OTTAWA — Lawyers and organizations working on environmental issues and migrants’ rights are concerned about changes to the Access to Information Act proposed by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government. One of the amendments that concerns them most is the restriction on access to certain documents deemed “ephemeral,” which could include emails. “To categorically start excluding records from the act I would say is antithetical to the purpose of the act,” says Andrew Koltun, an immigration lawyer who regularly files access-to-information requests to assist his clients. Ottawa proposes to define which documents would be deemed “official,” and therefore covered by the law. This approach is too restrictive, according to Koltun, who is a member of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers’ Association. As part of his work, he often seeks to gather information about how his clients were treated, rather than solely focusing on the immigration decisions affecting them. “It’s not the end result that matters. It’s also, how did you arrive to those decisions that matter and that can only be found by looking at emails, looking at discussions,” he said. The Quebec environmental law centre (CQDE) also views the exclusion of ephemeral documents as contrary to the spirit of the law. “The ephemeral nature of a document could provide significant leeway to restrict access to documents,” argues Céleste Brazeau Houle, an attorney for the group. She’s also concerned by proposal to extend the processing deadlines for access-to-information requests based on institutional capacity. This could include the number of employees as well as a ministry’s budgets. “We wouldn’t want the effectiveness of a quasi-constitutional right to depend on an organization’s budgetary decisions regarding staffing,” Brazeau Houle said. Processing times are already a recurring obstacle to accessing documents, points out Thibault Rehn, executive director of Quebec non-profit Vigilance OGM. He’s been using the Access to Information Act for about 15 years and says he’s noticed that processing times are longer than they used to be. Technically, the law stipulates that a government department has 30 days to respond to a request, but extensions are commonplace. Recently, one of his requests was granted a 360-day extension. Vigilance OGM has also been waiting five years for a response to another request. Rehn believes that if the government wants to reduce its administrative burden, it would benefit from proactively making more information public. The federal government is already required to systematically disclose certain information, such as contracts exceeding $10,000. Vigilance OGM, for its part, is calling for the establishment of public registries detailing the scientific basis underlying government decisions on the use of pesticides and GMOs. “If the government is transparent from the outset and tells us that there are public records showing the scientific basis for its decisions, then I wouldn’t have to file a request, and government officials wouldn’t have to spend time searching for the information,” Rehn says. Koltun also believes that certain changes proposed by Ottawa would lead to further delays. In particular, he points to the government’s proposed change giving it authority to systematically extend deadlines when it receives multiple requests from the same person. He anticipates that this would have a direct impact on his ability to assist his clients. “The average immigration lawyer is probably submitting an access to information act request every two days,” he says. Koltun explains that immigration applicants need access to their previous statements if, for example, they have previously dealt with Immigration Canada. These details, which can be obtained through access to information requests, are useful in the context of new immigration applications. He notes that the department requests all the information a person has provided to it over the course of their life. In some cases, a visa application may have been filed by the person’s parents when they were a child. “You don’t know what was put in that application. So the only way you can answer those questions is through an access to information act request to get the copy of the records,” he said. It’s not yet clear what changes to the act Ottawa will ultimately implement. The proposal underwent a consultation period that ended in mid-June. “The potential strategic approaches aim to strengthen the legislative framework to promote transparent, accountable, and participatory governance,” states the proposal document published by the Treasury Board Secretariat. When contacted by The Canadian Press, the secretariat did not respond to a request for an interview with a senior official responsible for enforcing the Access to Information Act. In the House of Commons, Treasury Board President Shafqat Ali stated that “Canada’s new government believes in transparency, accountability and fairness.” He notes that he had met with Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard, who has been highly critical of the government’s proposals. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 9, 2026. Émilie Bergeron, The Canadian Press
