Colleen Beaumier

[Points Of Order, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, instead of getting into a petty argument I would like to withdraw that comment.

[Prisons, February 25th, 1998]

Eating your way around the—

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Minister of Finance on his budget which underlines Canada's ongoing commitment to the land mine cause.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs in the interest of international social justice and humanity took the lead in having 123 countries sign the treaty banning anti-personnel land mines.

Once again a Liberal minister has made us proud. In yesterday's budget he announced we would provide $100 million over the next five years to help meet the goals of the treaty, one of which has greatly expanded humanitarian assistance for land mine victims to help with their medical care and to help rebuild their lives.

I firmly believe that to sign and ratify this treaty was important but not enough. In order to make it meaningful and not just principles on paper, we had to put our money where our mouth was, and we did.

Canada continues to play a prominent role in promoting and strengthening humanitarian initiatives. I applaud the minister for enabling us to make a difference.

[Access To Information Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification. This debate is on Bill C-208 and I heard the hon. member mention Bill C-216.

Could I have some clarification as it is not really germane to Bill C-208?

[Wei Jingsheng, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to welcome Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng to Canada and to the House of Commons.

Considered to be the father of the democratic movement in China, Wei Jingsheng started the Xidan democracy wall movement in 1979 and was subsequently imprisoned for subversion.

After spending most of the past 18 years in prison, Mr. Wei was exiled on medical grounds to the U.S.A. last November, just six months after the publication of his book, The Courage To Stand Alone .

Mr. Wei will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade this afternoon. All are welcome to attend.

As chair of the subcommittee on human rights and international development, I am especially proud to have the opportunity of meeting with the courageous Wei Jingsheng.

I welcome the hon. Wei Jingsheng.

[Access To Information Act, December 5th, 1997]

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.

[Somalia, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Cooperation. Over 1,000 Somalis have already died in the worst flooding that country has ever seen. Thousands more are in danger of starvation and disease.

Has Canada done anything to respond to the UN appeal for humanitarian aid to Somalia?

[Points Of Order, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comments to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton. It is very important for you to understand what this means to backbenchers and for private members' bills.

It is absolutely impossible for me to understand how this could happen. It is not only a matter of privilege but it denigrates Private Members' Business.

[Oas Firearms Convention, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 14 in Washington, Canada signed the OAS firearms convention. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell me how this agreement will help to control the international trade in arms?

[Hillowe'En, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the attention of this House will be diverted by a much stickier matter. I am sure that every member is aware of what awaits them this evening, the fourth annual confectionery caucus Hallowe'en party.

Hillowe'en provides an opportunity for Canada's value added confectionery manufacturers to display their products and raise awareness about this century old Canadian industry's contribution to our economy.

As a member of the confectionery caucus, I am proud to be associated with an industry that supports the direct employment of over 7,000 Canadians and generates over $1.6 billion in factory sales annually.

My riding of Brampton West—Mississauga is home to one of Canada's largest confectionery manufacturers, Hershey, which employs 1,600 people across Canada.

Please join the members of the confectionery caucus, the Manufacturers' Association of Canada and me for an evening of fun and sweets.