Government Operations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

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

I'd like to come back to the Privy Council Office.

What reasons does it give for not providing the requested information or not meeting the deadlines?

[Caroline Maynard]

I can't speak to a specific case, but generally, as I was saying earlier, it's because they have a huge library of historical data. Those are often classified as secret or top secret.

It's very complex. There are documents that contain information related to national security. Often, these are documents that date back 20, 30 or 40 years. So it takes a certain amount of expertise and a lot of time to handle them.

Those are the cases that usually cause the delays. It's often people who do research, such as professors or historians, for example, who want access to these documents, because this is Canada's history.

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

Let's face it: National security is being used as an excuse. It's easy to say that something is top secret, but how do you determine what is top secret? There are secrets, and there are things that need to be known under the law.

In this process, are there times when having the right to review makes you uncomfortable, given your duty of impartiality?

[Caroline Maynard]

That's not the case, because I have access to all documents. If I'm told that a document won't be disclosed because it contains information related to national security, my own team of experts will verify and test those arguments. We need to be convinced of that. That's what the process is for.

I don't disclose anything. I just want to see the information, understand the restrictions and apply the law. The only documents I don't see are those protected under cabinet confidence.

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

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You're right on time, as always.

Mr. Brassard, please go ahead.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to that November 12 meeting you had with Mr. Sabia, the Clerk of the Privy Council. It also has been suggested in the access to information note I have that obviously you were talking about the five-year mandated review of the act, but there was also a draft discussion paper from the Treasury Board and some of the bureaucrats in the Treasury Board that indicates the government is considering restrictions on citizens' rights to access.

Are you aware of any circumstances that have happened where the government is actually considering restricting a citizen's right to access information?

[Caroline Maynard]

I've seen it in other jurisdictions when a particular person becomes a vexatious requester, but usually you have to go to court to obtain that type of decision to stop somebody for a certain period of time. Usually, it would be limited in time, and it would be limited to a certain amount of files. That process already exists.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

It sounds to me, based on what I've read, that the government is looking at further sanctions or further actions to restrict citizens' rights to access. Combined with the talk that they are going to somehow restrict your ability to compel orders, is that concerning to you, as the commissioner, in terms of open access, transparency and accountability?

[Caroline Maynard]

Anything that limits access to information would be a concern for me, but it's difficult now to comment without seeing what is recommended and what it's based on. I think the act currently allows for these types of limitations, protections and safeguards sufficiently.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

That's right, and legislatively as well.

What I want to focus on next are the orders that you do compel on government departments. There was an Order Paper question that was tabled by the government in, I think, November. It was asked in September. The question was with respect to litigation involving your office. The number that came back was that the justice department has spent $1.63 million defending the orders you've given to various departments to allow information to be released. Can you tell the committee what the cost has been within your office to defend that?

[Caroline Maynard]

We knew, in 2019, when we obtained the authority to issue orders, that we would need to change the way we do litigations. We had to decide on our own whether to go to court, and we didn't have the resources to do that. Now, we are not in control of how many cases are being challenged, so we have to respond to those challenges in court. We had to increase the number of lawyers in our office by three. We didn't get any extra money for that. We just rearranged resources internally, but it's the cost of about three lawyers, additionally, to have the expertise and the skill in-house.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

It's not just their salaries. There are additional costs to that. Do you know what those costs are, roughly, Madam Commissioner?

[Caroline Maynard]

The court itself is not what costs the most. It's the time, really. Three lawyers, for us, cost about $500,000 a year.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

I'll go back to a question asked by one of my colleagues. There has been a decline in requests for access to information. Is it because people are getting frustrated with the system?

If you recall, when we studied this at the ethics committee, every witness who came before the committee talked about a massive decline in confidence in the access to information system. Are people just simply getting frustrated asking for information and not receiving it in a timely manner?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Give a brief answer please.

[Caroline Maynard]

There is a decline. We don't know why, but also don't forget that those statistics are based on files that have been closed. A huge number of files for requests have not been processed and don't count in those statistics.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Rochefort, go ahead please.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Just to follow my colleague's line of questioning, you spoke about the fact that the public has a right to know. In that context, I was wondering how you would respond about the costs of responding to some of the requests that come forward. That would be from an operational perspective and from a staffing perspective, especially given that these costs are paid by the taxpayers. Once they start to understand what they're asking for, what it involves and how much it costs....

I faced that in the municipal government. At one point, we had an increasing level of access to information, and we spoke out about the implications from a staffing perspective. In Ontario, many municipalities did that as well because it was an issue, so the government changed some of the fees involved. They now charge on an hourly basis for the amount of work involved. They charge for photocopies and so on.

My question to you, Madame Maynard, is this. In that right to know, do you feel that you also have an obligation to communicate to the people asking for information what the costs and the implications are and what is involved in responding, from a government perspective?

[Caroline Maynard]

My first answer to that would be that we shouldn't have to ask for access to information. Access to information requests should be the last resort to obtain information from our government. By default, information should be available and should be proactively disclosed, voluntary disclosed. It should be—I don't know; use the words you want—a policy or a decision, but it should be out there. We shouldn't have to ask for it. That should be the last resort.

When you do get an access request, there's a duty by the institutions to talk to the requester. We had a case recently where the person was going to receive 92,000 pages, probably not knowing that it was going to be that many pages. Talk to the requester, and see if that's really what they want. Who wants 10 boxes of information? Maybe they do, but usually there's a lack of communication with the requester.

Often, at our office, we are the first people they talk to. Then, they will say, “No, this is what I want.” They don't know what to ask for, so they ask for everything. If there were this duty to help the requester, if that were done properly in every case, it would reduce the cost and the amount of time spent on files.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Also, it would be fair to say that some people don't accept the answer or don't accept the information, from my experience. That's what I've experienced the most. I've seen organizations go out of their way to try to respond to citizens, and rightly so. Often, though, I've also seen citizens who don't accept it, and they are determined. How do you respond to that?

[Caroline Maynard]

It's going back to the unreasonable, vexatious requester. We hear about only those. It's a small portion of the full number of requesters out there, but they're probably the ones who create the most work. It's unfortunate, because every institution has one or two. It's not the majority of requesters. The act allows for a system in which I can decide not to respond to these types of requests.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I have another question. You mentioned that you have not heard back from Treasury Board about a review. Would it be fair to say that, just because you've not heard back, it doesn't mean there hasn't been work done in the background?

[Caroline Maynard]

Yes. We don't know what's going on.