OTTAWA – Lawyers and organizations focused on environmental issues and migrants' rights have expressed significant concerns regarding proposed amendments to the Access to Information Act by Prime Minister Mark Carney's government. The most alarming amendment involves restricting access to "ephemeral" documents, which may include emails. This change has raised alarms among advocates who argue that it undermines the fundamental purpose of the Access to Information Act.

Andrew Koltun, an immigration lawyer and member of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers' Association, argues that excluding certain records fundamentally contradicts the Act's goals. He frequently files access-to-information requests to gather insights on how his clients are treated within the immigration system. Koltun stated, "It’s not the end result that matters. It’s also, how did you arrive to those decisions that matter and that can only be found by looking at emails, looking at discussions."

The Coalition Québécoise pour le droit de l'environnement (CQDE) shares similar concerns. Attorney Céleste Brazeau Houle from the CQDE highlighted that the exclusion of ephemeral documents could significantly hinder access to crucial information. She also criticized the proposal to extend processing deadlines for access-to-information requests based on institutional capacity, which could depend on the number of employees or a ministry's budget. Brazeau Houle emphasized, "We wouldn’t want the effectiveness of a quasi-constitutional right to depend on an organization’s budgetary decisions regarding staffing."

Thibault Rehn, executive director of the Quebec non-profit Vigilance OGM, has observed that processing times for access-to-information requests have become increasingly lengthy. Although the law mandates a 30-day response window, extensions are frequently applied. For instance, Rehn recounted a situation in which one of his requests received a 360-day extension, while another request has been pending for over five years. He argued that the government should improve transparency by proactively disclosing more information, which would streamline the process and reduce bureaucratic burdens.

The federal government is already required to disclose specific types of information systematically, including contracts exceeding $10,000. Vigilance OGM is advocating for public registries that detail the scientific basis underlying government decisions regarding pesticides and genetically modified organisms. Rehn noted, "If the government is transparent from the outset and tells us that there are public records showing the scientific basis for its decisions, then I wouldn’t have to file a request, and government officials wouldn’t have to spend time searching for the information."

Koltun additionally highlighted potential delays that might arise from proposed changes allowing the government to extend deadlines when receiving multiple requests from the same individual. He pointed out that immigration lawyers often submit access-to-information requests regularly, with the average lawyer likely filing one every two days. Information from previous statements is crucial for immigration applicants, especially in cases involving family history where older applications may be relevant.

The exact nature of the modifications to the Access to Information Act remains unclear as the proposal underwent a consultation period that concluded in mid-June. The Treasury Board Secretariat published a document stating that "the potential strategic approaches aim to strengthen the legislative framework to promote transparent, accountable, and participatory governance." However, when approached for comment, the Secretariat did not provide a spokesperson for an interview regarding the enforcement of the Access to Information Act.

In statements made in the House of Commons, Treasury Board President Shafqat Ali asserted that "Canada’s new government believes in transparency, accountability, and fairness." He also mentioned that he had met with Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard, who has been vocal in her criticism of the government's proposals. As discussions evolve regarding these critical amendments, the advocacy community remains watchful of potential impacts on transparency and accountability in governance.