Debates of Dec. 5th, 1997

Canada Marine Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the question on third reading of Bill C-9, Canada Marine Act, is deemed put and a recorded division demanded and deferred to Tuesday, December 9, 1997, at the expiry of Government Orders.

It being 2.01 p.m., this House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Access To Information Act

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West—Mississauga, ON]

moved that Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to start the debate on the second reading of Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act. This bill goes to the heart of the act by addressing the issue of obstructing right of access. Provisions under this bill will also make such obstruction an indictable offence with significant penalties.

In 1983 Pierre Trudeau proclaimed the new Access to Information Act. To Canada's credit, this act is in existence in only 12 countries throughout the world, but in the 14 years since its inception, government bureaucracy has been sabotaging the intent of the act.

Testimony at the Somalia and Krever inquiries have led Canadians to believe it is not uncommon for officials to lose, destroy or tamper with documents. Those cases are only the two recent examples which have raised the public's ire.

In the 1996-97 annual report of the Information Commissioner, specific recommendations are made with regard to the need for sanctions. These recommendations resulted from the commissioners' investigations which were prompted by the Krever commission and the Somalia inquiry where the issue of document tampering and record destruction was raised.

Commissioner John Grace states:

These lamentable incidents of wilful actions taken by public officials for the purpose of suppressing information have been a wake-up call. As recommended in last year's annual report, there should be a specific offence in the access act for acts of omissions intended to thwart the rights set out in the law. Moreover, those who commit this offence should be subject to greater sanctions than exposure of wrongdoing. At a minimum, the offence should carry a penalty of up to five years in prison. Such a penalty is in line with that imposed in section 122 of the Criminal Code for breach of trust by a public officer. The stakes are too high for a slap on the wrist.

It is the intent of this bill to provide the very sanctions that Mr. Grace has recommended. Currently section 67 of the act states that no person shall obstruct the Information Commissioner or any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's duties and function under this act. Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.

I have not been able to find any instance in which this penalty has ever been imposed. It is up to this Parliament to put teeth into this law. Measures to ensure responsibility and accountability must become part of the act. We must send a strong message that these acts of destruction will not go unpunished.

Bill C-208 adds to the existing offences of the access act under section 67 by calling for an up to $10,000 fine and/or up to a five-year jail sentence for persons destroying, mutilating, altering or falsifying records or not keeping “required records”.

The issue here is accountability, the accountability of members of Parliament. Without access to the truth, how can we be accountable to our constituents?

When I ran to represent my constituents, I campaigned for a more open and transparent government. I promised that my minimal duty would be supplying them with the truth on government issues which troubled them. I had no idea that the problem with document tampering had become so widespread.

Ken Rubin, a dedicated Canadian who is well known as an advocate of public interest issues in Canada and to whom I am indebted for sharing his research with me, cites many examples of this abuse.

The most dramatic example of this occurred with the 1989 destruction of the Canadian blood committee records. It was only with the release of the Information Commissioner's report in January 1997 that Mr. Rubin learned that his first of several requests in the fall of 1987 for records related to private blood banks along with requests from a Globe and Mail reporter for information on the safety of Canada's blood supply had been the initial spark that had unfortunately led Health Canada to destroy the Canadian blood committee's records.

The Krever inquiry final report helps put the CBC record destruction episode in perspective. The real victims were those inflicted with tainted blood infusions, condemned in many cases to die and who could not have access to the crucial transcripts of the Canadian blood committee meetings to know why action had not been taken quickly enough to save them from infection.

As an access requester filing numerous requests on the 1993 Canadian forces event in Somalia on the aftermath, Mr. Rubin became aware of the attempted record destruction of national defence transitory response to media inquiries and the deceptive alteration of those records into shorter media response lines in order to respond to the requests of the CBC reporter. This other well known incident of record tampering is documented in the Somalia inquiry commission 1997 report.

There are other examples of record abuse that stand out. Right from the start problems with the access act began to surface. Upon the act's proclamation in 1983, Mr. Rubin and a Kitchener-Waterloo Record reporter fought for five years, all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal in 1989, for the right to obtain Agriculture Canada's meat inspection reports reviewing how safe various meat packing establishments were.

Shortly after finally winning fuller access to inspection reports, Agriculture Canada and the meat packers then agreed to alter these reports, taking out inspectors' valuable written and often critical observations, leaving in only a check-off sheet with different boxes on matters like hygiene and sanitation.

Yet there is another example. In 1984 after winning the right to see the minutes of the Atomic Energy Control Board meetings from 1975 to 1982, which were requested for use in a series of news stories on matters discussing nuclear safety problems at the board, the AECB immediately cut down on what was recorded at its board meeting discussions, thus greatly sanitizing what was really publicly thereafter their board summary record.

There is yet another example. On March 9, 1989 a Health Canada official who is still with the department had ordered a scientist employed under him to “please destroy all copies of”. He was referring to the draft copy of his critical report before continuing to gather records for responding to Mr. Rubin's request on the safety of the Meme breast implants. The original draft report had been done after reviewing reports and contact with Meme breast patients, manufacturers and experts. The memo was critical of the department's lack of moratorium action against further use of this medical device and stated that such implants were “unfit for human implantation”. We have seen the result of that cover-up.

We have another one. Transport Canada, on April 13, 1993, finally located a key briefing memo dated August 11, 1991 from the head of the safety review team doing an August 1991 post-accident review on Nationair. The review was done after the disastrous July 1991 crash of a DC-8 Nationair charter plane. It was about the past safety deficiencies of Nationair airline operations. A partially released memo that went missing for so long found there were matters the review uncovered of “extreme concern”.

The memo had been, according to Transport Canada, unfortunately overlooked despite a very specific request in September 1991 for this report, right down to naming the official who wrote it and stating accurately that he had done the memo on his computer at home.

Transport Canada also conducted dozens of air safety surveys in confidence with airlines. Many were done between 1990 and 1994. However, when Mr. Rubin discovered their existence and applied for them, Transport Canada indicated that it had never even bothered to retain a copy of its own report.

After pursuing the matter, Transport Canada grudgingly, without the benefit of certifying the truthfulness of the responses, asked the airline companies that were given the reports for them back. The airline companies' response in those cases was that the copies they had received had already been destroyed or were missing. The few reports retrieved are still secret and the subject of a Federal Court action.

Again, when Mr. Rubin sought in 1989 projections by CIDA on the effects of the earlier announced financial cutbacks on a project by project basis, he was informed that the computerized records had been erased from their computers to make way for new projected estimates. This is not good enough.

In the 1980s, national defence used to provide, upon application, lists of briefing notes. Health Canada, until this year, used to provide comprehensive lists of health protection branch contracts. They were cancelled, reputedly, because of inadequate resources and because their management did not require them. Mr. Rubin believes, more to the point, these reference record indexes were too frequently leading to the discovery of embarrassing and significant operational activities of the departments. I have to say I agree with him.

Right now defending departments like these get off with nothing worse than maybe some adverse publicity. Until there are provisions in the act to ensure accountability of all levels of government, Canadians will be unable to receive the necessary legislative protection they deserve. They will also be deprived of the right to know why decisions are made and if these decisions sufficiently address issues affecting their lives.

The existence of sanctions in the law will also assist in providing Canadians with a more competent civil service, one less likely to commit acts of omission or carelessness.

In my life I have held, among others, two positions of which I am extremely proud. Needless to say, my present position is one of the most privileged to be had in our country. The other was that of a public servant. To serve your country to the best of your ability with integrity and honesty gives you a great sense of pride. I was not the only public servant who felt this way. In fact, all of my colleagues were among the most conscientious in the country.

I cannot imagine that my department was unique. In fact, I know it was not. The public service in Canada has attracted the best in the land and it is simply not right that the few exceptions be allowed to smear the entire service. It is not fair to these dedicated workers or to the citizens who rely on them.

The bill is about the protection of public records. It provides the necessary tools to prevent future occurrences of document tampering and destruction. It will strengthen democracy in Canada and go a long way toward restoring the public trust by protecting it from future violations.

I have spoken to members on all sides of the House about the bill. Some feel it does not go far enough while others believe it may go too far. On the whole, however, I have received overwhelming approval.

We are all here to serve our constituents. Those in the public service must serve, and if they betray the public trust they must be held accountable. If left unchecked we will surely face the dire consequences of our inaction.

We are still a young nation built on trust. Lack of trust will weaken our resolve to continue building an honest and caring society. I urge all members to support the principle of Bill C-208 by passing it over to committee for study.

By doing so, we will show Canadians we are serious about their right to access to information and are prepared to take strong measures to ensure that it is not jeopardized.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton West—Mississauga not only for bringing the bill forward but for her comments in the House today. She is to be commended for this initiative. She is to be commended for the very frank and forthright manner in which she has laid so many facts before the House.

I also recognize this is a non-partisan effort. We all pledged to our constituents that as members of Parliament we were elected to protect the rights of the people and will seek to do so. When I see the hon. member bringing forward a bill with such an honest assessment of the justification for it, I am moved by it and I am encouraged by it.

What we see happening here is an effort on the part of members in opposition to bring about a more open, honest and straightforward government on behalf of the people we represent. We also see members concerned about the same issues and moving to do what we can to bring about a government that is more open so that we can accept without question or equivocation the honesty and integrity of our public service.

We elect governments to protect our rights and our freedoms, not to take them from us. If we are to have a peaceful country with the prosperity that flows from it, we must have the truth. From truth flows justice, from justice flows peace, and from peace flows prosperity.

If we deny the fundamental essential in that formula there is a breakdown of justice, peace of mind, and the prosperity that flows from any country or any people that trust their institutions, base their actions upon truth, base their future hopes and plans upon the commitment, awareness and promise that the truth will not be held from them.

The hon. member mentioned a number of issues where documents were tampered with, where documents were perhaps concealed and where documents were difficult to obtain. She mentioned the Somalia and Krever inquiries. These are very serious matters where lives were lost. There was vested interest to frustrate efforts to obtain the truth about conditions. This is wrong.

I see the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister. It appears that she is prepared to speak to the bill. I cannot help but wonder what she will say. I can almost predict that she will not be in favour of it. If I am wrong I will be pleasantly surprised and will be the first one to commend her if she supports the bill.

It seems unusual that cabinet would dither when it is obvious a bill of this nature is needed. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will amend the bill to strengthen it further. If that is the case she will have the support of members on this side of the House, certainly within our caucus.

The hon. member who introduced the bill referred to a number of cases which indicate that it is required. I also have cases which come to mind. One was an unfortunate incident that occurred when the government attempted to deport three suspected Nazi war criminals from Canada. Unfortunately, because there was a time delay in the minds of government officials handling the case, the assistant deputy attorney general did something which was interpreted as interfering with the judicial independence of the judge who was handling the three cases.

One of the three suspected Nazi war criminals was a man by the name of Tobiass. In his case the immigration documents upon which the crown was relying to base its case had been destroyed. If we look through the documents we find this statement:

All irrelevant immigration files were destroyed by its servants and are now not available. In addition the government cannot provide evidence of any one of its servants who interviewed Mr. Tobiass prior to his admission to Canada.

If this is the only process by which the government can rid the country of suspected Nazi war criminals, it is essential not to allow documents to be destroyed.

It will be very interesting to see this case go forward. It has been stalled or at least delayed for months by the interference of Mr. Thompson. I will be watching with interest to see how the crown will proceed against Mr. Tobiass when all the documents have been destroyed.

There is a need for the bill and for awareness on the part of senior public servants that if they alter, destroy or conceal a document they will face the sanctions the bill contains.

I am very much in support of the bill. The hon. member and her colleagues in the House today are to be commended. I hope the support my hon. colleague has for the bill on her side of the House will be greater than what I see today. It is a Friday afternoon and many members are on their way home or they have other duties to perform. This is not an indication of the strength of support for her bill.

Nevertheless it is very encouraging to see the kind of initiative, which often comes from the opposition in terms of opening up the government and making public servants more accountable to all Canadians and to all members of Parliament, being taken by a member on the government side.

My time has almost elapsed. I await with anticipation the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to see whether she is prepared to support the bill, strengthen the bill, or simply oppose the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

By agreement we will resume debate with the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the bill and I thank my colleagues who have given me the opportunity to speak a little sooner than otherwise. I will be brief but I have something I would like to bring to the debate that is a little special.

In a former life I had a lot of experience working with the Access to Information Act. The reason a jail term is necessary, which is now missing from the act, be it two years or five years—I actually prefer two years—is that access officers are subject to fierce pressure from their superiors when there is a request for a document that is sensitive and maybe a little embarrassing. It takes tremendous courage on the part of an access officer to resist the kind of bullying that comes down from authorities. They simply say “You don't want to release that. Don't do it”.

Unfortunately, without a penalty the access officer may stand on his or her principles. I have to say “her” as well because I remember a few instances when access officers who were women went out on limb to get documents for me. The point is that they may go out on a limb but they stand a good chance of being punished later.

The beauty of a jail term is that when bureaucratic bullies try to twist the arms of access officers who they know they should release a document, all they have to say is “Send me a written note”. If the access officer cuts the document and later on it is disclosed that the order was improper, it is the person up the line who will go to jail.

I emphasize that the beauty of a jail sentence is that it protects the line access officers and lets them exercise their judgement properly without being bullied from above.

I endorse this principle 100%. It will open doors everywhere if we can get some sort of jail sentences for those people who would flaunt the bill.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

First, I would like to congratulate the government member who is introducing this bill, the hon. member for Brampton-West—Mississauga. It goes to show clearly that private member's bills are crucial to the vitality of this House.

This enactment provides sanctions against any person who improperly destroys or falsifies government records in an attempt to deny right of access to information under the Access to Information Act.

Right now, the Access to Information Act does not provide severe enough sanctions for this type of violation. Section 67 reads as follows:

1. (1) No person shall obstruct the Information Commissioner or any person acting on behalf or under the direction of the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's duties and functions under this Act.

This is serious. What are the sanctions?

(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.

Nowadays, $1,000 is not a lot of money.

Bill C-208 is a bit more realistic. It makes it a criminal offence for anyone who tries to destroy or falsify official records or who omits to keep such records. Anyone found guilty of this offence is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to both. Already we see that the penalties are much heavier.

The obvious purpose of this bill is to meet, at least in part, the concerns raised by the information commissioner in his last two annual reports. But I believe that it is specifically designed to meet the concerns of the public in Canada and in Quebec. This is especially true following the Somalia inquiry, when people found out, in very disturbing circumstances, that truth with a capital T was not reality in government backrooms.

In fact, the awareness that this inquiry created in the public now makes it absolutely necessary that a bill like the one we have before us, Bill C-208, be adopted.

In his 1995-1996 annual report, the information commissioner expressed his deep concern that the Access to Information Act was not being rigorously enforced. This is what he had to say “After 13 years of operation of this Act, it is unfortunate to have to report several very disturbing manoeuvres to hinder the right of access to government documents, including destruction, falsification and cover-up”. It should be noted that the commissioner's office conducted investigations into three major incidents during 1995-1996. That was only the tip of the iceberg.

For example, at Transport Canada, a high official—there are not tens of thousands of them—ordered his staff to destroy every copy of an audit report dealing with a project on which he knew that an access to information request had been made.

At National Defence, a journalist alleging that certain documents had been falsified before release to him under the Access to Information Act asked the commissioner to investigate. The outcome of the investigation was that the journalist's allegations were correct. Not only had the documents been tampered with before release, but orders had been given afterward to destroy the originals. What is very worrisome about this, is that those orders came from high up.

The information commissioner's third example cames from Health Canada. During the sittings of the Krever commission, testimony revealed that minutes of Canadian Blood Committee meetings had been destroyed in the late 1980s. According to the commissioner, the time has come to amend the Access to Information Act to provide sanctions in the event of flagrant violations of its provisions. He added that legislation considered toothless is rapidly depleted of content, if not totally cast aside.

To go from that to saying that the current legislation is almost meaningless is but a short hop.

Again in his 1996-97 annual report the commissioner repeats that the current legislation cannot be effectively enforced. On the subject of tainted blood specifically, the commissioner calls the lawmakers to task saying that the deplorable examples of measures taken by officials to destroy information had sounded the alarm. As recommended in last year's report, the Access to Information Act should make it an offence to commit any act or omission aimed at denying rights provided under the act. Such an offence should carry a penalty of at least five years emprisonment, which this bill provides.

In short, how many reports will the commissioner have to write before the government and the members of the House of Commons get the message that it is time for reform? How long will we have to wait before we pass new sanctions that will make it clear to managers and officials that the right to access to information is not to be denied and that to do so will result in sanctions.

Bill C-208 is a commendable piece of legislation, which we will support enthusiastically. However, it must be noted that this reform is incomplete in many respects. But we all know that anything can be improved. For example, we must be aware of the fact that documents subject to an access to information request are seldom destroyed or falsified by those who will really benefit from their disappearance. Indeed, in many cases, the order to take such actions comes from a superior or a high official.

The bill as drafted does not make any distinction between the person who commits the offence and the person who benefits from the offence. Therefore, the Access to Information Act should prohibit any employer or any person in a position of authority within a federal institution from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against a person who refuses to destroy or falsify a document.

A complete bill should include three types of offences: first, destroying or falsifying documents; second, ordering the destruction or falsification of documents; and third, retaliating against a person who refuses to destroy or falsify documents.

We believe the intent of Bill C-208 is commendable, and that is why we will support it. That is also why we hope to have the opportunity at some point to discuss Bill C-286, which deals with the falsification and destruction of documents, but also with access to confidential Privy Council documents.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It indicates one of the reasons why we need parliamentary reform, to bring more power to the elected representatives of the people of Canada and to develop a system far more responsive to the needs of the citizens rather than protecting a non-accountable system.

There is a need for toughening up Canada's Access to Information Act to stop officials from tampering with right of Canadians to know the real facts and figures on policy, analyses and decisions. There is a need to put strong sanctions to penalize those destroying public information and sabotaging the public's right to know.

There is nothing in place to penalize offenders. The government has ignored calls from Information Commissioner John Grace. It his last two reports the commissioner has been calling for sanctions. There has been as of yet no action.

Canadians are increasingly cynical of government structures. When we see what some non-accountable bureaucrats or officials are doing and the cloud of secrecy behind government action, we can see that there is need to reform the overall governance system and to make clear and accountable to citizens of this country all information on how decisions were made.

Penalties should be addressed not only to those destroying information but to those who delay access to information and to other abuses connected to the access to information.

The power of the information commissioner needs to be expanded to include stopping the growing circumvention of access to information documents. There is a growing tendency, as I have experienced, for information to define some documents as working papers or consultant papers.

I had applied for some documents and was told they were confidential. These very same documents had already been presented in two different public forums. It took a letter to the minister outlining this decision to get these papers. As everyone here knows, to do our job we need information and we need access to it on an honest and fairly quick basis.

There is a need to expand the concept of public records if we want to have an informed citizenship on policy development and implementation.

The number records under the Access to Information Act must be expanded to include certain crown corporations and restricted consultants and other reports. There is need to implement policies to protect professional civil servants willing to provide information on issues of significance for citizens of this country.

The repressive policy of enforcing secrecy at all levels must be eliminated.

This act will strengthen democracy in Canada because democracy is about discussion, not about force. We need the information to make good decisions. It is also about public trust, accountability and credibility, and about our credibility, yours and mine, for the people who sit here because we depend on the availability of information from the bureaucrats who form the foundation of our government.

In conclusion, I urge all members to support this bill as it will show the public that we are sincere in our work and sincere in allowing it access to information as much as ourselves.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

It is well known that the Access to Information Act does not have enough teeth and actually even the information commissioner has said so in his most recent report.

Bill C-208 makes it an offence for a person who, with intent to deny a right of access under the Access to Information Act, destroys, mutilates or alters a record, falsifies a record or makes a false entry in a record or does not keep required records. A person found guilty would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both.

This is a very simple amendment that will give more teeth to this act.

For some time now Canadians have been losing confidence in their public institutions and especially in government. Canadians need to know that their federal government is truly working on their behalf and truly working well. Otherwise, people feel that both their votes and their taxes are wasted.

The Access to Information Act is one of the tools for the public to achieve that objective and this amendment proposed in Bill C-208 is simply helping to make the law more complete. The amendment will give more visibility, more access and more teeth to the Access to Information Act by including strong penalties for those who do their utmost to prevent its application.

That is not to say that more could not have been done to improve the act. For example, amendments could have been proposed to allow the public to have access to documents of the privy council which are currently confidential. In fact, many other amendments reflecting the information commissioner's concerns and expectations could have been tabled at the same time.

I am pleased to say that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will support this private member's bill and we invite all other parties to do so. We believe that this bill is a step forward in opening up the government to more public scrutiny and giving Canadians a stronger sense of public control and identity with their public institutions.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by commending my colleague, the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga, for bringing this important issue for debate before the House and for her continued commitment to safeguarding the rights of Canadian citizens and assuring, as a representative of the people, that government becomes more open and accountable.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-208. The bill proposes to add to the Access to Information Act an infraction for destroying documents that are subject to the act with intent to deny access.

Before talking about the specifics of the bill, I wish to take a moment to provide some background to my comments. Canadians have had the benefit of a federal Access to Information Act since 1983.

For fifteen years now, Canadians have enjoyed a high degree of access to federal government information. I must emphasize that Canada is one of the rare countries where such legislative measures exist. The law states that access must be granted to information on the federal government.

The government can only refuse access to information on the basis of a few very specific exceptions. Whenever the government refuses access to information, people have the legal right to file a complaint with the information commissioner and to have the government's decision reviewed by the federal court.

Access to government information is a fundamental right in a democratic system. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the overriding goal of legislation concerning access to information was to promote democracy.

As the court ruled, in Dagg v. Minister of Finance, 1997, the purpose of the right to have access to information held by the government is to improve government operations by making the government more efficient, receptive and accountable.

In fact, in totalitarian states, the people are denied this right and, as a result, they do not have this means of making the government accountable.

This is not to say that our Access to Information Act could not be improved upon and brought more up to date. I believe the hon. member is trying to improve the act with the amendment proposed in Bill C-208.

One can argue that there is a gap in the protection currently offered by the act since it does not contain a penalty for the deliberate alteration or destruction of a record. The act does contain a penalty but it is a penalty for obstructing the work of the information commissioner.

The act also authorizes the commissioner to disclose to the Attorney General of Canada information relating to the commission of an offence against any law of Canada by any officer or employee of a federal government institution. The bill before us today would add an offence for actions that one can legitimately see as actions that intend to defeat the purpose of the act.

For that reason, I would agree with the hon. member that the Access to Information Act should include a penalty for deliberately destroying documents that are subject to the act. I believe that such an action is unacceptable and therefore should be punished. For this reason, I support the general goal of Bill C-208. Did I surprise you? I do not however support the specifics of the bill and I will explain.

It could be argued that section 126 of the Criminal Code applies to a situation where a person wilfully destroys a document for the purpose of impeding the right to access provided under the Access to Information Act. Section 126 of the Criminal Code provides that “Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids—is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”.

The stiffness of the penalty provided in section 126 could make some wonder whether it is necessary to provide a penalty in the Access to Information Act for wilfully destroying documents that are subject to the act. They have in mind a specific penalty that would not be quite as harsh as the maximum of two years' imprisonment in section 126 for committing such a criminal act.

I am of the opinion that the penalty in the Criminal Code is probably too harsh and that, if a specific penalty is added to the Access to Information Act, it should be less harsh than the penalty now provided for in section 126 of the Criminal Code.

What is proposed in Bill C-208? It is to create an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of five years in prison which is a heavier penalty than the penalty provided for in section 126. For this reason, I cannot support the specifics of Bill C-208. I understand the hon. member wants to make the point that the destruction or alteration of documents is serious and we all agree it is but it should also be put into perspective.

In my view, a maximum of five years is too heavy a penalty for destroying documents. This penalty would be more severely punished than the offence of assault causing bodily harm, which is a hybrid offence that carries a maximum penalty of 18 months when prosecuted on summary conviction. Destroying documents, while undoubtedly serious, cannot be compared to assault causing bodily harm.

I wish to make another comment regarding the offence provided for in Bill C-208. When an offence is a criminal one, the accused may choose to appear before a judge and jury. This is a slow process.

In addition, an individual charged with a criminal offence is entitled to a preliminary hearing, which can also slow down the judicial process.

In my opinion, the destruction of documents is more comparable to the offence of mischief with respect to property, now provided for under section 430 of the Criminal Code. This is a hybrid offence and the maximum penalty, if the Crown decides to proceed by way of indictment, is two years' imprisonment. But, if the Crown decides to proceed by way of summary conviction, the maximum penalty is a $2,000 fine or six months' imprisonment, or both.

To conclude, I believe the need to create an offence for deliberate destruction of records in order to thwart the Access to Information Act is an issue that should be considered within the context of the reform of the act. I believe a case can be made that the addition of such an offence would strengthen the principles of openness and accountability that are inherent in the access to information legislation.

I also believe that particular attention should be paid to determining the appropriate sentence to be attached to the offence, which would be proportional to penalties provided for comparable offences.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since my speech is extemporaneous, I shall address the question in a general term with respect to justice and doing things that are right in the country. I am not that rich on specific details on the bill since I have not had an opportunity to study the minute details.

I would like to comment on the statements we have just heard from the parliamentary secretary. It seems to me there is a habit in this House whenever a private member brings forward a motion. Even though it is filled with common sense and a lot of good ideas which are very useful and very broadly supported among Canadians, the Liberal government for the last four years plus a little bit has almost always been in opposition to the private member's initiative. It usually finds some small technical point.

For example, the parliamentary secretary spoke of the variance in sentencing for one misdemeanour versus another one. She said why should this sentence be greater than another one where the criminal offence seems to be more offensive to Canadians. We could say that over and over.

For example a person who under the new gun registration law fails simply to report the sale of a hunting rifle could end up with a greater penalty than a young person who killed someone. That is also an aberration in the sentencing structure and it is not sufficient reason to say we should just be against this whole bill.

I urge the government to support this initiative. The government should support it so that the bill will go to committee and when it is studied in committee, perhaps the committee in its wisdom will amend the sentencing structure so that at least we get something that will protect Canadians.

One has to ask the question, what is justice and on what is justice based? I contend that it is based on truth. Whether it is a civil suit or a criminal case, someone is charged with an offence. In many cases we simply want to hold the government accountable. We want to find out what has happened. Have they done something that is wrong? Is there some accountability question?

I believe we err greatly if we get so tied up in our dealings with government, whether it is in the justice system or in any other system, and the truth is not available. Frankly, if a government official or someone in some other organization does something which is offensive to someone else and it is a chargeable offence, then they should have to meet those charges. The whole issue at stake here is the altering of documents which are being requested under access to information from government departments. Why on earth would we want to support a system which provides for the production of documentation which is false? There ought to be very strong penalties and strong deterrents against that type of thing.

Whether a person from the media, a person from the official opposition or one of the other opposition parties or indeed even a member from the government side wants to know what has happened, they should be able to get documentation which accurately reflects the truth. That is the heart of the issue here.

I strongly urge the government to support this bill so that when it goes to committee, sure, if there is something that it is not totally supportive of, let us work together. Let us make the bill work on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of the taxpayers of the country, on behalf of the victims of whatever the case is.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what you do for your bedtime reading, but the other night for my bedtime reading I was reading the deal struck with the former prime minister and the justice department on this Airbus scandal. When I was reading it I found it intriguing in one place. It said “The parties agree that” and then they went on to say that this was done strictly by the RCMP and by no one else.

I have a suspicion when I read words like that. If this is actual fact, why would one have to agree to it? It is as if we agree to say something that is not really quite true but it is a term of the agreement which gets us out of the conflict. That ought not to be. We ought to deal honestly, we ought to deal openly, we ought to deal truthfully with one another in all of these instances.

I hesitate to raise this example because it is very old. In fact, I will not be specific. I will just mention it in general. When I had some access to information requests several years ago, I received information back from the department that I had requested with a great amount of the document whited out. It was altered so that I could not see the truth. I was unable to reconcile the questions which were troubling us because we were not able to get at the truth.

There was, of course, a justification by the President of the Treasury Board who said that these things were justifiably whited out but that was a legal technicality, one with which we disagreed. The effect of it was that the truth was hidden from us. We were not able to get down to the facts of the issue. So there was a cover-up. There was a whiteout of the actual facts.

We believe very strongly that for justice to prevail on behalf of Canadians, irrespective of what the issue is, we should be able to find out who did this, who did what, when did they do it and where did they do it. There should be answers to all of those questions which are totally reliable. Those documents must not be alterable simply to cover someone's, shall I use the phrase, political butt because they do not want to face the consequences. There should be total honesty and openness in the access to information that citizens, reporters and others ask for.

I also think that on a very broad basis the justice system and the government in general have an obligation. When they were running for election in 1993, the Liberals said “We will restore the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of their government”. That was their promise.

I think right here in this bill they have another opportunity to make an attempt to fulfil that promise, a promise I venture to propose is not anywhere near being filled at this stage.

They have an opportunity here by saying yes, we will take all the measures we possibly can to make sure that access to information requests will reveal the truth of the matter. This is absolutely mandatory. It is an opportunity for the Liberal government. I urge the government to be in favour of this.

I have one point with respect to private members' business. I really hope that all private members, including Liberal backbenchers, everyone, will judge this bill on its merits and will truly vote what they believe and not be instructed by those who have some other political agenda.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 3.01 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 3.01 p.m.)