Mr. Speaker, it is with special interest that I rise today to speak to Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.
This bill provides more severe 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.
The 1980 Access to Information Act does not provide sanctions severe enough for this type of offence. Section 67 currently provides the following:
- (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.
(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.
Bill C-208 makes it an indictable offence to destroy, falsify or not keep required records. The punishment for such an offence would be imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding $10,000 or both.
This bill is timely since people from every walk of life are becoming increasingly interested in public life, and this is good. Whether they are artists, professionals, intellectuals or labourers, they all want to know how their interests are being taken care of. It is critical to understand that citizens want to take an active part in the development of government policies.
However, this legitimate demand requires that the policy development process be accessible. Therefore the process to disseminate government information must be effective and, above all, transparent.
Does the current act meet these expectations? Do information policies allow every citizen to really know how the government works?
According to the member for Brampton, who introduced this bill, the answer is no. According to the member, we must review the Access to Information Act to punish more severely any person who improperly destroys or falsifies official records.
I totally agree with the member. Public servants who commit such destructive acts must be punished more severely. As lawmakers, we must protect the right of our fellow citizens to be adequately informed of their government's actions. And I am not the only one who thinks so. On several occasions, the Information Commissioner criticized the lack of teeth in the Access to Information Act.
In his 1995-96 report, he condemned the three following cases.
First, at Transport Canada, a senior official directed his assistants to destroy all copies of an audit report concerning a refurbishing project which he knew was the subject of an access to information request.
Second, at the Department of National Defence, a reporter claiming that certain documents had been falsified before being released to him requested an investigation, which showed that the allegations were founded.
Third, there was a similar case at Health Canada. Testimony presented before the Krever Commission revealed that recordings of meetings of the Canadian committee were fraudulently destroyed in the late 1980s.
In his 1996-1997 report, the commissioner reaffirms his position that the law as it stands now does not provide for effective enforcement mechanisms.
On the specific issue of the tainted blood scandal, the commissioner once again sent a message to the lawmakers, saying “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 or omissions intended to thwart the rights set out in the law. At a minimum, the offence should carry a penalty of up to five years in prison”.
In his last two reports, the commissioner warned us that the legislation was not effective. In 1996, he said and I quote “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 and falsification”.
In 1997, for the second time in two years, the commissioner stated “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 or omissions intended to thwart the rights set out in the law. At a minimum, the offence should carry a penalty of up to five years in prison”.
It is obvious that we need to legislate according to the recommendations made by the commissioner. One of my colleagues, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, has introduced Bill C-286. He too urges parliamentarians to solve the problems related to the enforcement of the Access to Information Act.
However, his bill differs from the one now before the House, because it deals with various aspects of the destruction of documents. The bill before the House does not seem to deal with that particular issue.
As my colleague from Laval Centre said, when we address the issue of the destruction and falsification of documents, we cannot disregard some considerations specific to our public administration. Documents requested under access to information are rarely destroyed by the individual who would really benefit from their disappearance. Very often—and the bill must have provision for this—it is senior officials or senior public servants who have ordered this to be done, although they have not done it themselves.
That is why the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm is introducing Bill C-268, which forbids any employer in a position of authority from taking reprisals against anyone refusing to destroy or falsify a record when asked to do so. This shortcoming in the present legislation would be remedied by the bill of my hon. colleague for Berthier—Montcalm.
There must be severe penalties for those who use their authority to order destruction of a document and who threaten someone who refuses to go along with this. Unfortunately, Bill C-286 makes no mention of this.
In closing, it must be recognized that the bill attempts—albeit only partially—to solve a very significant problem in our information policy. It is therefore our party's duty to support it.
The Access to Information Act does, however, deserve to be reformed far more extensively. I am therefore inviting you to discuss Bill C-286, which addresses access to Privy Council confidences, with my colleague soon.
In conclusion, although this bill is praiseworthy, I must draw attention to some of its shortcomings. One of these is that it calls upon parliamentarians to resolve only some of the problems. It must therefore be made clear that this reform remains incomplete in many ways.
For example, we need to be aware that documents, and I repeat myself here, are rarely destroyed by the very person for whom their destruction would be advantageous. The Access to Information Act must, therefore, prohibit any reprisal, or threat of reprisal by an employer or a person in a position of authority.
The complete bill, in conjunction with Bill C-286, should therefore provide for three kinds of offence: destroying or falsifying documents; ordering the destruction or falsification of documents; retaliating against a person who refuses to destroy or falsify documents.
We therefore believe the intent of Bill C-208 to be commendable and that is why we are supporting it. Much more extensive amendments are in order, however. That is why we hope to have the opportunity at some point to discuss Bill C-286, which will be a useful adjunct to the bill before us today.