Ottawa Experts Slam 'Regressive' Government Proposals for Access-to-Information Law
Transparency advocates in Ottawa are expressing deep frustration over what they describe as "regressive" proposals from the Treasury Board during an ongoing statutory review of Canada's Access to Information Act. The controversy centers on policy approaches that experts fear could further undermine the public's right to access government records.
Open Letter Calls for Urgent Parliamentary Review
Three prominent Ottawa-based experts have signed an open letter dated March 26, 2026, calling on the Commons committee on access to information to urgently review current best practices and develop comprehensive model legislation. The signatories include:
- Ken Rubin, an independent researcher and activist who has uncovered extensive government documents
- Dean Beeby, an independent journalist and author
- Matt Malone, a lawyer, academic and founder of the investigative journalism database Open by Default
The letter states: "The urgency now is that the current announced Treasury Board review is proposing to the public further regressive access to information administrative changes, so we fear the end result will not be helpful and your review cannot wait."
Treasury Board Proposals Raise Concerns
The Access to Information Act, which came into force in 1983, requires a review every five years, with the Treasury Board responsible for handling this process. Earlier this month, the department called for public feedback on several proposed policy approaches to address issues with the access-to-information system.
However, experts argue these proposals represent a step backward rather than meaningful reform. Dean Beeby detailed his concerns in a Substack post, highlighting one particularly troubling policy that would allow the government to certify "bad actors" as "vexatious applicants." This designation would permit departments to legally ignore information requests from those deemed to be flooding the system with requests using digital tools.
Beeby noted that even journalistic databases like Open by Default could potentially qualify under this criteria, creating a chilling effect on legitimate investigative work.
System Described as Sluggish and Opaque
Most frequent users of the Access to Information Act, including journalists and lawyers, agree the system is badly in need of reform. They describe a sluggish process where information is frequently withheld without adequate justification, creating barriers to government transparency and accountability.
The open letter emphasizes: "Now is the time for your Committee to assist and bring forward much needed model legislation on the public's right to know." Rather than relying on Treasury Board recommendations, the experts are calling for the Commons standing committee on access to information, privacy and ethics to conduct its own comprehensive review based on expert testimony.
Historical Context and Current Challenges
The Access to Information Act was established to provide Canadians with the right to access internal government records, but after more than four decades, many argue it has failed to keep pace with modern governance needs. The current review comes at a critical juncture when digital tools have transformed how information is requested and processed.
Ken Rubin, who has spent decades advocating for government transparency, represents the deep expertise behind the push for meaningful reform. His work, along with that of Beeby and Malone, highlights the growing concern among Ottawa's transparency community that the Treasury Board's approach may further erode rather than strengthen public access to information.
The debate underscores fundamental questions about government accountability in Canada and whether current proposals will enhance or diminish the public's ability to scrutinize official actions and decisions.
