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

November 2, 2026
Ottawa, ON

(Check against delivery)

Good morning,

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 provide you with some updates on this topic.

My annual report, which was tabled in June, 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.

Last March, the Treasury Board Secretariat 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.

I had reservations about the direction reflected in the document because, in several respects, the proposals appeared to be designed to ease what government institutions perceive as administrative burdens rather than to uphold Canadians’ right to know. Nor did the policy approaches put forward 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. 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, I urged the Government to pursue more ambitious measures to strengthen the right of access, improve transparency and reinforce accountability. My main message was simple: this review should be guided by the objective of strengthening the public's right of access. Modernization is long overdue.

I continue to believe that 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. 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.