OTTAWA — Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard has voiced strong concerns regarding a federal proposal that aims to narrow the scope of the Access to Information Act, stating that it could lead to the exclusion of “entire swaths of government-held records” from public scrutiny. Her warnings are articulated in a recently published submission to the Treasury Board Secretariat, which is conducting a review of the access regime.
The department’s policy document, released in March, outlines potential changes to the Access to Information system and has invited feedback from various stakeholders. Within the document, the shortcomings of the current access system are acknowledged, highlighting issues such as poor federal information management, a lack of systematic declassification of historical records, and challenges in obtaining documents related to Indigenous affairs.
Commissioner Maynard emphasizes that the review should not serve as a justification for further secrecy but rather should aim to expand access, modernize the legal framework, and bolster independent oversight. “The public’s right to know is fundamental to our democracy, and any review must strengthen that right,” she states in her written submission.
While she expresses relief that the government seems open to adjustments regarding the act, she believes that its proposed policy approaches “lack ambition” and fail to address many long-standing issues with the current access to information regime. Since its inception in 1983, the Access to Information law has granted individuals the ability to request documents—including memos, reports, internal emails, and data—from federal agencies.
One specific proposal under consideration would amend the definition of a “record” to “official records.” This change would mean that only records deemed to have “ongoing business value” and stored in official repositories would fall under the act’s jurisdiction. According to the Treasury Board, this shift aims to improve efficiency by speeding up and enhancing the responses to requests by excluding transitory records, such as everyday communications, from the law’s coverage.
Maynard strongly disagrees with this approach, arguing it poses a significant risk of excluding numerous government records. She questions scenarios in which records of business value are not yet stored in official repositories at the time an access request is made or those that might no longer have “ongoing” value due to a project being inactive, despite still being within their retention period. While acknowledging that this proposal could expedite searches for records, she asserts, “I am of the view that this is a move in the wrong direction.”
Furthermore, she highlights that the prevailing definition of a record in access to information statutes worldwide encompasses “all information recorded in any form,” which is technology-neutral and adaptable. Maynard underscores that there are established federal protocols for identifying and timely destroying genuinely transitory records. If such records are not destroyed before an institution receives a request, they must be preserved and included in the access response, she notes.
In her submission, Maynard articulates her opposition to excluding transitory records from the act's coverage. She warns that doing so would pose significant risks to governmental transparency and accountability. Additionally, she points out that records originally deemed transitory have, at times, revealed clear evidentiary and public interest value. “Excluding such records would therefore risk shielding relevant information from scrutiny,” she warns.
Maynard advocates for ensuring that public institutions adhere to their obligations through robust information management practices. She argues, “Creating an exclusion for transitory records would merely shift an existing information management gap into the access regime, thereby undermining its purpose.” According to her, the act must remain unequivocal: if a record exists at the time of the request, it should be accessible.
In a recent investigative report, Maynard noted the prevalence of digital collaboration platforms—such as Microsoft Teams, Slack, and Signal—that facilitate informal exchanges, which often go undocumented in official repositories. Some of these platforms have functionalities allowing for auto-deletion of messages or temporary messaging, further complicating proper record management.
Ultimately, she stresses the necessity for public servants to accurately document business activities and decisions in official repositories and to avoid assuming that records exchanged through these platforms are inconsequential and should not be retrieved when processing access requests.
