Information & Ethics Committee on May 4th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Good afternoon, everyone. I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the committee is commencing consideration of the Main Estimates 2026‑27, specifically Vote 1 under Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Vote 1 under Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, Vote 1 under Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, and Votes 1 and 5 under Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada, referred to the committee on Thursday, February 26, 2026.

I'd like to welcome our witness for the first hour today. From the Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada, we have Caroline Maynard, Information Commissioner.

Ms. Maynard, welcome back to the committee. You have up to five minutes for your opening statement, followed by questions.

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

For 2026‑27, the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada has been allocated $15.7 million in voted funding through the Main Estimates. This represents a small increase of 0.45% over the previous year.

The mandate of my office is to carry out investigations into complaints about access to information requests made to federal institutions.

Much of our financial planning is driven by anticipated complaints and related litigation cases over which we have no control. Recent trends in my investigations and available data indicate that we are entering a period of rising pressure on the access to information system. Among other things, early indications suggest that access to information capacity across institutions is being impacted by the government's comprehensive expenditure review. This is despite my warnings that access to information is a quasi-constitutional right, not a service, and therefore should not be subjected to cuts.

An analysis of the Treasury Board Secretariat, or TBS, Access to Information and Privacy statistical report for 2024‑25 completed by my team revealed that approximately 40,000 out of nearly 200,000 access to information requests were not responded to within legislated timelines.

In light of these findings, my office is planning for an increase in the numbers of complaints it will receive.

It is now our expectation that complaint volumes and litigation will increase in the period ahead. This concerns me. As an agent of Parliament, the office of the Information Commissioner was exempt from the government's comprehensive expenditure review. However, this does not mean that my office has been immune to fiscal pressure. In recent years, we have contended with a funding shortfall resulting from the methodology used by TBS to allocate funding for collective agreements. Fortunately, through prudent fiscal management and the reallocation of resources, we have managed to absorb the structural deficit thus far. I have concerns, however, about how long this can be sustained.

I continue to believe that the current funding model for my office lacks the flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances. This is why I agree with your committee's recommendation that the government establish a funding mechanism that respects the independence of agents of Parliament. This recommendation was outlined in your 2023 report on the state of the access to information system.

Which brings me to the subject of the government's ongoing legislative review of the Access to Information Act.

Since I last appeared before this committee, an important milestone has been reached. The government launched an online consultation on a policy paper that provides the legislative changes under consideration.

My team is currently working on compiling the detailed recommendations on the reforms that are urgently needed. My recommendations will be published on my website the same day they are submitted to TBS.

Ultimately, I have said numerous times that the reform must strengthen, not erode, the right of Canadians to know how decisions are made and how their institutions operate. As we consider the path forward, it is worth recalling what is ultimately at stake.

To take just one example, yesterday marked World Press Freedom Day. That occasion served as a powerful reminder that a free press is essential to a healthy democracy and that, without timely access to information, the press cannot fulfill its vital role. When the access to information system fails, trust erodes, and restoring trust is far more difficult than preserving it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

We're going to start our first round of questioning. Mr. Barrett is going to go for six minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

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

Commissioner, can you give us a sense of the volume and the length of those delays that you're experiencing with respect to the government's failure to comply with legislated access laws?

[Caroline Maynard]

The amount of time under the act is 30 days, unless there's an extension taken by the institution. Last year 40,000 requests were not responded to within those timelines, and usually that leads to complaints to my office.

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

If I may, what order of magnitude are we talking about here? Is the government simply a couple of business days behind? Is it attempting in good faith to meet the spirit of the law and it's two days behind? What are we looking at in terms of an average in excess of the legislation?

[Caroline Maynard]

I don't have the numbers with me right now, but those numbers are in the Treasury Board access to information statistical analysis. It really depends on the institution. Some institutions will respond within 60 days, while other institutions will take an extension of up to two to three years, so it really depends.

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

Some take up to three years. What is the initial legislated timeline?

[Caroline Maynard]

It is 30 days.

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

It is 30 days.

How frequently are you finding that departments and agencies are not requesting an extension but are simply, for all intents and purposes, ignoring the order?

[Caroline Maynard]

The majority of our complaints are what we call “deemed refusal” complaints, so it's basically the person not getting a response within the 30 days and also not receiving a letter saying the institution will take an extension of time. It happens more than it should.

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

What would you say is the impact on public trust when we have access to information laws being flouted by government?

[Caroline Maynard]

The law is the law. As I said, it's a quasi-constitutional right. For sure, Canadians are entitled to that information within the time limit of the act or within a reasonable extension of time. If you do not respect the law, people will start losing faith.

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

They'll start losing faith.

What are the consequences, though? We talk about the laws that Canadians have to follow. You have to pay your taxes by a certain time. You have to remit a certain amount of tax to the government. If you don't, there are financial penalties, including having your wages garnished. If you drive faster than the speed limit, there are financial penalties. If you break other laws, there are a range of penalties.

If the judicial branch were to stop enforcing any of these laws, of course, it would erode the public's confidence in that branch. The same applies, I would imagine, to the executive.

Wouldn't you say that in the absence of penalties and in a consequence-free environment, the number of agencies and departments that continue to ignore the laws would only increase because it's a consequence-free environment?

[Caroline Maynard]

There is a direct impact on the person asking for the information. They don't receive the information on time, or they don't receive all of the information they're entitled to. There's also, in the big picture, an impact on trust and on the fact that there's misinformation going around.

I think it's more than just having those responses. I think the government is responsible for providing timely, reliable information to its citizens.

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

Just to underscore my point, though, it's able to not fulfill its responsibilities because there isn't a consequence brought to bear in a meaningful way.

[Caroline Maynard]

There is no sanction, if that's what you want to say.

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

All right.

You have recommended access laws be broadened, which seems problematic, because in the current scope, we're not able to get the information and the results that Canadians deserve. Would including the Prime Minister's Office, for example, allow access requests for things like the invocation of a conflict of interest screen for the Prime Minister? That is something this committee recommended in terms of that document being made available on a regular basis.

In the absence of that, if members of the public were able to request that document, that's the type of information that would be available should your recommendation to expand the scope of the act become part of the law.

[Caroline Maynard]

Currently, the act does not affect the ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office at all. Whether or not these documents would be exempted under other provisions of the act, it's impossible to say at this point.

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

Could you clarify for all of us the importance of affording this transparency in government decision-making to Canadians? What's the upside for society when we get this right and when the access is granted in a timely way?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're going to need a very quick response, unfortunately.

[Caroline Maynard]

It leads to trust.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's a quick response. Thank you.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Ms. Maynard. Welcome back to our committee.

You mentioned earlier that 40,000 out of 200,000 access to information requests were not responded to within prescribed timelines. It's difficult to respond to requests in a timely manner.

The last time you appeared before this committee, you explained that a handful of organizations and individuals make constant requests and are bogging the whole system down. Did you manage to improve this situation?

[Caroline Maynard]

Actually, I believe what I said was that only approximately 1% of all access to information requests are submitted to institutions—that's 1% of 200,000 requests. These requests come from individuals that could be considered—well, it's not the individuals, really, but the actual requests that can be considered to be vexatious or made in bad faith.

There is a system in place currently that institutions can use to avoid responding to those kinds of requests. They can use it, but they have to ask permission from me, obviously, since it deprives those individuals from their right to access information.

We've only received 92 requests from institutions asking for permission to not respond to an access to information request because it is vexatious in nature or made in bad faith. I only agreed to 16 of these requests. The number of vexatious requests is quite limited.