Government Operations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

If you have a larger, more fulsome response, maybe you can provide it in writing for Mr. Osborne and the committee, because I'm sure there's plenty.

It's Mr. Patzer, and then Madame Gaudreau.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think the recommendation of the ethics committee in its review of access to information was to strengthen information management, not weaken it. I have a couple of questions about that.

You said that departments get to decide what their policy is going to be on when they are allowed to delete messages. Who exactly is the one making that decision? Is it the deputy minister? Is it the minister?

[Caroline Maynard]

I don't know. Each department may be different. There are guidelines issued by Library and Archives and Treasury Board. They say that it's the head of the institution, so it could be the minister or deputy minister. They have to agree with the CIO, and the information management team will determine what's proper for each type of....

Don't forget that there's a retention policy for everything. We don't keep everything. Even if it's a legal opinion, there's a retention policy. Often, it's 10 years. If it's an access request for information, it's two years. There are different rules for different types of records.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

That's right.

It just seems like, again, a 15-day rule. I know it's not your recommendation or policy. That just seems bizarre. Who, then, is responsible for making the decision as to what is eligible to be deleted? Again, is it up to the individual employee to make that decision, or is it up to a manager within a department?

There has to be a process flow here. It seems kind of loosey-goosey as to who gets to do what.

[Caroline Maynard]

If it's a deletion to be done, it's the institution itself. Employees don't have a say, but they are supposed to be told what's happening, when it's going to happen and what to do with the information so it doesn't get lost with the deletion.

Again, it's just a question of proper management of information. There are so many tools out there. Even in my office, we need to have ways to capture the proper information in the right place.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

How do you know they're not using encrypted messaging or things like that, which would be harder to access?

[Caroline Maynard]

Encryption doesn't stop an investigation or stop us from seeing it. Encryption just makes sure not everybody can see it within the exchange.

What worries me—to go with your line of questioning—is that people are using these tools, even though they are told not to, to make decisions that should be captured somewhere else other than in these types of conversation applications.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

With the Access to Information Act, what about something like appropriate penalties for non-compliance? What does that look like?

[Caroline Maynard]

First of all, the act does not administer or talk about the creation of records. The act only applies when the record is already in existence. If you're not creating a record, I cannot intervene. If the record doesn't exist when you make the access request, my office doesn't have the authority. That's one thing. That might be something to be considered by the government in the next legislative review.

Having sanctions could be something to consider, but, again, it would be a question of who we then sanction. Is it the head, the deputy minister, the analyst or the employee? There is a mechanism if there's an intent to destroy or an intent to remove the access. We refer that to the Attorney General, because that's a possible criminal offence.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Is there proactive policing of this or is it all just reactive, just reactionary?

[Caroline Maynard]

It's usually something we find through an investigation about something else, but we have had some direct allegations that somebody is destroying this, and we will look at it to make sure that's not the case.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

What about the use of personal cellphones and personal emails to discuss government policy? Is that a concern of yours?

[Caroline Maynard]

It hasn't been raised in my office, but I understand that the Ontario government has had a case at court about this. There's already jurisprudence on that.

As long as you're doing business for the government, whether or not you're using a telephone, if it's under the control of the government, that's the test. We can access that, or we should be able to.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Gasparro has the floor, and then it's Madame Gaudreau.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Commissioner, in your 2024-25 annual report there's a quote. I want to read it out. It says that in your “first seven-year term”, you had a focus on four priorities:

...reducing the inventory of complaints, preparing for and implementing changes to the Access to Information Act, enhancing transparency in the day-to-day operations...and strengthening collaboration with various stakeholders.

Can you provide the committee with an update on how you and your office have done in achieving these objectives?

[Caroline Maynard]

On the inventory, when I started, I inherited 3,600 cases. Some of them were 10 years old. We are now down to 2,100 cases. Most of them—90% of them—are within two years. We've done extremely well with respect to that first priority. Our goal is to really keep that inventory to a two-year maximum, which is still long for some cases, but it's much better than it used to be.

With respect to implementing the act, that's something we've been doing. Now, all of our cases, I think, except for two, are under the current regime. There are no more cases where I can issue only recommendations. They're all under the current regime.

The transparency comes from when I applied for this job. I went to their website and couldn't find any information about the Information Commissioner. I was like, “What are they doing?” Now we publish all of our decisions. We publish guidance. We publish our statistics so that people know what we're doing and how we're doing it. We can walk the talk. We are transparent ourselves.

The last one is collaboration. I always say to our investigators and to my team, “Let's try to talk to the complainant and the institution first and see if we can resolve these issues as quickly as possible.” My role is not to punish anybody. My role is to get the information out. We try to do that as quickly as possible, and that's what we're doing with 90% of our cases being resolved.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That's great.

On the filling out of ATIP requests and the actual form itself, is there an additional level of complexity there? There have been rumours that individuals have acted as middlemen, filling out the forms themselves and then trying to collect fees to help individuals stickhandle the process, to manage the information for them—excuse the pun. Can you provide some clarity? Is that happening? Are you aware of that happening?

[Caroline Maynard]

The portal where you can ask for an access request is administered by the Treasury Board and by each institution. I think there are multiple numbers of portals. This is not something that we have control over or a review process for.

We haven't had a lot of complaints about access requests being difficult, but it should be something that most people in Canada have access to. Yes, there are going to be some vulnerable people in Canada who may need help, but those concerns should be going to the Treasury Board.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I just wonder, because most of the requests are going to IRCC, if immigration lawyers are having to fill out the requests on behalf of their clients, etc.

[Caroline Maynard]

Clients in IRCC definitely usually have representatives helping them through the process, but it's not just for the access request. It's usually part of the the overall request for their visa, so it's something that's added to the offer of responsibility. This is why I say it should be out of the access request. It should be completely independent.

Just as the CRA has a portal for your tax forms and information, IRCC should have a portal with all the information related to the client. It should be free, and you should have access without having to do an access request.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We'll end with that.

I'm going to make a comment on fees, because that's important to me.

When we say fees, we mean administrative fees.

Is that correct?

[Caroline Maynard]

If you're talking about the $5 access fee, yes.