honest that this is one of the reasons we struggle. We are probably putting a disproportionate amount of our time into a smaller number of requesters, and we are doing our utmost to do more for other Canadians.

I may have missed the last part about the legislation and the updates. Could you repeat that part of the question?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Given the situation you are in, the requests you have to respond to and the challenges you face, why don't you get the resources you need to comply with the act?

There seems to be a tendency to say: “It's 30 days, but what do you want? It's a complex request.”

Since it receives complex requests every year, why has Privy Council not taken steps to comply with the act?

[Matthew Shea]

It is a complex situation, given the huge increase in the access to information requests that we have, at a time when we're actually downsizing government.

As mentioned at the start, we're trying to increase the size of this team, but if our requests double, I cannot realistically increase the size of the team by 100% without putting in an additional funding ask, so one of the—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Lastly, you just said that you are affected by budget constraints. You are before a committee that is supposed to make recommendations. This is the time to say so if you don't have the resources you need to do the work and meet the requirements of the act.

Who exactly are you defending? You have to defend the work you do and uphold a law that guarantees a fundamental democratic right. Say what you have to say so we can finally make recommendations that will give you the resources you need to do the work and meet the requirements of the Access to Information Act. The act is not a necessary evil: It protects a democratic right. It must be upheld. Do what you have to and tell us what you need.

[Matthew Shea]

As I mentioned earlier, the Treasury Board Secretariat will be responsible for undertaking a review of the act and making recommendations. I believe this committee has previously given some feedback that should be incorporated into that. I think that, at a very high level, we will give our feedback to Treasury Board. It's not my place to give my opinion, but I would say that as we look at the act, it is really about the outcomes. The outcomes that we're seeing right now—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Be careful. You said you will provide your opinion to Treasury Board. You are before a standing committee of elected officials who have to make recommendations to the House of Commons, which is the body that makes the decisions. It's not the government that's going to make the decisions. We are the ones who make the laws.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Thériault—

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Shea, next time, frankly, I would like you to answer us properly, rather than say that you are keeping your answers for a private meetings with Treasury Board.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Mr. Hardy, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Shea, I'm surely going to continue in the same vein or along the same lines as my colleague.

The Information Commissioner came to see us this week. She told us that there has been a steady decline in Canada's access to information system since 2018. I will be clear for the people watching: There is a commissioner's office that's independent from the government and whose job is to ensure that institutions comply with the act, that the public is well represented and that people can have confidence in our institutions. However, the commissioner is telling us that there has been a decline and that the Office of the Information Commissioner is no longer fulfilling its role because it's running up against bureaucracy.

We're now learning that $1.6 million of taxpayer money has been spent for you to fight in court over documents that she's asking you to provide. She presented her findings; she asked you to provide documents, and now you're going to fight in court to avoid providing them. I'd like an explanation on that.

[Matthew Shea]

On going to court, that $1.6 million is not the Privy Council Office. I can count on one hand, and likely less than one hand, how many times we have actually disagreed and been willing to go to court with the Information Commissioner. We try very hard to deal with complaints informally. There are many complaints that ultimately are withdrawn because we work with the requester and the Information Commissioner's office. When she has orders, we do have the option to take the Information Commissioner to court. That is not something that we do.

We really do want to—

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

You have already gone to court. You have used this method before. What would cause your office to disregard an order from a commissioner who asks for access to information? She isn't doing it for fun.

[Matthew Shea]

I think one of the few circumstances—it has not arisen, but I think we generally would have to consider it—would be if we had a national security document that our colleagues in the security and intelligence community said was absolutely top secret and could not be released, for all these reasons. If we had an order that said, “You must release that document”, and we had security and intelligence professionals telling us that we absolutely can't, for reasons of national security, I believe we would at least need to consider, in that type of circumstance, going to a court to adjudicate the issue. Thankfully, we've not had that.

At the working level, we work very well with the Information Commissioner's office and we find ways to resolve it. Our goal is not to be part of that $1.6 million. We are not part of that $1.6 million.

We are not perfect. We have issues. We want to deal with those issues, and we're trying not to deal with those issues in court.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

What we have heard recently is that the government is creating departments, and it wants to take powers away from the Information Commissioner. Are you aware of that?

[Matthew Shea]

I apologize. I'm not aware of what you're speaking of.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

You agree, then, that she should keep her powers, that they should even be increased over time, and that she should be able to give Canadians access to information without losing the powers she has been granted since 2018. Do you agree with that?

[Matthew Shea]

If you're talking about her legislative powers, ultimately that's a decision for Parliament to make, what powers the Information Commissioner has, additional ones or fewer. That is totally not within my purview.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Okay.

We had information that your office sometimes found it cumbersome to manage all the requests that came in and that it was starting to feel a bit overwhelmed. We are also told that you would have liked things to slow down a bit and for her to perhaps have fewer powers. However, you're telling me that's not true.

[Matthew Shea]

That is not the case. I believe I know the memo you're referring to. That's a different department, not our department. That is not something that originated with us.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 40 seconds.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Shea, I'd like to check something with you, because I get the impression that there's still a battle over access to information.

As you said earlier, you have too many requests; you're overloaded; there are too many requesters. When people make requests, do you find that they don't take time to think about what they're asking you for? When they make requests, are the requests “pre-chewed”, do people know what they're asking for, and do they think they should have access and, at that point, you're forced to fight? When people make access to information requests, which go through the commissioner, the work has already been pretty well checked, cleaned up. The work has been done. I imagine that the person makes sense when they get to you. They're asking you for things that they think should be public.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You took 40 seconds to ask that question. Your time is up.

Can you give a quick response, please, Mr. Shea?

[Matthew Shea]

We certainly try to do everything we can to provide the requesters what they are requesting. Just because somebody makes a complaint, that doesn't mean we're not trying to give them what they're looking for. I think the fundamental question can be a requester asking for something that's of a huge volume, and we will work with them. In most cases, requesters will say, “I'm really looking for X, Y and Z”, and we will try to give them that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.