Key Takeaways
- The Privy Council Office (PCO) ranked second‑worst among 265 federal institutions for compliance with the Access to Information Act in 2025‑26, receiving 63 orders from the Information Commissioner.
- Orders against PCO have risen sharply—from 25 in 2023‑24 to 42 in 2024‑25 and 63 last year—while National Defence recorded the highest number (67) but is improving.
- Library and Archives Canada shows a dramatic turnaround, dropping from 104 orders two years ago to 16 last year.
- PCO’s problem stems from over‑reliance on inter‑departmental consultations and a failure to delegate authority to its ATIP Coordinator, creating bottlenecks and delays.
- The commissioner’s enforcement approach is under political pressure; a government discussion paper urges mediation over frequent orders, but she argues orders are a last resort essential for accountability.
Introduction and PCO’s Poor Performance
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s own department, the Privy Council Office (PCO), has emerged as a leading offender in Canada’s freedom‑of‑information landscape. Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard’s annual report for 2025‑26, released last week, singles out PCO as the next‑worst performer among roughly 265 federal institutions regarding compliance with the Access to Information Act. The report highlights a troubling trend: PCO’s handling of access‑to‑information requests has deteriorated despite repeated warnings and direct engagement with senior officials.
Orders Issued and Their Sharp Increase
Maynard issued 63 formal orders against PCO in the reporting year, compelling officials to disclose information they had improperly withheld. This figure marks a record for the department and reflects a steep upward trajectory: only 25 orders were issued in 2023‑24, rising to 42 in 2024‑25 before jumping to 63 last year. The surge underscores systemic breakdowns in PCO’s request‑processing workflow and signals growing frustration among requesters who encounter unlawful delays or denials.
Comparative Performance: National Defence and Library and Archives Canada
While PCO’s situation is dire, it is not the absolute worst. National Defence recorded 67 orders, edging out PCO by a narrow margin, but Maynard noted that the defence department has “cleaned up its act” and is on track for markedly better performance in the coming year. In stark contrast, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) exemplifies a successful turnaround: the agency reduced its orders from a staggering 104 two years ago to just 16 last year, moving from the worst‑performing institution to a model of improvement.
Long‑Term Decline Despite Warnings
Maynard’s criticism of PCO is not a one‑off observation; she points to a years‑long, steep decline in the department’s access‑to‑information practices. Even after she sent a warning letter to Prime Minister Carney shortly after the April election and held a personal meeting with Michael Sabia, clerk of the Privy Council, on November 12, PCO’s performance failed to improve. In her report, Maynard reminded readers that as a central agency tasked with supporting the Prime Minister and Cabinet, PCO “ought to demonstrate a clear and sustained commitment to transparency and the timely processing of access to information requests.”
Complaint Metrics Reveal Deep‑Rooted Issues
Beyond the raw count of orders, Maynard cited complaint‑investigation data that further illuminates PCO’s shortcomings. Of all requester complaints lodged against PCO last year, her investigations found that 28 percent were well‑founded—more than three times the average of 8.6 percent across all other federal institutions. This disparity indicates that a substantial portion of the public’s grievances about PCO’s handling of information requests are justified, pointing to procedural flaws rather than isolated mistakes.
Root Causes: Excessive Consultations and Poor Delegation
Maynard identified two primary drivers behind PCO’s poor performance. First, for historical records requested under the Act, the department leans heavily on consultations with other agencies, a practice that pushes responses well beyond statutory deadlines. While inter‑departmental consultation is a known government‑wide challenge, it appears especially entrenched at PCO. Second, the department does not sufficiently delegate authority to David Neilson, the ATIP (Access to Information and Privacy) Coordinator. Instead, decision‑making power is broadly dispersed to the clerk and other senior officials, effectively sidelining Neilson and rendering the sign‑off process for releasing documents “cumbersome.” This centralization adds layers of approval, inflating the time and complexity required to fulfill requests.
Political Centralization and Its Impact on Transparency
The commissioner linked PCO’s internal bottlenecks to a broader trend of political power concentration at the centre of government. Over recent years, decision‑making has increasingly migrated to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council, sidelining ministers and tightening control over public messaging. This centralizing culture seeps into the administration of access‑to‑information, where a single embarrassing document can jeopardize a carefully crafted governmental agenda. Consequently, the very mechanisms designed to ensure transparency become tools for information control, undermining the accountability that the Access to Information Act intends to safeguard.
Commissioner’s Efforts, Government Pushback, and the Mediation Debate
Maynard’s strategy of issuing orders has drawn criticism from within the government. A discussion paper released in March warned that “the increase of orders is becoming challenging for institutions to manage” and suggested that the commissioner should favor mediation over frequent orders, weighing whether an institution “did its best to respond to the request.” The paper implies that curbing the commissioner’s authority to issue orders could quickly reduce the tally against PCO—a proposition Maynard rejects. She contends that mediation is already woven into her investigations and that orders constitute a “measure of last resort.” Further reliance on negotiation, she argues, would only exacerbate delays and risk eroding public trust in both the process and governmental institutions.
Implications: A Power Struggle Over Information Access
The ongoing tension between the Information Commissioner and the Privy Council Office epitomizes a larger struggle over who controls the flow of information in a democratic society. With an activist, centralizing government commanding a parliamentary majority, citizens face steep odds in accessing the records needed to hold leaders to account. Maynard’s persistent use of orders, despite political pushback, underscores the essential role of an independent oversight body in safeguarding transparency. Unless PCO reforms its consultation practices, delegates appropriate authority to its ATIP coordinator, and embraces a culture of openness, the department will likely remain a conspicuous weak point in Canada’s access‑to‑information framework, jeopardizing the public’s right to know.