OTTAWA – Lawyers and organizations focusing on environmental issues and migrants' rights are expressing concerns regarding proposed amendments to the Access to Information Act by Prime Minister Mark Carney's government. A key amendment that has raised alarms is the restriction on access to certain documents defined as “ephemeral,” which could encompass emails and other transient forms of communication.
Andrew Koltun, an immigration lawyer and member of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers’ Association, stated, “To categorically start excluding records from the act is antithetical to the purpose of the act.” He emphasizes the importance of understanding not just the immigration decisions affecting his clients, but also the processes and discussions that led to those decisions, which often reside in emails or informal communications.
Additionally, the Quebec environmental law center (CQDE) has voiced similar concerns about the exclusion of ephemeral documents. Attorney Céleste Brazeau Houle argues that this could provide significant leeway to restrict access to crucial information. She also expressed worries regarding proposals that would extend processing deadlines for access-to-information requests based on institutional capacity, such as staffing numbers and budgets, stating, “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, highlighted that processing times for requests have already become an increasingly significant hurdle. With over 15 years of experience utilizing the Access to Information Act, he noted that response times have lengthened considerably. While technically the law mandates government departments to respond within 30 days, extensions are common, with some requests experiencing delays; one of Rehn's recent requests was granted a 360-day extension, while another has been pending for five years.
Rehn posits that the government should proactively release more information to reduce administrative burdens in processing requests. He adds that the federal government is already obligated to systematically disclose certain types of information, such as contracts exceeding $10,000. Vigilance OGM is advocating for the establishment of public registries that would detail the scientific rationale for governmental decisions concerning pesticides and GMOs. “If the government is transparent from the outset, then I wouldn’t have to file a request, and government officials wouldn’t have to spend time searching for the information,” he argued.
Koltun concurred that the proposed changes could exacerbate delays, particularly a new provision allowing the government to systematically extend deadlines when multiple requests are submitted by the same individual. He notes that the average immigration lawyer likely submits an access-to-information request every two days. Immigration applicants often need access to their previous statements for new applications—a process that requires digging into past immigration records through these requests.
As the proposal to amend the Access to Information Act currently stands, it is unclear what final changes will be instituted. The consultation period for the proposal concluded in mid-June, but the government's intent remains ambiguous. The Treasury Board Secretariat's proposal document outlined potential strategic approaches aimed at enhancing governance through transparency and democratic participation.
When approached for comments, the Treasury Board Secretariat did not provide an interview with a senior official responsible for the Access to Information Act. In the House of Commons, Treasury Board President Shafqat Ali asserted that “Canada’s new government believes in transparency, accountability and fairness,” indicating a belief in the need for robust transparency while acknowledging the concerns raised by Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard about the proposed changes.
