Madam Speaker, I am indebted the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for his assistance.
I commence by commending my colleague for Brampton West—Mississauga for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House and for her continued commitment to safeguarding the rights of Canadian citizens.
I am also pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-208. It proposes to add to the Access to Information Act an infraction for destroying documents subject to the act with intent to deny access. Before talking about the specific of the bill I will provide some background for my comments.
Canadians have had the benefit of the federal Access to Information Act since 1983. The federal government can uniquely invoke certain exceptional, specific and limited measures to refuse access to information. It is in these cases, when the government refuses to grant access to information, that the law confers on individuals the right to make a complaint to the access to information commission to review the decision made by the government in the federal court.
The laws of access to information of the federal government are a fundamental right in a democratic system. Under a declaration of the supreme court made earlier this year the primary goal of the legislative measures is concerning the access to information to facilitate democracy.
The laws of access to information that the government possesses in order to facilitate the functioning of the federal government are to render more simple, more receptive and more responsible government. States with repressive laws consequently are missing a tool that allows them to behave responsibly as governments. This is not to say that access to information could not be improved or brought up to date.
The hon. member is trying to improve the act with the amendment proposed in the legislation. 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 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 agree with the hon. member that the Access to Information Act should include a penalty for deliberately destroying documents subject to the act. I believe that such action is unacceptable and therefore should be punished. For this reason I support the general goal of Bill C-208. I do not, however, support the specifics of the bill.
We could maintain that article 126 of the Criminal Code applies to a situation where a person voluntarily destroys a document with the goal to revoke access to information under the Access to Information Act.
Under article 126 of the Criminal Code whoever without legitimate excuse contravenes the federal law by voluntarily accomplishing is guilty of a criminal act and is liable for imprisonment for a maximum of two years.
The severity of the penalty seen in article 126 can bring us to ask if we can foresee the penalty under the access to information law in the case where voluntary destruction of documents is applied to.
We envision a penalty specific that would not be as severe as that in article 126 for the act of this crime and to receive imprisonment for a maximum of two years.
I am of the opinion that the penalty as described in the Criminal Code is probably far too severe. Consequently, if we add a penalty specific to the access to information law it should be less severe than the penalty currently listed in article 126.
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 heavier than the penalty provided for in section 126. For this reason I cannot support the bill.
I understand the hon. member wants to make the point that the destruction or alteration of the document is serious. We all agree to this. It should also be put into perspective. In my view a maximum of five years is far too heavy a penalty for destroying documents.
This penalty would be more severely punished than the offence of assault causing bodily harm, a hybrid offence with a maximum penalty of 18 months when prosecuted under summary conviction. Destroying documents, while undoubtedly serious, cannot be compared to assault causing bodily harm.
I believe the need to create an offence for the 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 this act and should be examined by the House.
I believe that a case can be made that an addition to such an offence would strengthen the principles of openness and accountability 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 should be proportional to penalties provided for comparable offences.