Information Commissioner’s appearance before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

February 9, 2026
Ottawa, ON

(Check against delivery)

Thank you for the opportunity to once again appear before this committee to talk about access to information.

I understand that the committee wishes to focus on two areas today: the use of instant messaging and information management within the public service, and the performance of the Privy Council Office (PCO) in the area of access to Information.

I would like to first clarify some information management responsibilities.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) establishes Information Management policies for the federal public service.

Library and Archives Canada (LAC), however, is responsible for establishing the retention and disposition authorities that govern how federal institutions must manage, preserve, and ultimately dispose of their records.

Each government institution must then set its own Information Management practices, including those governing transitory records.

That being said, some aspects of records management do become relevant to my investigations the moment an access request is made to institutions subject to the Access to Information Act.

I would like to point out that there is no obligation to create records under the Act. The Act only applies once a record exists – in any form. This includes transitory records.

Retention policies vary according to the type of record and can range from days to decades. These policies are a good and necessary thing for proper information management, but they must be accompanied by training and founded on some basic principles.

Some of these are spelled out in the message I sent to institutions last week and provided to this committee ahead of time. I hope you have had the opportunity to review this message. It affirms that records created using digital collaboration tools, such as Microsoft Teams, must be managed in a manner that upholds the right of access to information.

Turning to the second topic, let me start off by saying that the order-making power is a key tool at my disposal. Orders enable me to conclude complaints that we have been unable to resolve by other means.

I would like to highlight some statistics on orders in the handout I provided to this committee which tell an important story.

It is interesting to note that while the Department of National Defence (DND) and LAC have received the most orders so far since 2019, in the case of both institutions, the number of orders I have been required to issue is declining. Unfortunately, the data shows the opposite trend with respect to PCO.

The example of DND and LAC shows how institutions can improve their performance when they address the issues that have resulted in orders.

Timeliness tends to be the greatest challenge for transparency at PCO and has resulted in the high number of orders to respond to late requests. Good information management practices include transferring records of archival value to LAC in a timely manner. However, PCO continues to struggle with a high volume of requests related to records that are between 35 and 69 years old.

PCO’s central role in the implementation of the government’s priorities makes timely access to its information even more vital. Improving access to information at PCO presents an ideal opportunity to lead by example.

I will be happy to answer any questions on these or other topics you would like to address with me today. However, I cannot talk about any investigations as they are confidential.

Thank you