OTTAWA – Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard has expressed strong opposition to a recent federal proposal aimed at narrowing the scope of the Access to Information Act. She warns that this move could exclude significant portions of government-held records from public scrutiny, undermining the principle of transparency in democracy.
Maynard’s concerns were articulated in a submission to the Treasury Board Secretariat's review of the access regime. In March, the department issued a policy document outlining potential changes to the Access to Information system and invited feedback from stakeholders.
While the policy paper acknowledges existing challenges within the access system, such as inadequate federal information management and difficulties in accessing documents related to Indigenous affairs, Maynard contends that it does not go far enough in addressing these issues. She emphasizes that "the review must not become a justification for further secrecy," advocating that it should instead focus on expanding access, modernizing the framework, and reinforcing independent oversight.
The Access to Information Act, enacted in 1983, enables citizens to request various records, including memos, reports, internal communications, and data from federal agencies. One of the proposals under consideration aims to redefine "record" to mean "official records," which would limit the scope of documents subject to access requests. According to the Treasury Board, this adjustment intends to enhance efficiency by eliminating transitory records, such as routine email communications, from the reach of the law.
However, Maynard vehemently disagrees with this approach, facing the risk of excluding a vast array of government records. She raises critical questions regarding the practicality of defining records solely based on their storage status in official repositories. For instance, what happens to records that have not yet been officially documented when an access request is submitted? Additionally, records that lose their ongoing business value—such as those from completed projects—could still hold significant public interest long after their relevance to active business has ceased.
While acknowledging that the proposed changes could streamline the search process for existing records, Maynard argues that this would be a step backward for transparency. She emphasizes that the prevailing global definition of “record” encompasses “all information recorded in any form,” maintaining a technology-neutral and flexible approach.
Moreover, Maynard points out that existing federal regulations already provide guidelines for identifying and disposing of genuinely transitory records promptly. As such, records characterized as transitory must be preserved if an access request is received before their destruction, ensuring compliance with the law.
Excluding transitory records from the scope of the Act could significantly impede transparency and accountability, according to Maynard's submission. Such exclusion may shield relevant information from public scrutiny, especially when records initially deemed transitory may later prove to have evidentiary and public interest value.
Her statement advocates for improving institutional practices related to information management rather than creating exclusions. She asserts that if a record exists at the time of a request, it should remain subject to access. Her report also highlights challenges associated with modern digital collaboration platforms—many of which do not systematically archive communications—and stresses the need for public servants to diligently document their interactions in official records.
Failure to treat records from collaboration platforms as important can lead to significant gaps in information management, ultimately impeding the ability of the public to access vital information. Public servants are urged to resist the tendency to improperly categorize records exchanged through these platforms as transitory, thereby ensuring compliance with access requests.
The implications of these proposed changes to the Access to Information Act are far-reaching, affecting not just institutional practices but also the broader public's right to access information in a democratic society.
