Mr. Speaker, maybe not today but at some point I would like to have the opportunity to respond to the comments of the hon. member across the way with respect to the freedom of information act and how the government deals with it. For the time being I will confine myself to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act introduced by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.
I would like to acknowledge at the outset the tremendous amount of work involved in putting together a private member's bill as extensive as Bill C-206. It is evident that a great deal of thought and effort has gone into the preparation of the bill. The hon. member certainly deserves much recognition and appreciation for his hard work.
I would also like to point out that the government values openness and transparency. It recognizes the role of the Access to Information Act in ensuring that these values of openness and transparency animate every aspect of institutional behaviour, subject of course to certain restrictions that are intended to protect private and commercial information as an example.
The hon. member's bill was originally introduced in November 1997 as Bill C-264. It was reintroduced last fall as Bill C-206. It is an extensive bill that proposes a major reform of the Access to Information Act. It has opened a much needed discussion on the subject of access to information.
Since the bill was first introduced in 1997, government departments and agencies have had an opportunity to consider the proposed changes to the act that the bill contemplates. These government departments and agencies have some concerns about the impact the bill would have on third party information provided to the government by both individuals and businesses.
One of the proposals in Bill C-206 would result in the automatic disclosure of a wide variety of information that has been under the control of the government for 30 years. Many departments are concerned that the automatic disclosure of personal information that the government has held for 30 years could lead to an infringement of an individual's right to privacy under the charter.
While the bill does permit some exceptions against disclosure of information such as the safety of an individual, Bill C-206 does not recognize that in some circumstances individuals expect their confidentiality to be maintained. In fact they will have provided the government with their personal information with the expectation that government will keep that information confidential. Generally speaking, personal information should not be disclosed except for the purpose for which it was originally given to the government.
The privacy commissioner also has expressed grave concerns about the impact the bill would have on the privacy of individuals and on the confidentiality of personal information particularly with respect to the income tax returns of Canadians. Income tax returns by their very nature contain a lot of private and personal information that should continue to be protected. No one should want his or her income tax information to be accessible at any time.
Statistics Canada has advised that it is extremely worried about the impact of Bill C-206 on its ability to maintain the confidentiality of information which Statistics Canada collects from individuals and businesses. For example the information collected by the Statistics Canada census on lifestyle and from pension managers is personal. The confidentiality of information provided by businesses is also put at risk as a result of the 30 year rule I mentioned earlier and as a result of the proposed repeal of section 24 which supports confidentiality clauses in other statutes.
Industry Canada has pointed out that the proposed changes to the act could have a chill effect on the information provided to the government by businesses. There would be no guarantee to businesses that their commercially sensitive information and trade secrets would be protected. This would make it difficult to administer regulatory schemes and government programs that rely on information supplied by businesses to the government.
Health Canada has also confirmed that the bill may cause a chill effect on drugs being sold in Canada. Drugs cannot be sold in Canada without a pharmaceutical company filing a new drug submission. The submission includes trade secrets. Businesses may be unwilling to risk their competitive position by filing new drug submissions in Canada if there is a risk that their trade secrets could be released to third parties. This I am sure will be a major cause of concern for Canadians.
The discussion prompted by Bill C-206 has highlighted how very complex and controversial access reform can be. In fact it may be possible to improve government openness and transparency through administrative reform. However, if the better choice is to reform the act in order to enhance openness and transparency in government, then major reform of the Access to Information Act such as that proposed in Bill C-206 should not be undertaken without first conducting broad public consultations that would allow all interested stakeholders to express their views.
This is a view that was expressed by the information commissioner when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights last November. The information commissioner stated that proposals for access reform should be informed by a variety of perspectives and that it would be preferable for consultations to be conducted on a broad scale allowing all stakeholders to have a say.
Let me conclude by reminding the House that Bill C-206 would make major changes to the Access to Information Act. Concerns are emerging from many quarters about the implications of the proposed changes. This raises an important question and a note of caution. Will the government be able to continue to protect personal information provided by individuals to the government for various purposes as well as confidential commercial information and trade secrets provided by businesses? Much consultation must be undertaken to effectively answer many of the outstanding questions and concerns.
Nevertheless I would like to once again congratulate the hon. member for his efforts in this area. I think it is extremely important. He has made a very significant contribution to the debate.