Letter to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) (November 2026)
Mr. Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Members of the Committee,
Last February, I appeared before this committee in the context of its study on the state of access to information. Today, I would like to talk a bit about subsequent developments, including the Government's ongoing review of the Access to Information Act and broader issues affecting the health of Canada’s access system.
But first, I would like to inform the members of this Committee, that last June, I tabled my annual report, which included a special report dealing with the results of my systemic investigation into accessing information related to ArriveCAN. This investigation explored the use of cloud-based platforms, mobile applications, instant messaging tools and decentralized communication channels to deliver programs and services, and the consequences of using such tools without commensurate governance, oversight or information management control.
My report concludes that as institutions continue to evolve their operations, they must ensure that innovation is supported by governance frameworks that enable them to meet their access to information obligations. Without such alignment, the risk is not only incomplete responses to access to information requests, but also the gradual erosion of transparency, accountability and public trust across government.
The ArriveCAN investigation serves as a wake-up call that access to information-related obligations must always be factored into how public servants work. Ensuring that access to information remains meaningful requires sustained attention, clear accountability and decisive action from institutions, policymakers and Parliament.
On the topic of meaningful policy decisions, last June was also when TBS released a policy approaches document seeking feedback on a range of possible reforms touching on issues such as transparency, information management, declassification, Indigenous access to information, and oversight and compliance.
While I have welcomed the release of the consultation document as an important step in advancing the review process, I have also expressed reservations about the direction reflected in the document. I was concerned that it did not fully address some of the most significant challenges facing the access system today. In particular, it did not place sufficient emphasis on the chronic delays that continue to affect requesters seeking access to records held by government institutions. Timely access to information is fundamental to the effective exercise of the right of access. Delays remain the issue most frequently raised in complaints received by my office and continue to represent the greatest source of frustration for requesters. Any meaningful modernization of the Act must address this reality.
In my submission, which I shared with this committee, I supported some of the proposals under consideration, but I also urged the Government to pursue more ambitious measures to strengthen the right of access, improve transparency and reinforce accountability.
Among other recommendations, my submission called for measures to strengthen independent oversight, and bring Canada's access regime more fully into line with Canadians’ expectations.
The overarching message of my submission was simple: this review should be guided by the objective of strengthening, not merely administering, the public's right of access. Canadians rely on access to information as a critical tool for ensuring government transparency and accountability.
The Access to Information Act has now been in force for more than four decades. The environment in which government information is created, managed, and shared has changed dramatically. From e-mail to instant messaging to collaborative platforms, the current information environment bears little resemblance to that of 1983. Modernization is long overdue.
That being said, legislative reform alone will not resolve many of the challenges currently affecting the system. The number of complaints that my office has received this year is indicative that institutions continue to struggle in meeting their obligations under the Act. A stronger legal framework must therefore be accompanied by meaningful improvements in how the access system is administered, governed, and resourced, as well as in how institutions are being held accountable.
As I have recently said: Laws can establish obligations. Technology can improve systems.
Resources can increase capacity. Yet, none of these can substitute for a genuine commitment to openness. I must reiterate before you today that, if we want to truly rebuild trust in our government institutions, transparency must be embraced as an institutional value, supported by leadership and reflected throughout the public service.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.