Information & Ethics Committee on May 4th, 2026

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

Would you say that we need a better way of either identifying or categorizing those transitory documents? To me this paints a picture of a system where, in a digital age right now, maybe we don't have entirely the safeguards we need to ensure that the information that public servants, primarily, are being asked to track and pull together.... It may not be the core information that many requests are actually looking for. How can we deal with this better?

[Caroline Maynard]

I think you're touching on a very sensitive topic, which is the creation of records and, again, not providing training, proper retention policies and proper information management policies.

However, this is the way that people work. If we are to remove transitory documents from access, which is one of the proposals—to change the act to official documents—I can tell you that there's not going to be a lot of information provided under the current system. I'm not saying this is a bad idea. I haven't found one jurisdiction that has such a restrictive definition of records. Something needs to be done, but I'm not sure that's the solution, because right now people are not creating official records. They are dealing with decisions and with policy through what we often call transitory exchanges, because it's through emails and phone calls.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Ms. Church.

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

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Maynard, you mentioned response times earlier. I'm not sure if I understood correctly, but I think you said it could take up to three years. What's the average response time for complaints? Is there even one, or does it drastically vary from one complaint to the other since they're all so different?

[Caroline Maynard]

It's really hard to say. There's no average per se, because one person will take 30 days to respond to a four-page request, while another will say that it's very complex and will take six months. It really depends on the request. Institutions rely on factors they view as important to evaluate the request and indicate to us whether it will take them two years, one year, six months or 30 days.

We receive complaints related to these prolonged response times, and the goal of our investigations is to determine whether the extension is reasonable considering the circumstances when the request was made. We expect a request covering 60,000 files to take longer to process than one that only deals with 10 pages.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Is there a certain percentage of valid complaints, ones that you find reasonable when you see them?

[Caroline Maynard]

Yes. We do a lot of informal mediation. We try to process requests as quickly as possible. Our aim is to make sure that the person making the request receives the information they're entitled to. We stop investigating when the person receives the requested information. In 33% of cases, we stop investigating once the person gets an answer or the requested information. In 11% of cases, we have to issue a report stating that the complaint was justified and ordering the institution to provide an answer and give more information. That amounts to around 45% of cases where more information is provided or the response time is shorter.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

So the number of complaints has increased, and roughly half of them are justified. In a way, would you say that there's an increased unwillingness to be transparent on the government's part?

[Caroline Maynard]

I believe the number of complaints we receive will increase, because institutions don't have the resources to handle more access to information requests dealing with a higher page count. With the way information is managed right now, a small request can generate a large number of pages.

It's one of the reasons why we need to improve the way we work. With better information management, we can respond to requests more quickly. However, if we don't have the resources and if information isn't properly managed, response times and extension requests will increase, and so will the number of complaints that my office will receive and have to deal with.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I see your point, and you might be in a delicate situation here. I don't know. I get the impression that you're boiling this down to a resource issue and saying that, despite the increased number of complaints, there's no government intent behind that. It's like the government just flat-out having no intention of providing the information is simply not a thing that exists.

[Caroline Maynard]

We have two types of complaints. Some complaints deal with overly long response times. Others are related to requests that were responded to, but with redacted documents.

I would say that the intent you're speaking of or the lack of desire to provide all the requested information is more evidenced by the redaction of documents. When we get complaints of this nature, we compare the original document to the redacted one. We see what information is contained in both documents. We have access to everything.

We sometimes have to ask why some of the information was redacted when it wasn't just one month earlier. Is there an intent to hide information or did the institution use the exemption differently?

What I've observed is that the exemptions provided in the act are used more readily than the discretionary power. For example, the institution could wonder if it has to use this power to give people more information so that they understand what measures are implemented and how decisions are made.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Let's use the example of an individual who receives a redacted document, as is sometimes the case. Quite often, that person will not file a complaint, because it takes time and they don't know how to proceed. They'll just give up because they don't want to cause further delays.

I'm sure you're aware of that obstacle. People don't want to file a complaint on top of their access to information request. Is there some mechanism that could be used to streamline that process and that could be vetted upstream by your office?

[Caroline Maynard]

When institutions respond to an access request, they are required to tell the person that they have the right to file a complaint with the Information Commissioner. People avail themselves of that right 3% of the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Madam Commissioner and Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Barrett, you have five minutes. Go ahead.

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

In the United Kingdom, the centre of government is brought inside the access regime through public authority coverage. That means that the Cabinet Office is included. Number 10 is included.

Does that expose, in its contrast with our system, a weakness in the law, where the Prime Minister's Office and ministers' offices aren't covered?

[Caroline Maynard]

I believe that all institutions that are working for Canadians, whether they are cabinet ministers' offices or institutions that receive public funds, should be subjected to the act. Whether or not, again, there would be other exemptions that would apply to certain documents, like cabinet confidence, for example, is something that the government needs to determine.

One of my problems, though, is that I don't see cabinet confidence. Right now, it's not even subjected to the act, whether it comes from the Prime Minister's Office or any office.

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

I think that's where the tension exists in the U.K. It's on whether or not an exemption exists, and not on if the entity is outside the law.

Wouldn't you say that's a better accountability model—to instead have the tension on whether or not the exemption could apply and to have some kind of arbitration for that to simplify it? At least everyone is covered by the same law.

[Caroline Maynard]

I think Canadians would agree that having somebody, like our office, who is independent reviewing documents and making sure that the exemptions are applied appropriately leads to trust and accountability.

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

Going back to the example of the United Kingdom, your counterpart in the U.K., the Information Commissioner, can issue decision notices, information notices and enforcement notices, with tribunal review and court-backed consequences for non-compliance.

Are these the types of powers that this law should be supported with here in Canada?

[Caroline Maynard]

You will recall that when we did the review of the act in 2020, or even in 2019, I requested that my orders get a certification provision so that if somebody does not follow the order, I can go to the Federal Court to obtain some kind of mechanism. This is something that was not done at the time.

I'm told that it is now something that's being considered. Yes, you would need those extra mechanisms so that orders have the power of a binding court judgment.

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

We've seen, in the United Kingdom, that sensitive materials like policy advice and certain ministerial communications are exempt. A system—as demonstrated there—exists and functions. It allows for what we talked about in our earlier discussion—providing transparency and trust to Canadians regarding what's happening in government. When the Prime Minister's Office is outside this law, Canadians never get to the stage where government even has to defend a refusal, because it's not captured by the law.

Is this the core accountability gap that Canada's Parliament needs to fix?

[Caroline Maynard]

Yes. The ministers' offices, the Prime Minister's Office and cabinet confidence are currently not under our act. We're the only one. If you compare us with the five...with Commonwealth countries, the U.K., Australia and Scotland all have a disposition that allows for a review, an independent investigation and the accountability of the government.

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

Having made this recommendation more than one time, do you view it as something that could be remedied by the government in a relatively short period of time in order to immediately start providing the transparency and trust that Canadians are looking for?

[Caroline Maynard]

There is currently a legislative review going on, and those will definitely be two of my recommendations.

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

Thank you, ma'am.