Murray Wood: It's getting better all the time
Even if it seems - as the rejoinder in the Beatles' song observed - 'it couldn't get much worse,' Murray Wood suggests w...
OTTAWA — Information commissioner Caroline Maynard says a federal proposal to narrow the scope of the Access to Information Act is a move in the wrong direction that could exclude “entire swaths of government-held records” from public scrutiny.
Maynard makes the blunt warning in a newly published submission to the Treasury Board Secretariat’s latest review of the access regime.
The department issued a policy document in March that set out possible changes to the Access to Information system and solicited feedback from interested parties.
The policy paper acknowledges shortcomings in the access system, including poor federal information management, a lack of systematic declassification of historical records and difficulties with obtaining documents related to Indigenous affairs.
“The review must not become a justification for further secrecy,” Maynard says in her written submission. “It must expand access, modernize the framework, and reinforce independent oversight.
“The public’s right to know is fundamental to our democracy, and any review must strengthen that right.”
Maynard adds while she is relieved the government appears open to making changes to the act, its policy approaches “lack ambition, and do not address many of the long-standing, well-documented problems with the current access to information regime.”
The access law, which took effect in 1983, allows people to request records — including memos, reports, internal emails and data — from federal agencies.
One federal proposal would change the definition of “record” in the law to “official records.”
It means that only records with “ongoing business value and that are stored in official repositories” would fall under the act.
The Treasury Board says this would improve efficiency through faster and more useful responses to requesters by removing transitory records, such as routine communications, from the law’s reach.
Maynard says she strongly disagrees with that approach because it risks carving out a large number of government records.
“For example, what if records of business value are not yet stored in official repositories when an access request is made? What about records that are no longer of ‘ongoing’ value because a project or contract is no longer active, but their retention period has not yet expired?” she says in the submission.
While Treasury Board’s approach undoubtedly would make searches for records faster, “I am of the view that this is a move in the wrong direction,” she adds.
The prevailing definition of “record” and “official record” in access to information statutes worldwide is “all information recorded in any form,” Maynard says.
“This definition remains technology-neutral and flexible.”
Maynard notes there are federal rules for identifying and destroying genuinely transitory records in a timely manner. In cases where transitory records have not been destroyed before an institution receives an access request, they must be preserved and included in the response, she adds.
“I do not support excluding transitory records from the scope of the act. Doing so would create significant risks to transparency and accountability,” Maynard’s submission says.
“In practice, records initially characterized as transitory have, in several instances, proven to be of clear evidentiary and public interest value. Excluding such records would therefore risk shielding relevant information from scrutiny.”
She says the appropriate solution is to ensure that institutions meet their obligations through sound information management practices.
“Creating an exclusion for transitory records would merely shift an existing information management gap into the access regime, thereby undermining its purpose,” her submission says.
“The act should remain clear: if a record exists at the time of the request, it is subject to access.”
In a recent investigation report, Maynard pointed out that most digital collaboration platforms — including chat platforms such as Microsoft Teams, Slack and Signal — support rapid and informal exchanges that are not systematically captured in official repositories.
Some platforms permit auto‑deletion of messages or temporary messaging, she noted.
“Therefore, it is of paramount importance that public servants promptly document business activities and decisions in official repositories to ensure proper information management,” the report said.
“In addition, public servants must resist the temptation to assume that records exchanged through collaboration platforms are necessarily transitory and, therefore, need not be retrieved when responding to access requests.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 20, 2026.
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
